Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Versus Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Effect on Return to Work, Narcotic Use, and Quality of life

Novel Combination of Lateral Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Ipsi-Contra Decompression for Severe Stenosis From Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Case Report

Minimally invasive surgical approaches to the spine that leverage indirect decompression are gaining increasing popularity. While there is excellent literature on the value of indirect decompression, there are limitations to this procedure. Specifically, in patients with severe stenosis and neurogenic claudication, there is a concern among many surgeons regarding the adequacy of indirect decompression alone. In these cases, the lateral approach is often abandoned in favor of an open posterior or posterior minimally invasive approach. Unfortunately, some of the distinct benefits of the direct lateral approach are then lost. Here, we present the case of a 58-year-old male who underwent an L4-L5 lateral interbody fusion with an endoscopic ipsi-contra decompression to achieve both direct and indirect treatment of severe neuroforaminal and central stenosis. From this strategy, this patient had complete pre-operative symptom resolution and was able to return to work immediately after surgery without significant restriction. Combining the benefits of direct and indirect using an ultra-minimally invasive decompressive approach offers a potential solution.

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.

RESULTS

Totally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Context

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) are 2 popular minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques with unique approach-related complication profiles. Accordingly, patient-specific anatomical factors, such as vascular anatomy or iliac crest height, greatly influence which technique to use. Previous studies comparing these approaches do not account for the inability of XLIF to access the L5-S1 disc space and therefore do not exclude this level in their analysis. The purpose of this study was to compare radiological and clinical outcomes of these techniques in the L1-L5 region.

Methods

A query of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL plus, and SCOPUS) was performed, without time restriction, to identify studies that evaluated outcomes of single-level OLIF and/or XLIF between L1 and L5. Based on heterogeneity, a random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the pooled estimation of each variable between the groups. An overlap of 95% confidence intervals suggests no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level.

Results

A total of 1,010 patients (408 OLIF, 602 XLIF) were included from 24 published studies. Improvements in disc height (OLIF: 4.2 mm; XLIF: 5.3 mm), lumbar segmental (OLIF: 2.3°; XLIF: 3.1°), and lumbar lordotic angles (OLIF: 5.3°; XLIF: 3.3°) showed no significant difference. The rate of neuropraxia was significantly greater in the XLIF group at 21.2% versus 10.9% in the OLIF group (p<.05). However, the rate of vascular injury was higher in the OLIF cohort at 3.2% (95% CI:1.7-6.0) as compared to 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0-1.4) in the XLIF cohort. Improvements in VAS-b (OLIF: 5.6; XLIF: 4.5) and ODI (OLIF: 37.9; XLIF: 25.6) scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates similar clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF from L1 to L5. XLIF had significantly higher rates of neuropraxia, whereas OLIF had greater rates of vascular injury.

Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies-systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature

INTRODUCTION

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion arose as a revolutionary approach to treating several spinal pathologies because the techniques were able to promote indirect decompression and lordosis restoration through a minimally invasive approach allowing for reduced blood loss and early recovery for patients. However, it is still not clear how the technique compares to other established approaches for treating spinal degenerative diseases, such as TLIF, PLIF, and PLF.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published in the last 10 years comparing lateral approaches to posterior techniques. The authors included articles that compared the LLIF technique to one or more posterior approaches, treating only degenerative pathologies, and containing at least one of the key outcomes of the study. Exclusion articles that were not original and the ones that the authors could not obtain the full text; also articles without the possibility to calculate the standard deviation or mean were excluded. For count variables, the odds ratio was used, and for continuous variables, the standard means difference (SMD) was used, and the choice between random or fixed-effects model was made depending on the presence or not of significant (p < 0.05) heterogeneity in the sample.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included in the quantitative review. As for the intra-/perioperative variables, the lateral approaches showed a significant reduction in blood loss (SMD-1.56, p < 0.001) and similar operative time (SMD =  - 0.33, p = 0.24). Moreover, the use of the lateral approaches showed a tendency to lead to reduced hospitalization days (SMD =  - 0.15, p = 0.09), with significantly reduced odds ratios of complications (0.53, p = 0.01). As for the clinical outcomes, both approaches showed similar improvement both at improvement as for the last follow-up value, either in ODI or in VAS-BP. Finally, when analyzing the changes in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis, the lateral technique promoted significantly higher correction in both outcomes (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lateral approaches can promote significant radiological correction and similar clinical improvement while reducing surgical blood loss and postoperative complications.

Is Indirect Decompression and Fusion More Effective than Direct Decompression and Fusion for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Instability? A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis

Study design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Objective: Surgical alternatives to treat lumbar spinal stenosis and instability include indirect (ALIF, OLIF, and LLIF) and direct (TLIF or posterior lumbar interbody fusion) decompression and fusion interventions. Although both approaches have proven to be effective in reducing symptoms, it is unknown if there is any difference in effectiveness between them. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate postoperative pain and disability in patients treated whit indirect vs direct decompression and fusion approaches.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature consulting several databases and identified studies that enrolled patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and instability treated with indirect or direct decompression and fusion techniques. Our primary endpoints were the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and the Japanese Orthopedics Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire 1 year after the procedure. Secondary outcomes included complication rate, blood loss, and surgical time.Results: Nine retrospective and comparative studies were included enrolling a total of 1004 participants. Both surgical strategies had satisfactory clinical outcomes with no significant difference at 1 year. Although the complication rate was similar for both groups, the profile of the adverse events was different. In addition, patients treated with indirect decompression and fusion had significantly less blood loss and operative times.Conclusions: Indirect and direct decompression and fusion techniques are similarly effective in treating patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and instability. The ID group had significantly lower intraoperative blood loss and surgical time values.

Assessing the differences in operative and patient-reported outcomes between lateral approaches for lumbar fusion: a systematic review and indirect meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Anterior-to-psoas lumbar interbody fusion (ATP-LIF), more commonly referred to as oblique lateral interbody fusion, and lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTP-LIF), also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion, are the two commonly used lateral approaches for performing a lumbar fusion procedure. These approaches help overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional approaches for lumbar fusion. In this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, the authors compared operative and patient-reported outcomes between these two select approaches using available studies.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the authors conducted an electronic search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for studies published before May 1, 2019. Indirect meta-analysis was conducted on fusion rate, cage movement (subsidence plus migration), permanent deficits, and transient deficits; results were depicted as forest plots of proportions (effect size [ES]).

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies were included in this review after applying the exclusion criteria, of which 26 studies investigated the outcomes of ATP-LIF, while 37 studied the outcomes of LTP-LIF. The average fusion rate was found to be similar between the two groups (ES 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.00 vs ES 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.97; p = 0.561). The mean incidence of cage movement was significantly higher in the ATP-LIF group compared with the LTP-LIF group (stand-alone: ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.27 vs ES 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.16 [p = 0.317]; combined: ES 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.32 vs ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.00-0.05 [p = 0.002]). The mean incidence of reoperations was significantly higher in patients undergoing ATP-LIF than in those undergoing LTP-LIF (ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03 vs ES 0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.07; p = 0.012). The mean incidence of permanent deficits was similar between the two groups (stand-alone: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06 vs ES 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.12 [p = 0.204]; combined: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06 vs ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.08 [p = 0.595]). The postoperative changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were both found to be higher for ATP-LIF relative to LTP-LIF (VAS: weighted average 4.11 [SD 2.03] vs weighted average 3.75 [SD 1.94] [p = 0.004]; ODI: weighted average 28.3 [SD 5.33] vs weighted average 24.3 [SD 4.94] [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

These analyses indicate that while both approaches are associated with similar fusion rates, ATP-LIF may be related to higher odds of cage movement and reoperations as compared with LTP-LIF. Furthermore, there is no difference in rates of permanent deficits between the two procedures.

Strategies aimed at preventing long-term opioid use in trauma and orthopaedic surgery: a scoping review

Background

Long-term opioid use, which may have significant individual and societal impacts, has been documented in up to 20% of patients after trauma or orthopaedic surgery. The objectives of this scoping review were to systematically map the research on strategies aiming to prevent chronic opioid use in these populations and to identify knowledge gaps in this area.

Methods

This scoping review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist. We searched seven databases and websites of relevant organizations. Selected studies and guidelines were published between January 2008 and September 2021. Preventive strategies were categorized as: system-based, pharmacological, educational, multimodal, and others. We summarized findings using measures of central tendency and frequency along with p-values. We also reported the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations presented in clinical guidelines.

Results

A total of 391 studies met the inclusion criteria after initial screening from which 66 studies and 20 guidelines were selected. Studies mainly focused on orthopaedic surgery (62,1%), trauma (30.3%) and spine surgery (7.6%). Among system-based strategies, hospital-based individualized opioid tapering protocols, and regulation initiatives limiting the prescription of opioids were associated with statistically significant decreases in morphine equivalent doses (MEDs) at 1 to 3 months following trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Among pharmacological strategies, only the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and beta blockers led to a significant reduction in MEDs up to 12 months after orthopaedic surgery. Most studies on educational strategies, multimodal strategies and psychological strategies were associated with significant reductions in MEDs beyond 1 month. The majority of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines were of low level of evidence.

Conclusions

This scoping review advances knowledge on existing strategies to prevent long-term opioid use in trauma and orthopaedic surgery patients. We observed that system-based, educational, multimodal and psychological strategies are the most promising. Future research should focus on determining which strategies should be implemented particularly in trauma patients at high risk for long-term use, testing those that can promote a judicious prescription of opioids while preventing an illicit use, and evaluating their effects on relevant patient-reported and social outcomes.

Single-level TLIF Versus LLIF at L4-5: A Comparison of Patient-reported Outcomes and Recovery Ratios

INTRODUCTION

Both transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are suitable for achievement of lumbar arthrodesis. Comparative studies have observed complications and outcomes without stratification by lumbar level. This study aims to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and recovery in TLIF and LLIF at L4-5.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary, elective, single-level, TLIF or LLIF procedures at L4-5 were grouped. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative complication rates were collected. PROMs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function, visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index, and 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Summary, and Mental Component Summary and were collected at preoperative, 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. Delta values and recovery ratios (RRs) were calculated for all PROMs at all time points. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative complications were compared using chi-squared and Student t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Differences in mean PROMs, delta values, and RR at each time point were evaluated using unpaired Student's t-test.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty TLIF and 46 LLIF patients were included. Most (54.3%) were men, mean age 56.3 years, and mean body mass index 30.8 kg/m2. Body mass index and insurance significantly differed (P ≤ 0.045, all). TLIF showed significantly greater mean operative time, length of stay, and postoperative narcotic consumption (P < 0.033, all) and greater postoperative nausea/vomiting (P = 0.004). No preoperative PROMs significantly differed. TLIF cohort had significantly greater VAS back at 6 months and VAS leg at 12 weeks and 6 months (P < 0.034, all). No mean delta PROMs or RRs significantly differed.

DISCUSSION

LLIF demonstrated significantly reduced length of stay, postoperative narcotic consumption, and postoperative nausea/vomiting and significantly improved VAS back at 6 months and VAS leg at 12 weeks and 6 months versus TLIF. Although 2-year PROMs and RRs did not significantly differ, our findings may suggest improved midterm follow-up pain scores for LLIF patients.

More Than 1 in 3 Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Continue to Use Opioids Long-term After Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

A common expectation for patients after elective spine surgery is that the procedure will result in pain reduction and minimize the need for pain medication. Most studies report changes in pain and function after spine surgery, but few report the extent of opioid use after surgery. This systematic review aims to identify the rates of opioid use after lumbar spine fusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid Medline were searched to identify studies published between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2020 that assessed the effectiveness of lumbar fusion for the management of low back pain.

RESULTS

Of 6872 abstracts initially identified, 329 studies met the final inclusion criteria, and only 32 (9.7%) reported any postoperative opioid use. Long-term opioid use after surgery persists for more than 1 in 3 patients with usage ranging from 6 to 85.9% and a pooled mean of 35.0% based on data from 21 studies (6.4% of all lumbar fusion studies).

DISCUSSION

Overall, opioid use is not reported in the majority of lumbar fusion trials. Patients may expect a reduced need for opioid-based pain management after surgery, but the limited data available suggests long-term use is common. Lack of consistent reporting of these outcomes limits definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of spinal fusion for reducing long-term opioid. Patient decisions about undergoing surgery may be altered if they had realistic expectations about rates of postsurgical opioid use. Spine surgery trials should track opioid utilization out to a minimum of 6 months after surgery as a core outcome.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Single-level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

This is a meta-analysis and systematic review of the available literature.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In the treatment of adult spinal deformity, LLIF allows interbody fusion while avoiding complications associated with an anterior or transforaminal approach, although the clinical outcomes of LLIF compared with other approaches have not been well established.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for 385 unique studies. On the basis of our exclusion criteria, 8 studies remained for our systematic review. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and random effect models. This study identified self-reported Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, length of stay, blood loss, complication rate, and radiologic parameters (disk height, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis).

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis showed that LLIF contributed to decreased blood loss [mean difference (MD)=-67.62 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): -104 to -30.90, P<0.001], superior restoration of segmental lordosis (MD=1.91 degrees, 95% CI: 0.71-3.10, P=0.002), lumbar lordosis (MD=1.95 degrees, 95% CI: 0.15-3.74, P=0.03), and disk height (MD=2.18 mm, 95% CI: 1.18-3.17, P<0.001) when compared with TLIF. However, current data suggests no significant difference in clinical outcomes between LLIF and TLIF based on overall complication rates (P=0.22), length of hospital stay (P=0.65), postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (P=0.13), postoperative VAS Back Pain (P=0.47) and VAS Leg Pain (P=0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF is an increasingly popular option for single-level anterior column reconstruction. When compared with single-level TLIF, single-level LLIF is associated with greater changes in lumbar lordosis and disk height. The single-level LLIF is a viable alternative to TLIF, demonstrating comparable clinical outcomes and better restoration of spinopelvic parameters.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Indirect decompression via oblique lateral interbody fusion for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with direct decompression transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Previous studies have shown that oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) can improve neurological symptoms via "indirect decompression." However, data are lacking in terms of its benefits when compared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and/or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approach, especially in patients with severe central canal stenosis.

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical outcome of OLIF without posterior decompression versus conventional TLIF and/or PLIF in severe lumbar stenosis diagnosed on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fifty-one patients who underwent OLIF and 41 patients who underwent conventional TLIF and/or PLIF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical outcome score by Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and radiographic outcomes (disc height and fusion rate on computed tomography scan).

MATERIALS/METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 51 patients who underwent OLIF with supplemental percutaneous pedicle screws (55 levels; OLIF group) and 41 patients who underwent conventional TLIF and/or PLIF (47 levels; TPLIF group). The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac was measured preoperatively in OLIF and TPLIF groups, but postoperatively only in the OLIF group. All patients were diagnosed with severe stenosis based on Schizas classification (Grade C or D) on magnetic resonance imaging. We compared radiographic and clinical outcome scores (JOA score) between the 2 groups at 1 year of follow-up. The radiographic evaluation included the fusion status and disc height on computed tomography scan. Surgical data and perioperative complications were also investigated.

RESULTS

The baseline demographic data of the 2 groups were equivalent in preoperative diagnosis, JOA score, and disc height and/or angle. The cross-sectional area significantly increased postoperatively, which confirmed indirect decompressive effect in the OLIF group. The JOA score improved in both groups at the 1-year follow up (76.6% vs. 73.5% improvement rate in the OLIF and TPLIF groups, respectively). The fusion rate at the 1-year follow-up was higher in the OLIF group than in the TPLIF group (87.2% vs. 57.4%). The disc height restoration was also better in the OLIF group. The operative data demonstrated less estimated blood loss and operative time in the OLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF and conventional TLIF and/or PLIF demonstrated comparable short-term clinical outcomes in the treatment of severe degenerative lumbar stenosis. However, the surgical and radiographic outcomes were better in the OLIF group. Surgeons should choose an appropriate approach on a case by case basis, recognizing the perioperative complications specific to each fusion procedure.

Minimally invasive lateral lumbar intervertebral fusion versus traditional anterior approach for localized lumbar tuberculosis: a matched-pair case control study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Minimally invasive lateral lumbar intervertebral fusion (LLIF) procedure has been reported as a feasible alternative to the traditional anterior approach for patients with lumbar tuberculosis. However, there is still no study in the existing literature comparing LLIF to traditional surgeries in the treatment of such patients.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of LLIF versus the traditional anterior approach for treating localized lumbar tuberculosis.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 60 patients with single-level localized lumbar tuberculosis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome parameters included incision length, operation time, blood loss, complications, segmental lordosis, fusion status, Frankel grade, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

METHODS

We matched 20 patients treated by LLIF with 40 patients undergoing traditional anterior surgery (ratio, 1:2) by age, sex, lesion level, and radiographic features. The LLIF group consisted of 12 men and eight women with a mean age of 42.2±11.1 years, while the traditional group consisted of 22 men and 18 women with a mean age of 40.0±14.5 years. Both the demographics and radiographic data were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative segmental lordosis Cobb angle was measured on lateral X-ray films, while fusion status was assessed on computed tomography scans. The VAS and ODI were used to evaluate functional outcomes.

RESULTS

The average follow-up was 24 months in the LLIF group and 39 months in the traditional group. Incision length, operation time, and blood loss were significantly less in the LLIF group than in the traditional group. A similar improvement in segmental lordosis after operation was found in both groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in neurological recovery, blood infection markers (ESR, CRP), functional outcome, or fusion rate, except for the postoperative VAS score, which was significantly lower in the LLIF group than in the traditional group (2.7±1.0 vs. 3.6±1.0, p=.003). Four patients in the traditional group received a transfusion and 4 patients had a superficial wound infection, while no patient in the LLIF group received a transfusion or experienced any infection; however, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p=.291).

CONCLUSIONS

Both LLIF and traditional anterior surgery are sufficient for treating patients with localized lumbar tuberculosis, but the LLIF approach results in significantly shorter operation time and less blood loss.

Regional variations in acceptance, and utilization of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques among spine surgeons: results of a global survey

Background

Regional differences in acceptance and utilization of MISST by spine surgeons may have an impact on clinical decision-making and the surgical treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. The purpose of this study was to analyze the acceptance and utilization of various minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) by spinal surgeons the world over.

Methods

The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) Do you think minimally invasive spinal surgery is considered mainstream in your area and practice setting? (II) Do you perform minimally invasive spinal surgery? (III) What type of MIS spinal surgery do you perform? (IV) If you are performing endoscopic spinal decompression surgeries, which approach do you prefer? The responses were cross-tabulated by surgeons' demographic data, and their practice area using the following five global regions: Africa & Middle East, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Pearson Chi-Square measures, Kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS Version 25.0.

Results

A total of 586 surgeons accessed the survey. Analyzing the responses of 292 submitted surveys regional differences in opinion amongst spine surgeons showed that the highest percentage of surgeons in Asia (72.8%) and South America (70.2%) thought that MISST was accepted into mainstream spinal surgery in their practice area (P=0.04) versus North America (62.8%), Europe (52.8%), and Africa & Middle East region (50%). The percentage of spine surgeons employing MISST was much higher per region than the rate of surgeons who thought it was mainstream: Asia (96.7%), Europe (88.9%), South America (88.9%), and Africa & Middle East (87.5%). Surgeons in North America reported the lowest rate of MISST implementation globally (P<0.000). Spinal endoscopy (59.9%) is currently the most commonly employed MISST globally followed by mini-open approaches (55.1%), and tubular retractor systems (41.8%). The most preferred endoscopic approach to the spine is the transforaminal technique (56.2%) followed by interlaminar (41.8%), full endoscopic (35.3%), and over the top MISST (13.7%).

Conclusions

The rate of implementation of MISST into day-to-day clinical practice reported by spine surgeons was universally higher than the perceived acceptance rates of MISST into the mainstream by their peers in their practice area. The survey suggests that endoscopic spinal surgery is now the most commonly performed MISST.

Is Asia truly a hotspot of contemporary minimally invasive and endoscopic spinal surgery?

Background

The purpose of this study was to analyze the training in relation to practice patterns of surgeons in Asia who perform lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery in comparison to surgeons the world over. The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons.

Methods

Pearson Chi-Square measures, Kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances of responses in relation to surgeons' training using statistical package SPSS Version 25.0.

Results

A total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. Analyzing the responses of 292 surveys submitted by 97 neurosurgeons (33.2%), 161 orthopaedic surgeons (55.1%), and 34 surgeons of other postgraduate training (11.6%) showed that only 14.0% (41/292) of surgeons had completed a fellowship. Ninety-one of the 292 respondents were from Asian countries/regions. A statistically significantly higher percentage of Asian surgeons (96.7%) compared to non-Asian surgeons (81.6%) indicated that they perform modern minimally invasive (MIS) and endoscopic spinal (ES) surgery (P=0.001). Spinal endoscopy was employed by 70.3% of Asian versus 55.2% of non-Asian surgeons (P=0.015). Endoscopic decompression techniques requiring advanced training was employed nearly twice as high by the Asian surgeons than by non-Asian.

Conclusions

Training requirements for MIS and ES surgery and implementation of privileges vary in different parts of the world. While industry-sponsored weekend cadaver workshops have remained the mainstay of training aspiring endoscopic spinal surgeons in North America and Europe leaving many of them to become autodidacts.

Surgeon training and clinical implementation of spinal endoscopy in routine practice: results of a global survey

Background

Training of spine surgeons may impact the availability of contemporary minimally invasive spinal surgery (MIS) to patients and drive spine surgeons' clinical decision-making when applying minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) to the treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Training requirements and implementation of privileges vary in different parts of the world. The purpose of this study was to analyze the training in relation to practice patterns of surgeons who perform lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery the world over.

Methods

The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) please indicate your training? (II) What type of MISST spinal surgery do you perform? (III) How would you rate your experience in MIS lumbar spinal surgery and what percentage of your practice is MISST? And (IV) which avenue did you use to train for the MISST you currently employ in your clinical practice today? Descriptive statistics were applied to count responses and cross-tabulated them to the surgeon's training. Pearson Chi-square measures, kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS version 25.0.

Results

A total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. Analyzing the responses of 292 surveys submitted by 97 neurosurgeons (33.2%), 161 orthopaedic surgeons (55.1%), and 34 surgeons of other postgraduate training (11.6%) showed that only 14% (41/292) of surgeons had completed a fellowship. Surgeons rated their skill level 33.5% of the time as master and experienced surgeon, and 35.6% of the time as novice or surgeon with some experience. There were more master (64.6% versus 29.2%) and experienced (52% versus 40%) surgeons amongst orthopaedic surgeons than amongst neurosurgeons at a statistically significant level (P=0.11). There were near twice as many orthopaedic surgeons (54.3%) using endoscopic procedures in the lumbar spine as their favorite MISST than neurosurgeons (35.4%; P=0.096). Endoscopic spine surgeons' main sources of knowledge acquisition were (I) learning in small meetings (57.3%), (II) attending workshops (63.1%), and (III) national and international conferences (59.8%).

Conclusions

The majority of spine surgeons reported more than half of their cases employing MISST at a high skill level. Very few MISST surgeons are fellowship trained but attend workshops and various meetings suggesting that many of them are self-thought. Orthopaedic surgeons were more likely to implement endoscopic spinal surgery into the routine clinical practice. As endoscopic spine surgery gains more traction and patient demand, minimal adequate training will be part of the ongoing debate.

Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis

Background

In the current surgical therapeutic regimen for the degenerative lumbar disease, both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are gradually accepted. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

We conducted an exhaustive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to find the relevant studies about OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease. Random-effects model was performed to pool the outcomes about disc height (DH), fusion, operative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stays, complications, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI).

Results

56 studies were included in this study. The two groups of patients had similar changes in terms of DH, operative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay and the fusion rate (over 90%). The OLIF group showed slightly better VAS and ODI scores improvement. The incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF was 26.7 and 27.8% respectively. Higher rates of nerve injury and psoas weakness (21.2%) were reported for LLIF, while higher rates of cage subsidence (5.1%), endplate damage (5.2%) and vascular injury (1.7%) were reported for OLIF.

Conclusions

The two groups are similar in terms of radiographic outcomes, operative blood loss, operative time and the length of hospital stay. The OLIF group shows advantages in VAS and ODI scores improvement. Though the incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF is similar, the incidence of main complications is significantly different.

Current state of minimally invasive spine surgery

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive surgical approaches have become increasingly feasible, efficient and popular for the management of a wide range of spinal disorders, with a growing body of research demonstrating numerous advantages of these techniques over the traditional open approach. In this article, we review the technologies and innovations that are expanding the horizon of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), and highlight high-quality peer-reviewed literature in the past year that expands our knowledge and understanding of indications, advantages and limitations of MISS.