Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Patterns in Decompression and Fusion Procedures for Patients With Lumbar Stenosis After Major Clinical Trial Results, 2016 to 2019

Importance

Use of lumbar fusion has increased substantially over the last 2 decades. For patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, 2 landmark prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2016 did not find clear evidence in favor of decompression with fusion over decompression alone in this population.

Objective

To assess the national use of decompression with fusion vs decompression alone for the surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis from 2016 to 2019.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included 121 745 hospitalized adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing 1-level decompression alone or decompression with fusion for the management of lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. All data were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Analyses were conducted, reviewed, or updated on June 9, 2023.

Main Outcome and Measure

The primary outcome of this study was the use of decompression with fusion vs decompression alone. For the secondary outcome, multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate factors associated with the decision to perform decompression with fusion vs decompression alone.

Results

Among 121 745 eligible hospitalized patients (mean age, 65.2 years [95% CI, 65.0-65.4 years]; 96 645 of 117 640 [82.2%] non-Hispanic White) with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, 21 230 (17.4%) underwent decompression alone, and 100 515 (82.6%) underwent decompression with fusion. The proportion of patients undergoing decompression alone decreased from 2016 (7625 of 23 405 [32.6%]) to 2019 (3560 of 37 215 [9.6%]), whereas the proportion of patients undergoing decompression with fusion increased over the same period (from 15 780 of 23 405 [67.4%] in 2016 to 33 655 of 37 215 [90.4%] in 2019). In univariable analysis, patients undergoing decompression alone differed significantly from those undergoing decompression with fusion with regard to age (mean, 68.6 years [95% CI, 68.2-68.9 years] vs 64.5 years [95% CI, 64.3-64.7 years]; P < .001), insurance status (eg, Medicare: 13 725 of 21 205 [64.7%] vs 53 320 of 100 420 [53.1%]; P < .001), All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group risk of death (eg, minor risk: 16 900 [79.6%] vs 83 730 [83.3%]; P < .001), and hospital region of the country (eg, South: 7030 [33.1%] vs 38 905 [38.7%]; Midwest: 4470 [21.1%] vs 23 360 [23.2%]; P < .001 for both comparisons). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.96 per year; 95% CI, 0.95-0.96 per year), year after 2016 (AOR, 1.76 per year; 95% CI, 1.69-1.85 per year), self-pay insurance status (AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95), medium hospital size (AOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.89), large hospital size (AOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86), and highest median income quartile by patient residence zip code (AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89) were associated with lower odds of undergoing decompression with fusion. Conversely, hospital region in the Midwest (AOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14-1.57) or South (AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54) was associated with higher odds of undergoing decompression with fusion. Decompression with fusion vs decompression alone was associated with longer length of stay (mean, 2.96 days [95% CI, 2.92-3.01 days] vs 2.55 days [95% CI, 2.49-2.62 days]; P < .001), higher total admission costs (mean, $30 288 [95% CI, $29 386-$31 189] vs $16 190 [95% CI, $15 189-$17 191]; P < .001), and higher total admission charges (mean, $121 892 [95% CI, $119 566-$124 219] vs $82 197 [95% CI, $79 745-$84 648]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, despite 2 prospective RCTs that demonstrated the noninferiority of decompression alone compared with decompression with fusion, use of decompression with fusion relative to decompression alone increased from 2016 to 2019. A variety of patient- and hospital-level factors were associated with surgical procedure choice. These results suggest the findings of 2 major RCTs have not yet produced changes in surgical practice patterns and deserve renewed focus.

Intermodal Detection of Lumbar Instability in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis is Superior to Functional Radiographs

Purpose

In this study, we compare different imaging modalities to find the most sensitive and efficient way of detecting instability in lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Methods

Patients presenting with spondylolisthesis from June 01, 2018 to May 31, 2020 with functional radiographs and either CT scans or MRI images were included in our single-center retrospective cohort study. The amount of translation, in millimeters, was measured on supine MRI images, CT scans, and radiographs of inclination while sitting, standing, or prone and reclination while standing using the Meyerding technique. The amount of translation was compared among the different modalities.

Results

A total of 113 patients with spondylolisthesis on 125 vertebral levels were included in this study. The mean patient age was 73.52 ± 12.59 years; 69 (60.5%) patients were females. The most affected level was L4/5 (62.4%), followed by L3/4 (16%) and L5/S1 (13.6%). The average translations measured on supine CT were 4.13 ± 5.93 mm and 4.42 ± 3.49 mm on MRI (p = 0.3 for the difference between MRI and CT). The difference of inclination while sitting radiograph to slice imaging was 3.37 ± 3.64 mm (p < 0.0001), inclination while standing to slice imaging was 2.67 ± 3.03 mm (p < 0.0001), reclination while standing to slice imaging was 1.6 ± 3.15 mm (p = 0.03), and prone to slice imaging was 2.19 ± 3.02 mm (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

We found that a single radiograph in either inclination, reclination, or prone position compared to a CT scan or an MRI image in supine position can detect instability in spondylolisthesis more efficiently than comparison of functional radiographs in any position.

Comparative Effectiveness of Microdecompression Alone vs Decompression Plus Instrumented Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

IMPORTANCE

Conflicting evidence and large practice variation are present in the surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. More than 90% of surgical procedures in the United States include instrumented fusion compared with 50% or less in other countries.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the effectiveness of microdecompression alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion in a real-world setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter comparative effectiveness study with a noninferiority design assessed prospective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. From September 19, 2007, to December 21, 2015, 1376 patients at 35 Norwegian orthopedic and neurosurgical departments underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis without scoliosis. After excluding patients undergoing laminectomy alone, fusion without instrumentation, or surgery in more than 2 levels and those with a former operation at the index level, 794 patients were included in the analyses, regardless of missing or incomplete follow-up data, before propensity score matching. Data were analyzed from March 20 to October 30, 2018.

EXPOSURES

Microdecompression alone or decompression with instrumented fusion.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

A reduction from baseline of 30% or greater in the Oswestry Disability Index at 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 570 patients (413 female [72%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [9.5] years) were included for comparison, with 285 undergoing microdecompression (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.8] years; 205 female [72%]) and 285 undergoing decompression with instrumented fusion (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [9.2] years; 208 female [73%]). The proportion of each type of procedure varied between departments. However, changes in outcome scores varied within patients but not between departments. The proportion of patients with improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index of at least 30% was 150 of 219 (68%) in the microdecompression group and 155 of 215 (72%) in the instrumentation group. The 95% CI (-12% to 5%) for the difference of -4% was above the predefined margin of noninferiority (-15%). Microdecompression alone was associated with shorter operation time (mean [SD], 89 [44] vs 180 [65] minutes; P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (mean [SD], 2.5 [2.4] vs 6.4 [3.0] days; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, the clinical effectiveness of microdecompression alone was noninferior to that of decompression with instrumented fusion. Microdecompression alone was also associated with shorter durations of surgery and hospital stay, supporting the suggestion that the less invasive procedure should be considered for most patients.

Minimally invasive spine surgery decreases postoperative pain and inflammation for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

In certain cases, lumbar spinal stenosis may lead to lumbar nervous disorder. A previous study indicated that minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) presents benefits compared with conventional open surgery (COS). In the current study, the efficacy of MISS and COS for lumbar spinal stenosis patients was investigated. A total of 82 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were enrolled and divided into two age-matched groups that received MISS (n=41) or COS (n=41). Patient parameters, including symptoms, inflammatory score, visual analog score (VAS), wound length, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), hospital stay and postoperative outcomes were analyzed in the current study. Outcomes indicated that both MISS and COS significantly improved symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis compared with the baseline. It was observed that MISS resulted in decreased wound length and hospital stay compared with COS for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. The results revealed that MISS had better outcomes compared with COS in improving ODI and inflammatory score for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Notably, it was identified that MISS exhibited improved VAS for back and leg pain compared with the COS group for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. In conclusion, these outcomes indicate that MISS was more effective compared with COS for improving symptoms in patients with lumbar stenosis.

Upright MRI after decompression of spinal stenosis and concurrent spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVEThe treatment of patients with spinal stenosis and concurrent degenerative spondylolisthesis is controversial. Two large randomized controlled clinical trials reported contradictory results. The authors hypothesized that a substantial number of patients will show evidence of micro-instability after a sole decompression procedure.METHODSThis study was a retrospective analysis of all cases of lumbar spinal stenosis treated at the Frankfurt University Clinic (Universitätsklinik Frankfurt) from 2010 through 2013. Patients who had associated spondylolisthesis underwent upright MRI studies in flexion and extension for identification of subtle signs of micro-instability. Clinical outcome was assessed by means of SF-36 bodily pain (BP) and physical functioning (PF) scales.RESULTSA total of 21 patients were recruited to undergo upright MRI studies. The mean duration of follow-up was 65 months (SD 16 months). Of these 21 patients, 10 (47%) showed signs of micro-instability as defined by movement of > 4 mm on flexion/extension MRI. Comparison of mean SF-36 BP and PF scores in the group of patients who showed micro-instability versus those who did not showed no statistically significant difference on either scale.CONCLUSIONSThere seems to be a substantial subset of patients who develop morphological micro-instability after sole decompression procedures but do not experience any clinically significant effect of the instability.

PEEK versus Silicon Interspinous Spacer for Reduction of Supradjacent Segment Degeneration following Decompression and Short-Segment Instrumentation for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Purpose

A retrospective study that aims to report Adjacent Segment Degeneration (ASD) incidence and spinopelvic balance in short lumbosacral instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Although ASD is a common complication following lumbar fusion, the effect of an interspinous spacer (IS) in the supradjacent segment in short lumbosacral instrumented fusion and its interaction with spinopelvic balance has not been studied adequately.

Methods

From 55 consecutive age-, diagnosis-, and gender-matched patients aged 60±11 years, 17 (Group R) received PEEK IS; 18 (Group S) received Silicon IS compared with 20 controls (Group C) without receiving any IS. The functional outcome was evaluated with VAS and ODI. Spinopelvic balance was evaluated using SVA, T₁₂-S₁ LL, SS, PT, PI, and supradjacent segment disc heights. All spines were preoperatively balanced (SVA<40 mm).

Results

The follow-up averaged out to 56±11 months. VAS and ODI scores improved postoperatively in all 3 groups. SS and anterior disc height in the supradjacent free segment increased postoperatively compensatory to spinal alterations. Although 6, 4, and 5 patients from Groups R, S, and C, respectively, showed radiological progression of the preoperative degeneration grade in the supradjacent disc, only 2, 1, and 2 patients in Groups R, S, and C, respectively, developed symptomatic ASD in the 1^st supradjacent segment solely. No additional surgery was required in any patient.

Conclusion

ASD incidence in the supradjacent segment following short lumbar fusion did not statistically significantly differ between PEEK and Silicon IS. There was a trend towards lower ASD incidence in Silicon IS. IS reduced ASD in both 1^st and 2^nd supradjacent segments. The authors speculate that soft stabilization provided by IS may be more advantageous for preventing ASD. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT03477955.

Incidence and risk factors of adjacent segment disease following posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders

The purpose of this study was to explore incidence and risk factors of adjacent segment disease (ASD) following posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders, and hope to provide references in decision making and surgical planning for both spinal surgeon and surgically treated patients.By retrieving the medical records from January 2011 to December 2013 in our hospital, 237 patients were retrospectively reviewed. According to the occurrence of ASD at follow up, patients were divided into 2 groups: ASD and N-ASD group. To investigate risk values for the occurrence of ASD, 3 categorized factors were analyzed statistically: Patient characteristics: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density (BMD), duration. Surgical variables: surgical strategy, number of fusion level, surgery segment, surgery time, blood loss, intraoperative superior facet joint violation. Radiographic parameters: preoperative lumbar lordosis, preoperative angular motion at adjacent segment, preoperative adjacent segment disc degeneration, preoperative paraspinal muscle degeneration.Postoperative ASD was developed in 15 of 237 patients (6.3%) at final follow up. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in patient characteristics of age, sex composition, BMD, duration, while the BMI was higher in ASD group than that in N-ASD group. There was no difference in surgical variables of surgical strategy, number of fusion level, surgery segment, surgery time, blood loss, while intraoperative superior facet joint violation was more common in ASD group than that in N-ASD group. There was no difference in radiographic parameters of preoperative lumbar lordosis, preoperative paraspinal muscle degeneration, while preoperative adjacent segment disc degeneration were more severe in ASD group than that in N-ASD group. The Logistic regression analysis revealed that, BMI >25 kg/m, preoperative disc degeneration, and superior facet joint violation were independently associated with ASD.In conclusion, higher BMI, preoperative disc degeneration at adjacent segment and intraoperative superior facet joint violation are risk factors for ASD. Patients who are overweight or obesity and with preoperative disc degeneration at adjacent segment should be fully informed the risk of ASD. For surgeons, it is essential to prevent superior facet joint violation in pedicle screw insertion procedure.