Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Cost of a Surgeon's Learning Curve

Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of multi‑segmental lumbar degenerative disease: A systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis

The present study aimed to compare the differences between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open transforaminal lumbar fusion (TLIF) for multi-segmental lumbar degenerative disease regarding intraoperative indices and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases were searched for literature on MIS-TLIF and open TLIF in treating multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases. Of the 1,608 articles retrieved, 10 were included for final analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Review Manager 5.4 were used for quality evaluation and data analysis, respectively. The MIS-TLIF group was superior to the open TLIF group regarding intraoperative blood loss [95% confidence interval (CI): -254.33,-157.86; P<0.00001], postoperative in-bed time (95%CI: -3.49,-2.76; P<0.00001), hospitalization time (95%CI: -5.14,-1.78; P<0.0001) and postoperative leg pain Visual Analog Scale score (95%CI: -0.27,-0.13; P<0.00001). The fluoroscopy frequency for MIS-TLIF (95%CI: 2.07,6.12; P<0.0001) was significantly higher than that for open TLIF. The two groups had no significant differences in operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative complications, fusion rate, or Oswestry Disability Index score. In treating multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases, MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less blood loss, shorter bedtime and hospitalization time and improved early postoperative efficacy; however, open TLIF has a lower fluoroscopy frequency.

Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT-CT) as a Predictor of Pain Generators in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) for Axial Cervical Pain

BACKGROUND

Axial neck pain is often associated with cervical instability, and surgical options are often reserved for patients with either neurological compromise or deformity of the spine. However, cervical facet arthropathy is often implicated with instability and the location of painful generators is often difficult to ascertain. Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT-CT) presents an adjunct to conventional imaging in the workup of patients with suspected facetogenic pain. We aimed to report our experience with patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) guided by SPECT-CT for axial cervical pain.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified all cases undergoing ACDF that presented with axial neck pain where correlating SPECT-CT high metabolism areas were identified. Patients were treated at a tertiary care institution between January 2018 and January 2021. Patients with positive radiotracer uptake pre-operatively were compared with patients undergoing ACDF without uptake on SPECT-CT. The pre- and post-operative patients who reported neck pain at one year were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were included in this retrospective cohort. The median pre- and post-intervention (at one-year follow-up) visual analog score (VAS) of patients undergoing ACDF without uptake on SPECT-CT was 7 and 3 (p<0.01), while the pre- and post-VAS for patients undergoing surgery with positive uptake on SPECT-CT was 8.5 and 0 (p<0.01). Improvement was significantly larger for patients undergoing SPECT-CT-guided ACDF (p=0.02). At one year after surgery, none of the assessed patients required additional surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

This case series represents the experience of our group to date with patients undergoing SPECT-CT-guided ACDF with results suggesting potential benefit in guiding fusion.

Frailty as a Predictor of Postoperative Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Aged 80 Years and Older Undergoing Instrumented Fusion

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Degenerative spine disease is a leading cause of disability, with increasing prevalence in the older patients. While age has been identified as an independent predictor of outcomes, its predictive value is limited for similar older patients. Here, we aimed to determine the most predictive frailty score of adverse events in patients aged 80 and older undergoing instrumented lumbar fusion.

METHODS

We proceeded with a multisite (3 tertiary academic centers) retrospective review including patients undergoing instrumented fusion aged 80 and older from January 2010 to present. A composite end point encompassing 30-day return to operating room, readmission, and mortality was created. We estimated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for frailty scores (Modified Frailty Index-5 [MFI-5], Modified Frailty Index-11 [MFI-11], and Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]) in relation to that composite score. In addition, we estimated the association between each score and the composite end point by means of logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients with an average age of 85 years at the time of surgery were included. We observed a 30-day readmission rate of 11.1%, reoperation of 3.9%, and mortality of 0.6%. The overall rate of the composite end point at 30 days was 25 (15.1%). The AUC for MFI-5 was 0.597 (0.501-0.693), for MFI-11 was 0.620 (0.518-0.723), and for CCI was 0.564 (0.453-0.675). The association between the scores and composite end point did not reach statistical significance for MFI-5 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45 [0.98-2.15], P = .061) and CCI (OR = 1.13 [0.97-1.31], P = .113) but was statistically significant for MFI-11 (OR = 1.46 [1.07-2.00], P = .018).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study comparing frailty index scores in octogenarians undergoing instrumented lumbar fusion. Our findings suggest that while MFI-11 score correlated with adverse events, the predictive ability of existing scores remains limited, highlighting the need for better approaches to identify select patients at age extremes.

Awake Craniotomy Program Implementation

Importance

Implementing multidisciplinary teams for treatment of complex brain tumors needing awake craniotomies is associated with significant costs. To date, there is a paucity of analysis on the cost utility of introducing advanced multidisciplinary standardized teams to enable awake craniotomies.

Objective

To assess the cost utility of introducing a standardized program of awake craniotomies.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective economic evaluation was conducted at Mayo Clinic Florida. All patients with single, unilateral lesions who underwent elective awake craniotomies between January 2016 and December 2021 were considered eligible for inclusion. The economic perspective of the health care institution and a time horizon of 1 year were considered. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to May 2023.

Exposure

Treatment with an awake craniotomy before standardization (2016-2018) compared with treatment with awake craniotomy after standardization (2018-2021).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, intensive care (ICU) admission, extent of resection, readmission rates, and 1-year mortality were compared between patients undergoing surgery before and after standardization. Direct medical costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement rates for all billed procedures. A cost-utility analysis was performed considering differences in direct medical costs and in 1-year mortality within the periods before and after standardization of procedures. Uncertainty was explored in probability sensitivity analysis.

Results

A total of 164 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [15.7] years; 98 [60%] male patients) were included in the study. Of those, 56 underwent surgery before and 108 after implementation of procedure standardization. Procedure standardization was associated with reductions in length of stay from a mean (SD) of 3.34 (1.79) to 2.46 (1.61) days (difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42 days; P = .002), length of stay in ICU from a mean (SD) of 1.32 (0.69) to 0.99 (0.90) nights (difference, 0.33 nights; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60 nights; P = .02), 30-day readmission rate from 14% (8 patients) in the prestandardization cohort to 5% (5 patients) (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 19.6%-0.3%; P = .03), while extent of resection and intraoperative complication rates were similar between both cohorts. The standardized protocol was associated with mean (SD) savings of $7088.80 ($12 389.50) and decreases in 1-year mortality (dominant intervention). This protocol was found to be cost saving in 75.5% of all simulations in probability sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of standardization of awake craniotomy, there was a generalized reduction in length of stay, ICU admission time, and direct medical costs with implementation of an optimized protocol. This was achieved without compromising patient outcomes and with similar extent of resection, complication rates, and reduced readmission rates.

Transient Neuropathic Pain Following Mechanically Assisted Manipulation of the Spine: A Clinical Case Study

We describe the case of a patient developing acute neuropathic pain in the sciatic nerve distribution following spinal manipulation. Manipulative treatment with an Activator Adjusting Instrument (AAI) was recommended and performed. Within 24 hours, the patient developed severe 10/10 pain originating from the left gluteal area at the site of one of the activator deployments with radiation all the way down his left leg to the foot. He was able to maintain distal left leg strength and sensation. Relief was achieved with subsequent physical therapy techniques to relax his deep gluteal muscles, raising the hypothesis of temporary injury to the deep gluteal muscles, with painful contractions resulting in gluteal region pain as well as sciatic nerve inflammation as the nerve passed through that region. This clinical case illustrates some of the perils and risks of spinal manipulation, particularly in the elderly, and the need for careful patient selection.

Assessment of surgeons' attitude towards awake spine surgery under spinal anesthesia

BACKGROUND

General anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) have been adopted for lumbar spine surgery (LSS), but GA is used far more widely. We conducted a survey of spine surgeons to explore their attitudes and preferences regarding awake spine surgery under SA.

METHODS

A survey was emailed to 150 spine surgeons. Exposure and attitudes towards spine surgery under SA were elicited. A five-point Likert scale of agreement examined perceptions of SA, while attitudes towards SA were recorded by categorizing free text into themes.

RESULTS

Seventy-five surgeons completed the survey, 50 % response rate. Only 27 % said they perform LSS under SA. Most surgeons, 83 %, would recommend GA to a healthy patient undergoing lumbar laminectomy. Only 41 % believes SA to be as safe as GA, and only 30 % believes SA is associated with better postoperative pain control. The most common reasons why SA is not favored was lack of proven benefits over GA (65 %). When asked if a randomized trial finds SA to lead to less postoperative fatigue, 50 % said they would be more likely to offer SA, a significant increase from the baseline response of 27 % (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey indicates that the low adoption of SA for LSS is due to lack of surgeons' belief in the benefits of SA over GA, and that a randomized patient-centered trial has the potential of changing surgeons' perspective and increasing adoption of SA for LSS.

SPECT-CT as a Predictor of Pain Generators in Patients Undergoing Intra-Articular Injections for Chronic Neck and Back Pain

BACKGROUND

The ability to accurately predict pain generators for chronic neck and back pain remains elusive.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether injections targeted at foci with uptake on single-photon emission computerized tomography-computed tomography (SPECT-CT) were associated with improved outcomes in patients with chronic neck and back pain.

METHODS

A retrospective review was completed on patients undergoing SPECT-CT for chronic neck and back pain between 2016 and 2020 at a tertiary academic center. Patients' records were reviewed for demographic, clinical, imaging, and outcomes data. Only those patients who had facet injections after SPECT-CT were included in this evaluation. Patients undergoing injections targeted at foci of abnormal radiotracer uptake were compared with patients without uptake concerning immediate positive response, visual analog scale, and the need for additional injection or surgery at the target level.

RESULTS

A total of 2849 patients were evaluated with a SPECT-CT for chronic neck and back pain. Of those, 340 (11.9%) patients received facet joint injections after SPECT-CT. A propensity score regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, hypertension, multiple target injections, and injection location showed uptake targeted injections not being associated with an improved immediate positive response (odds ratio: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.34-1.21; P = 0.172). In patients with a failed facet injection preceding SPECT-CT, adding SPECT-CT to guide facet injections was associated with a decrease in visual analog scale pain scores 2 weeks after injection (P = 0.018), particularly when changes were made to the facets being targeted (P = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is benefit with SPECT-CT specially to guide facet injections after failed prior facet injections.

What Is the Learning Curve for Lumbar Spine Surgery Under Spinal Anesthesia?

BACKGROUND

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is routinely used in obstetrics and orthopedic surgery but has not been widely adopted in lumbar spine surgery (LSS). One perceived barrier is the learning curve for the neurosurgical and anesthesia team associated with managing a patient in the prone position under SA.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 34 LSS cases under SA at our institution was examined. Operative time, corrected operative time per level, and complications were analyzed. The learning curve was assessed using a curve-fit regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of patients, 62% were female, with mean (SD) age and body mass index of 60.7 (10.8) years and 29.9 (4.6) kg/m², respectively. The mean (SD) for each time segment was operating room arrival to incision 35.7 (8.1) minutes, total surgical time 100.4 (35.8) minutes, and procedure finish to operating room exit 3.4 (2.5) minutes. When the times were normalized to procedure type and analyzed sequentially, the mean (SD) slope of all trendlines was 0.003 (0.005) with correlation coefficients of R² = 0.0002-0.01, indicating no appreciable learning curve. Normalized postanesthesia care unit time was significantly shorter for overnight stay versus same-day discharge (0.64 vs. 1.36, P = 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate the lack of a learning curve when SA is implemented in LSS cases by an anesthetic team already familiar with SA techniques for other procedures. Importantly, the surgical team was already familiar with the minimally invasive surgery approaches used in conjunction with SA. This study highlights that the barriers to transitioning to SA for LSS may be fewer than perceived.