Postoperative Opioid Use Following Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion

Postoperative analgesic options after spine surgery: finding the optimal treatment strategies

INTRODUCTION

Spine surgery is one of the most common types of surgeries performed in the United States; however, managing postoperative pain following spine surgery has proven to be challenging. Patients with spine pathologies have higher incidences of chronic pain and resultant opioid use and potential for tolerance. Implementing a multimodal plan for postoperative analgesia after spine surgery can lead to enhanced recovery and outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents several options for analgesia following spine surgery with an emphasis on multimodal techniques to best aid this specific patient population. In addition to traditional therapeutics, such as acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and opioids, we discuss intrathecal morphine administration and emerging regional anesthesia techniques.

EXPERT OPINION

Several adjuncts to improve analgesia following spine surgery are efficacious in the postoperative period. Intrathecal morphine provides sustained analgesia and can be instilled intraoperatively by the surgical team under direct visualization. Local anesthetics deposited under ultrasound guidance by an anesthesiologist trained in regional techniques also provide the opportunity for single injections or continuous analgesia via an indwelling catheter.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion Alone in the Treatment of Grade 1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone are two operations performed to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. To date, it is unclear which operation leads to better outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TLIF vs PLF alone regarding long-term reoperation rates, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with degenerative grade 1 spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data between October 2010 and May 2021 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 years or older with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing elective, single-level, open posterior lumbar decompression and instrumented fusion with ≥1-year follow-up. The primary exposure was presence of TLIF vs PLF without interbody fusion. The primary outcome was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included complications, readmission, discharge disposition, return to work, and PROMs at 3 and 12 months postoperatively, including Numeric Rating Scale-Back/Leg and Oswestry Disability Index. Minimum clinically important difference of PROMs was set at 30% improvement from baseline.

RESULTS

Of 546 patients, 373 (68.3%) underwent TLIF and 173 underwent (31.7%) PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (IQR = 3.6-9.0), with 339 (62.1%) >5-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression showed that patients undergoing TLIF had a lower odds of reoperation compared with PLF alone (odds ratio = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99, P = .048). Among patients with >5-year follow-up, the same trend was seen (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.95, P = .045). No differences were observed in 90-day complications ( P = .487) and readmission rates ( P = .230) or minimum clinically important difference PROMs.

CONCLUSION

In a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively maintained registry, patients with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing TLIF had significantly lower long-term reoperation rates than those undergoing PLF.