A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

The association between individual radiographic findings and improvement after chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise among older adults with back-related disability: a secondary analysis

BACKGROUND

Some chiropractors use spinal x-rays to inform care, but the relationship between radiographic findings and outcomes is unclear. This study examined the association between radiographic findings and 30% improvement in back-related disability in older adults after receiving 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise instruction.

METHODS

This IRB-approved secondary analysis used randomized trial data of community-dwelling adults age ≥ 65 with chronic spinal pain and disability. Data were collected during the parent trial between January 2010-December 2014. The primary outcome of the parent study was ≥ 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 weeks, a clinically important response to care. In this secondary analysis, two chiropractic radiologists independently assessed digital lumbar radiographs for pre-specified anatomic, degenerative, and alignment factors; differences were adjudicated. The unadjusted association between baseline radiographic factors and 30% ODI improvement was determined using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

From the parent trial, 120 adults with baseline lumbar radiographs were included in this study. Mean age was 70.4 years (range 65-81); 59.2% were female. Mean baseline disability (ODI = 25.6) and back pain (5.2, 0-10 scale) were moderate. Disc degeneration (53.3% moderate, 13.3% severe), anterolisthesis (53.3%), retrolisthesis (36.6%) and scoliosis (35.0%) were common among the participant sample. After 12-weeks of treatment, 51 (42.5%) participants achieved 30% improvement in back disability. No alignment, degenerative, or anatomic factors were associated with ODI improvement at 12 weeks (all p > 0.05), regardless of severity of radiographic findings.

CONCLUSION

We found no association between a predetermined subset of radiographic findings and improvement in back-related disability among this sample of older adults. As such, this study provides preliminary data suggesting that imaging may be unhelpful for predicting response to chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise.

Surgeon Recommendation and Outcomes of Decompression With vs Without Fusion in Patients With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Importance

The ability of surgeons to choose the right patient for fusion in addition to decompression when operating for degenerative spondylolisthesis with symptomatic spinal stenosis is debated. The addition of fusion increases risk, morbidity, and costs but has been claimed to give better results for selected patients.

Objective

To investigate whether following surgeons' opinions regarding fusion was associated with clinical outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted alongside the Norwegian Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Spinal Stenosis randomized clinical trial, which showed noninferiority for decompression alone compared with decompression with fusion. From February 12, 2014, to December 18, 2017, trial surgeons from 16 Norwegian departments denoted their preferred treatment for 222 of 267 patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. For this analysis, the clinical outcomes of the patients who were and were not randomized to the recommended treatment were compared.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 30% from baseline to 2 years after surgery on the Oswestry Disability Index, ranging from 0 (no impairment) to 100 (maximum impairment). Secondary outcomes included the Zürich Claudication Questionnaire, leg and back pain scores, and the EuroQol 5-Dimension score.

Results

Among 222 patients (155 [70%] female; mean [SD] age, 66.2 [7.7] years), decompression alone was recommended for 112 patients, of whom 59 received only decompression, and additional fusion for 110 patients, of whom 57 received fusion. At 2-year follow-up, 87 of 116 patients (75%) who received surgery in agreement with the surgeons' recommendations and 77 of 106 (73%) who received surgery in disagreement with the surgeons' recommendations reached the primary outcome (difference, 2.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.1 to 13.9 percentage points). All secondary outcomes were in the same direction as the primary outcome.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of 222 patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis who participated in a randomized clinical trial, surgeons' recommendations were not associated with better outcomes than a random allocation when deciding between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion. The results suggest that surgeons performing degenerative spondylolisthesis surgery could rely safely on evidence of operating with decompression alone, despite the conflict of expert opinion.

Distal Lumbar Lordosis is Associated With Reoperation for Adjacent Segment Disease After Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Conditions

STUDY DESIGN

A single centre retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies have suggested that distal lordosis (L4-S1, DL) remains constant across all pelvic incidence (PI) subgroups, whilst proximal lordosis (L1-L4, PL) varies. We sought to investigate the impact of post-operative DL on adjacent segment disease (ASD) requiring reoperation in patients undergoing lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions.

METHODS

Patients undergoing 1-3 level lumbar fusion with the two senior authors between 2007-16 were included. Demographic and radiographic data were recorded. Univariate, multivariate binary logistic regression, and Kaplan Meier survivorship analyses were performed.

RESULTS

335 patients were included in the final analysis. Most had single (67%) or two (31%) level fusions. The mean follow-up was 64-month. Fifty-seven patients (17%) underwent reoperation for ASD at an average of 78-month post-operatively (R group). The R group had a significantly lower mean post-operative DL (27.3 vs 31.1 deg, P < .001) and mean PI (55.5 vs 59.2 deg, P < .05). On univariate analysis, patients with a post-operative DL of <35 deg had higher odds of reoperation for ASD than those with a post-operative DL of ≥35 deg (OR 2.7, P = .016). In the multivariate model, post-operative DL, low/average PI, and spondylolisthesis were all significantly associated with reoperation for ASD.

CONCLUSION

This study provides preliminary support to an association between post-operative distal lumbar lordosis and risk of reoperation for ASD in patients undergoing fusions for degenerative conditions. Further multicentre prospective study is needed to independently confirm this association and identify the impact of restoration of physiological distal lumbar lordosis on long term patient outcomes.

Evaluation of the Therapeutic Effect of Decompression with or without Fusion on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Caused by Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

As a common clinical disease, lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is currently the preferred surgical treatment, and there are various opinions. We conducted a study on whether fusion should be performed simultaneously with decompression for LSS caused by low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and compared the efficacy and safety of the 2 surgeries.

METHODS

We conducted literature searches on Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases to search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared decompression alone and decompression plus fusion in the treatment of LSS with low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. We conducted a meta-analysis on surgical duration, hospital stay, incidence of complications, intraoperative blood loss, lower back and leg pain scores, and Oswestry Disability Index scores.

RESULTS

We ultimately included 8 articles, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 6 observational studies. Additional fusion did not benefit patients in relieving lower back pain (P = 0.05) and leg pain (P = 0.12), and there was no significant difference in Oswestry Disability Index (P = 0.12) and perioperative complication rate (P = 0.10) between the 2. However, decompression alone was significantly better than the decompression plus fusion group in terms of surgical time (P = 0.0008), hospital stay (P < 0.0001), and intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this article, decompression alone has shorter surgical and hospitalization time and less intraoperative bleeding compared to decompression plus fusion. And there was no significant difference in pain score and disability index between the 2 surgeries during follow-up. Therefore, we can say that for patients with LSS caused by low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis, decompression alone is not inferior to decompression plus fusion.

Effect of Different Interventions on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Evaluation and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the preferred option for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) when conservative methods cannot meet the needs. Recent advancements in surgical techniques have brought various new methods for treating LSS.

METHODS

Four databases, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched, covering the period from the establishment of the databases until May 2024. Randomized controlled trials were carried out to treat LSS using different surgical approaches. The outcome measures included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index score, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay of patients. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed using R software (V4.4) and STATA17.0 software to analyze each surgical approach.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies involving 4200 patients were included. Nine intervention methods, including laminotomy, decompression, decompression plus fusion, endoscopic decompression, interspinous process spacer device (IPSD), laminectomy, minimally invasive decompression, spinous process osteotomy, and lumbar interbody fusion, were analyzed. Network meta-analysis results indicated that endoscopic decompression (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA = 88.70%) was the most effective in reducing short-term back VAS scores. IPSD (SUCRA = 98.00%) was the most effective in reducing long-term back VAS scores, surgical duration (SUCRA = 95.20%), and intraoperative blood loss (SUCRA = 100.00%). Endoscopic decompression (SUCRA = 83.60%) also showed the most significant effect in reducing hospital stays.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic decompression can effectively improve short-term back VAS scores and reduce hospital stays, while IPSD is effective in reducing long-term back VAS scores with minimal surgical duration and blood loss.

Experimental ex vivo characterization of the biomechanical effects of laminectomy and posterior fixation of the lumbo-sacral spine

Laminectomy and posterior fixation are well-established surgical techniques to decompress nervous structures in case of lumbar spinal stenosis. While laminectomy is suspected to increase the instability of the spine, posterior fixation is associated with some complications such as adjacent segment degeneration. This study aimed to investigate how laminectomy and posterior fixation alter the biomechanics of the lumbar spine in terms of range of motion (ROM) and strains on the intervertebral discs. Twelve L2-S1 cadaveric spines were mechanically tested in flexion, extension, and lateral bending in the intact condition, after two-level laminectomy and after L4-S1 posterior fixation. The ROM of the spine segment was measured in each spine condition, and each loading configuration. The strain distribution on the surface of all the intervertebral discs was measured with Digital Image Correlation. Laminectomy significantly increased the ROM in flexion (p = 0.028) and lateral bending (p = 0.035). Posterior fixation decreased the ROM in all the loading configurations. Laminectomy did not significantly modify the strain distribution in the discs. Posterior fixation significantly increased the principal tensile and compressive strains in the disc adjacent the fixation both in flexion and in lateral bending. These findings can elucidate one of the clinical causes of the adjacent segment degeneration onset.

Constructing a predictive model for high intraoperative excessive bleeding in patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression and fusion internal fixation surgery during outpatient visits

OBJECTIVE

1. Construct a risk prediction model to predict the factors of high intraoperative bleeding in patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression and fusion internal fixation surgery during outpatient visits. 2. Implement pre-hospital blood management for surgery patients, to improve clinical outcomes.

DESIGN & METHODS

We collected patients who underwent two-segment and three-segment posterior lumbar decompression and fusion internal fixation surgery in our hospital from 2016 to 2021. A total of 24 preoperative indicators were analyzed, covering medical history, demographic characteristics, segment, operator and laboratory test results. We used a logistic regression model to optimize the model's feature selection. The predictive model was constructed using the multivariable logistic regression method with all included methods, and a nomogram was created to display the model. Activated partial thromboplastin time, surgeon volume, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, body mass index, and the number of fusion and fixation lumbar segments were used to construct the predictive model. The predictive model's discrimination, calibration, clinical applicability, and rationality were evaluated.

RESULTS

The predictive model's area under the receiver operating characteristic curve is 0.723, with a 95% confidence interval of (0.685-0.760). The training set's decision curve analysis demonstrates that applying this diagnostic curve will increase the net benefit when the threshold probability is between 5% and 40%.

CONCLUSION

This study developed a novel nomogram with relatively good accuracy to assist clinical doctors in assessing the high intraoperative bleeding risk in patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression and fusion internal fixation surgery during outpatient visits. By evaluating individual risk, surgeons can develop an individualized treatment plan to reduce the risk of intraoperative bleeding for each patient.

Nonlaminotomy bilateral decompression: a novel approach in biportal endoscopic spine surgery for spinal stenosis

Biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is an emerging technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Previous BESS techniques involve partial osteotomy for access to spinal canal such as partial laminotomy, partial facetectomy, and other forms to access the spinal canal for decompression. However, approaches that include osteotomy can cause bone bleeding intraoperatively, leading to obscured vision, and may be at risk of postoperative facet arthritis and segmental instability due to damage to the posterior stability structure. This study aimed to introduce a BESS technique, i.e., nonlaminotomy bilateral decompression (NLBD) that allows for decompression through the interlaminar space without damaging the posterior bony structures. For this, various sizes of curved curettes are mainly used than Kerrison rongeurs. The small tip of the curved curette allows it to reach any part of the spinal canal through the interlaminar space, and its rounded back reduces the risk of nerve damage during decompression. In addition, by changing the portals, decompression through the interlaminar space can be performed without osteotomy. Nine checkpoints were assessed for the complete decompression during surgery. In conclusion, NLBD is an alternative BESS approach that achieves adequate decompression while preserving the posterior structure as much as possible.

Long-term reoperation after decompression with versus without fusion among patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The debate over adding fusion after decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis is due to the "absence of evidence" in its benefits, particularly in reoperation. However, this "absence of evidence" does not indicate "evidence of absence."

PURPOSE

To investigate the reoperation rates following the addition of fusion after decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 12, 2021, with an updated search conducted on April 06, 2023. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Exclusions comprised cases of spondylolisthesis and instabilities. The occurrence of reoperation was summarized using odds ratios (OR), while other outcomes were presented as mean differences. We employed a Cox-based shared-frailty model with random effects for the time-to-event analysis of reoperation. Additionally, we used a 2-stage method to validate our estimates. Heterogeneity variance within the random-effects model was estimated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method.

RESULTS

A total of 1973 studies were identified and screened, of which 48 met selection criteria, and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison between fusion and non-fusion groups in patients with lumbar stenosis and neurological claudication revealed no significant difference in reoperation rates (odds ratio: 1.13 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.46]; 8016 participants; 14 studies; I2 = 0%). Bayesian analysis indicated an 8.9-fold likelihood of similar reoperation rates. Time-to-reoperation analysis revealed a 16.46 months delay in the fusion group, though not statistically significant (mean difference: 16.46 [95% CI: -3.13-36.04]; 83 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 46%). Consistently, ODI, back pain, and leg pain VAS showed no significant differences. The certainty of the evidence was low for odds of reoperation and leg pain VAS, and very low for the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis, the addition of fusion after decompression showed limited benefits in terms of reoperation rates, ODI, and leg pain.

Decompression without Fusion in Patients with Low-Grade Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Stenosis: Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcome

BACKGROUND

One-third of patients with neurogenic claudication caused by lumbar spinal stenosis have low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis. Decompression in these patients is considered a risk factor for instability, and it remains unclear whether instrumented fusion should be added. This study aims to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of decompressive surgery without instrumented fusion in patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis regardless of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis undergoing decompressive surgery were studied, 9 years postoperatively. Pain, functionality, and satisfaction questionnaires were sent to 250 patients with spondylolisthesis and 200 randomly selected patients with stenosis. Demographic characteristics, surgical technique, reoperation indication and incidence, and patient-reported outcome measures were assessed.

RESULTS

At long-term follow-up, the mean Oswestry Disability Index was 23.6 ± 20.15 in the spondylolisthesis group and 23.4 ± 20.9 (P = 0.957) in the stenosis group. The EuroQol-5D was 0.74 ± 0.28 and 0.75 ± 0.24 (P = 0.793), respectively. The Zurich Claudication Questionnaire score was 48.2% ± 18.8 and 49.6% ± 18.5 (P = 0.646), respectively. After 9 years of follow-up, comparable satisfaction rates were reported (69% of patients with spondylolisthesis and 68% of patients with stenosis; P = 0.855). Reoperation rates were comparable in the spondylolisthesis and stenosis group (7% vs. 6%).

CONCLUSIONS

This cohort study showed comparable satisfaction and clinical outcomes after decompressive surgery for symptomatic spinal stenosis in patients with and without grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Decompressive surgery can, therefore, be considered an effective treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, even if it is accompanied by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Therefore, routinely adding instrumented spondylodesis is not deemed necessary.

Effectiveness of percutaneous key lesion endoscopic lumbar decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in octogenarian patients

INTRODUCTION

With increasing life expectancy, degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has become a common problem in the geriatric population. LSS reduces the quality of life, limits daily activities, and requires therapeutic aids. We share our experiences of treating octogenarian patients with LSS with key lesion percutaneous single portal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (sEndo-ULBD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine octogenarian patients who underwent sEndo-ULBD between January 2021 and July 2022 were prospectively enrolled in this study. Their visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), disc height, spondylolisthesis, lumbar lordotic angle, lumbar scoliotic angle, and spinal canal area before and after sEndo-ULBD were followed up for more than six months.

RESULTS

The VAS score was significantly reduced three months after the operation (p < 0.05). The postoperative ODI scores of all patients improved relative to their preoperative scores; this difference became significant in the third month after the operation (p < 0.05). Index-level disc height did not significantly change after the operation. Spondylolisthesis, lumbar lordotic angle, and lumbar scoliotic angle showed no significant curve progression. The spinal canal area increased markedly after sEndo-ULBD (p <0.05), with no known surgery-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Key lesion sEndo-ULBD was an appropriate, safe, and effective treatment for octogenarian patients suffering from degenerative LSS. With an average follow-up of over one year, we did not find any significant progression in spinal curvature or instability. sEndo-ULBD is an ideal alternative to aggressive fusion fixation lumbar surgery for managing degenerative LSS in octogenarian patients with functional disability.

Preoperative Radiographic Predictors of Subsequent Fusion After Lumbar Decompression Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to determine which demographic, surgical, and radiographic preoperative characteristics are most associated with the need for subsequent fusion after decompression lumbar spinal surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is a relatively high rate of the need for repeat decompression or fusion after an index decompression procedure for degenerative spine disease. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of literature identifying risk factors for lumbar fusion following decompression surgery.

METHODS

Patients 18 years or older receiving a primary lumbar decompression surgery within the levels of L3-S1 between 2011 and 2020 were identified. All patients had preoperative radiographs and 2 years of follow-up data. Chart review was performed for surgical characteristics and demographics. The sagittal parameters included lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disk height (aDH), posterior disk height (pDH), sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Pelvic incidence (PI=PT+SS) and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) were calculated. In addition, the Roussouly classification was determined for each patient. Bivariant and multivariant analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 363 patients identified in this study, 96 patients had a fusion after their index decompression surgery. Multivariable analysis identified involvement of L4-L5 level in the decompression [odds ratio (OR)=1.83 (1.09-3.14), P =0.026], increased L5-S1 segmental lordosis [OR=1.08 (1.03-1.13), P =0.001], decreased SS [OR=0.96 (0.93-0.99), P =0.023], and decreased endplate obliquity [OR=0.88 (0.77-0.99), P =0.040] as significant independent predictors of fusion after decompression surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies to assess preoperative sagittal parameters in conjunction with demographic variables to determine predictors of the need for fusion after index decompression. We demonstrated that decompression at L4-L5, greater L5-S1 segmental lordosis, decreased sacral slope, and decreased endplate obliquity were associated with higher rates of fusion after decompression surgery.

Which vacuum phenomenon is more predictive for future junctional disorders?: Intradiscal or Intrafacet?

Recent spine studies focused on identifying whether intradiscal vacuum phenomenon (VP) was associated with spinal instability. However, none of them reported a direct association between VP and spinal instability following fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disorders (DSDs), namely junctional disorders. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate whether the VP was predictive for junctional disorders in patients who underwent short-segment lumbar decompression and fusion for DSDs at a tertiary spine center. We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected database of patients who underwent short-segment decompression and fusion for DSDs. Pre-operative sagittal and axial computed tomography (CT) scans were evaluated in terms of intradiscal and intrafacet VP at all lumbar levels, respectively. Each VP was scored as 1 point. Then, the total VP score was calculated as the sum of intradiscal VP score and intrafacet VP score. Then, we analyzed the possible predictivity of VP for junctional disorders at final follow-ups of the patients operated for short-segment lumbar decompression and fusion. Patients with junctional disorders had significantly higher total and intrafacet VP scores compared to those without junctional disorders. Total VP score had an OR of 1.217 (p = 0.014) and intrafacet VP score had an OR of 1.465 (p = 0.008). The ROC analysis depicted that the cut-offs value for total and intrafacet VP scores to predict junctional disorders following short-segment lumbar decompression and fusion were 1.5 points and 0.5 point, respectively. Vacuum phenomenon could be associated with junctional disorders in patients who underwent short-segment lumbar decompression and fusion for DSD. Intrafacet VP was more important than intradiscal VP in predicting junctional disorders. Proper surgical planning including the evaluation of both intrafacet and intradiscal VP at all lumbar levels is crucial to decrease the likelihood of junctional disorders.

Clinical Utility of an Intervertebral Motion Metric for Deciding on the Addition of Instrumented Fusion in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective single-arm clinical study.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the clinical utility of an intervertebral motion metric by determining the proportion of patients for whom it changed their surgical treatment plan from decompression only to decompression with fusion or vice versa .

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar spinal stenosis from degenerative spondylolisthesis is commonly treated with decompression only or decompression with additional instrumented fusion. An objective diagnostic tool capable of establishing abnormal motion between lumbar vertebrae to guide decision-making between surgical procedures is needed. To this end, a metric based on the vertebral sagittal plane translation-per-degree-of-rotation calculated from flexion-extension radiographs was developed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

First, spine surgeons documented their intended surgical plan. Subsequently, the participants' flexion-extension radiographs were taken. From these, the translation-per-degree-of-rotation was calculated and reported as a sagittal plane shear index (SPSI). The SPSI metric of the spinal level intended to be treated was used to decide if the intended surgical plan needed to be changed or not.

RESULTS

SPSI was determined for 75 participants. Of these, 51 (68%) had an intended surgical plan of decompression only and 24 (32%) had decompression with fusion. In 63% of participants, the SPSI was in support of their intended surgical plan. For 29% of participants, the surgeon changed the surgical plan after the SPSI metric became available to them. A suggested change in the surgical plan was overruled by 8% of participants. The final surgical plan was decompression only for 59 (79%) participants and decompression with fusion for 16 (21%) participants.

CONCLUSION

The 29% change in intended surgical plans suggested that SPSI was considered by spine surgeons as an adjunct metric in deciding whether to perform decompression only or to add instrumented fusion. This change exceeded the a priori defined 15% considered necessary to show the potential clinical utility of SPSI.

Fusion versus decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis: a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking

PURPOSE

The value of adding fusion to decompression surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis remains debated. Therefore, the comparative effectiveness and selected healthcare resource utilization of patients undergoing decompression with or without fusion surgery at 3 years follow-up was assessed.

METHODS

Using observational data from the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study and a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking approach, our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of the two main surgical interventions for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis-fusion and decompression alone in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis. The primary outcome-measure was change in health-related quality of life (EuroQol Health Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire [EQ-5D-3L]); secondary outcome measures were change in back/leg pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), change in satisfaction (Spinal Stenosis Measure satisfaction subscale), physical therapy and oral analgesic use (healthcare utilization).

RESULTS

153 patients underwent decompression alone and 62 had decompression plus fusion. After inverse probability weighting, 137 patients were included in the decompression alone group (mean age, 73.9 [7.5] years; 77 female [56%]) and 36 in the decompression plus fusion group (mean age, 70.1 [6.7] years; 18 female [50%]). Our findings were compatible with no standardized mean differences in EQ-5D-3L summary index change score at 3 years (EQ-5D-3L German: 0.07 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.25 to 0.39]; EQ-5D-3L French: 0.18 [95% CI, - 0.14 to 0.50]). No between-group differences in change in back/leg pain intensity or satisfaction were found. Decompression plus fusion was associated with greater physical therapy utilization at 3 years follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Decompression alone should be considered the primary option for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis.

Using Resource Utilization in Spine Healthcare to Complement Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Assessing Surgical Success

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are utilized to assess surgical success but are limited by data collection, response bias, and subjectivity. The large volume of digital healthcare data offers a new method to utilize healthcare utilization as a longitudinal, individualized, and objective proxy for health needs among surgical patients. This study aimed to design and evaluate a novel resource utilization in spine healthcare (RUSH) clustering method that complements PROMs in evaluating postoperative patient outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study conducted at a large, tertiary healthcare system included all adult patients undergoing cervical or lumbar surgery between 2014 and 2020 with at least 3 months follow-up. Postoperative healthcare utilization was analyzed using clinic visits, inpatient encounters, telephone encounters, MyChart messages, opioid use, physical therapy, injections, and imaging. Latent profile analysis determined RUSH clusters and changes in PROM Information System Physical Health (PROMIS-PH) scores preoperation and 12-months postoperation.

RESULTS

This study included 5602 surgeries (mean age 61.3 ± 13.1 years, 49.9% female). Four RUSH groups were identified: low utilizers (21.5%), moderate utilizers without advanced imaging (34.7%), moderate utilizers with advanced imaging (10.7%), and high utilizers (33.1%). Utilization patterns varied by surgery type, with lower-utilization patterns among non-fusion procedures and a consistent sub-population of high utilizers across all surgery types. High RUSH utilizers had the lowest pre-operative PROMIS-PH scores and the worst average postoperative change.

CONCLUSIONS

RUSH clustering provides a novel, data-driven approach to measure surgical success, complementing traditional PROMs, and leveraging big data to monitor and respond to surgical outcomes.

Comparing opioid utilization and costs for surgical management of single-level spondylolisthesis: A national claims database analysis

Introduction

The rise in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) cases has led to a significant increase in fusion surgeries, which incur substantial hospitalization costs and often necessitate chronic opioid use for pain management. Recent evidence suggests that single-level low-grade DLS outcomes are comparable whether a fusion procedure or decompression alone is performed, sparking debate over the cost-effectiveness of these procedures, particularly with the advent of minimally invasive techniques reducing the morbidity of fusion. This study aims to compare chronic opioid utilization and associated costs between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Material and methods

Using data from the PearlDiver database, a retrospective database analysis was conducted. We analyzed records of Medicare and Medicaid patients undergoing lumbar fusion or decompression from 2010 to 2022. Patient cohorts were divided into decompression alone (DA) and decompression with instrumented fusion (DIF). Chronic opioid use, pain clinic visits, and total costs were compared between the two groups at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years post-surgery.

Theory

Does DIF offer a more cost-effective approach to managing DLS in terms of chronic opioid use in single-level DLS patients.

Results

The study revealed comparable chronic opioid use and pain clinic visits between DA and DIF groups at 90 days and 1 year. However, total costs associated with opioid prescriptions as well as surgical aftercare were significantly higher in the DIF group at 90 days (p < 0.05), 1 year (p < 0.05), and 2 years (p < 0.05) post-surgery compared to the DA group.

Conclusions

This study highlights the higher costs associated with DIF up to 2 years post-surgery despite comparable symptom improvement when compared to DA and DIF at the 1-year interval. DA emerges as a more financially favorable option, challenging the notion of fusion's cost-offsetting benefits. While further investigation is needed to understand underlying cost drivers and optimize outcomes, our findings emphasize the necessity of integrating clinical and economic factors in the management of single-level DLS.

Surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several surgical options for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are available, but current guidelines do not recommend which one should be prioritized. Although previous network meta-analyses (NMAs) have been performed on this topic, they have major methodological problems and could not provide the convincing evidence and clinical practical information required.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two surgical interventions were included by searching AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE (inception to August 2023). A frequentist random-effects NMA was performed for physical function and adverse events due to any reason. For physical function, three follow-up time points were included: short-term (< 6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥ 6 months but < 12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months). Laminectomy was the reference comparison intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 43 RCTs involving 5017 participants were included in the systematic review and 28 RCTs encompassing 14 types of surgical interventions were included in the NMA. For improving physical function (scale 0-100), endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (mean difference: - 8.61, 95% confidence interval: - 10.52 to - 6.69; moderate-quality evidence), laminectomy combined with Coflex (- 8.41, - 13.21 to - 3.61; moderate quality evidence), and X-stop (- 6.65, - 8.60 to - 4.71; low-quality evidence) had small effects at short-term follow-up; no statistical difference was observed at mid-term follow-up (very low- to low-quality evidence); at long-term follow-up, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (- 7.02, - 12.95 to - 1.08; very low-quality evidence) and X-stop (- 10.04, - 18.16 to - 1.93; very low-quality evidence) had a small and moderate effect, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy was associated with fewer adverse events due to any reason (odds ratio: 0.27, 0.09 to 0.86; low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

For adults with degenerative LSS, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy may be the safest and most effective intervention in improving physical function. However, the available data were insufficient to indicate whether the effect was sustainable after 6 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42018094180).

The Effect of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis on Screw Loosening in MIS-TLIF and Dynamic Stabilization

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective series.

OBJECTIVE

Screw loosening in the surgical treatment of lumbar spine disease is a major complication of osteopenia or osteoporosis. This study investigated the risk of screw loosening following either MIS-TLIF or pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization (DS) in patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled patients receiving 1- or 2-level MIS-TLIF or DS in a single institute. All patients were diagnosed as having lumbar spondylosis without concurrent spondylolisthesis and found by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to have osteopenia or osteoporosis. Screw loosening was identified by X-ray and CT. Clinical outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients (50 MIS-TLIF and 53 DS) were confirmed to have osteopenia (-2.5

CONCLUSION

The screw loosening rate was higher in the MIS-TLIF group in the entire cohort. Osteopenia patients receiving MIS-TLIF were at significantly higher risk of screw loosening, while that risk was not different for osteoporosis patients, compared to DS.

Collapse

Key Words

• TLIF
• dynamic stabilization
• minimally invasive
• osteopenia
• osteoporosis
• screw loosening

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Hsuan-Kan Chang College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
Chih-Chang Chang College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Yu-Wen Cheng Department of Neurosurgery, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Ching-Lan Wu College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Tsung-Hsi Tu College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Jau-Ching Wu College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan Institute of Pharmacology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
Wen-Cheng Huang College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

Collapse

Impact of age on comparative outcomes of decompression alone versus fusion for L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts.

RESULTS

233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion.

Comparison of Patients Operated for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With and Without Spondylolisthesis​​​​​: A Secondary Analysis of the NORDSTEN Trials

STUDY DESIGN

Observational cohort study (secondary analysis of two randomized trials).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether function, disability, pain, and quality of life before surgery and patient-reported outcome as well as complication and reoperation rates up to 2 years after surgery differ between lumbar spinal stenosis patients with and without spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a degenerative condition of the spine, which appears with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis often presenting similar signs and symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of two randomized trials on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with and without spondylolisthesis conducted at 16 public Norwegian hospitals. Disability, function, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, complication, and reoperation rates up to 2 years after surgery were compared between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 704 patients were included in this study, 267 patients with spondylolisthesis [median age: 67.0 yr (IQR: 61.0-72.0 yr); 68.7% female] and 437 patients without spondylolisthesis [median age: 68.0 yr (IQR: 62.0-73.0 yr); 52.9% female]. In the linear mixed-model analysis there were no significant differences in disability, function, back pain, leg pain, and quality of life scores between the two cohorts of patient with and without spondylolisthesis before surgery or at 2 years of follow-up. The complication rate was 22.9% in patients with spondylolisthesis and 12.1% in patients without spondylolisthesis ( P <0.001). There were no significant differences in reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis the symptom burden before surgery and the clinical outcome up to 2 years after surgery were similar independently of a concomitant spondylolisthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Patient acceptance of reoperation risk for lumbar decompression versus fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar decompression and lumbar fusion are effective methods of treating spinal compressive pathologies refractory to conservative management. These surgeries are typically used to treat different spinal problems, but there is a growing body of literature investigating the outcomes of either approach for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis. Different operations are associated with different risks and different potential needs for reoperation. Patient acceptance of reoperation rates after spinal surgery is currently not well understood.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to identify patient tolerance for reoperation rates following lumbar decompression and lumbar fusion surgery.

DESIGN

A qualitative and quantitative survey intended to capture information on patient preferences was administered.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Written informed consent was obtained from patients presenting to 2 spinal clinics.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients were asked their threshold tolerance for reoperation rates in the context of choosing a smaller (decompression) versus larger (fusion) spinal surgery.

METHODS

A survey was administered to patients at 2 spinal clinics-1 surgical and 1 nonsurgical. A consecutive series of new patients over multiple clinic days who agreed to participate in the study and filled out the survey are reported on here. Patients were asked to assess, contemplating a problem that could either be treated with lumbar decompression or lumbar fusion, the level at which 1) the likelihood that needing a repeat surgery within 3 to 5 years would change their mind about choosing the decompression operation and cause them to choose the fusion operation and then 2) the likelihood of needing a repeat surgery within 3 to 5 years that would be acceptable to them after the fusion operation. The distribution of patient responses was assessed with histograms and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were surveyed, and of these, 73 patients (81.1%) returned fully completed questionnaires. The median reoperation acceptance rates after a decompression was <60%, while the median acceptable revision rate when contemplating the fusion surgery was 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient acceptance for the potential need for revision surgery is higher when considering a decompression compared to a fusion operation. Reoperation risk rates along with the magnitude of the surgical intervention are important considerations in determining patients' surgical preferences. Understanding patient preferences and risk tolerances can aid clinicians in shared decision-making, potentially improving patient satisfaction and outcomes in the several lumbar pathologies which can be ameliorated with either decompression or fusion.

Challenges in Contemporary Spine Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Surgical, Technological, and Patient-Specific Issues

Spine surgery has significantly progressed due to innovations in surgical techniques, technology, and a deeper understanding of spinal pathology. However, numerous challenges persist, complicating successful outcomes. Anatomical intricacies at transitional junctions demand precise surgical expertise to avoid complications. Technical challenges, such as underestimation of the density of fixed vertebrae, individual vertebral characteristics, and the angle of pedicle inclination, pose additional risks during surgery. Patient anatomical variability and prior surgeries add layers of difficulty, often necessitating thorough pre- and intraoperative planning. Technological challenges involve the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced visualization systems. AI offers predictive capabilities but is limited by the need for large, high-quality datasets and the "black box" nature of machine learning models, which complicates clinical decision making. Visualization technologies like augmented reality and robotic surgery enhance precision but come with operational and cost-related hurdles. Patient-specific challenges include managing postoperative complications such as adjacent segment disease, hardware failure, and neurological deficits. Effective patient outcome measurement is critical, yet existing metrics often fail to capture the full scope of patient experiences. Proper patient selection for procedures is essential to minimize risks and improve outcomes, but criteria can be inconsistent and complex. There is the need for continued technological innovation, improved patient-specific outcome measures, and enhanced surgical education through simulation-based training. Integrating AI in preoperative planning and developing comprehensive databases for spinal pathologies can aid in creating more accurate, generalizable models. A holistic approach that combines technological advancements with personalized patient care and ongoing education is essential for addressing these challenges and improving spine surgery outcomes.

Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of this systematic review and metaanalysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid Medline databases was conducted to find randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that compared decompression alone and decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. Operation time; reoperation; postoperative complications; postoperative Oswestry disability index(ODI) scores and scores related to back and leg pain were collected from eligible studies for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies with 6182 patients. The decompression alone group showed less operative time(P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss(p = 0.000), and no significant difference in postoperative complications was observed in randomized controlled trials(p = 0.428) or cohort studies(p = 0.731). There was no significant difference between the other two groups in reoperation(P = 0.071), postoperative ODI scores and scores related to back and leg pain.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that the decompression alone group performed better in terms of operation time and intraoperative blood loss, and there was no significant difference between the two surgical methods in rate of reoperation and postoperative complications, ODI, low back pain and leg pain. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that decompression alone is not inferior to decompression and fusion in patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

Mental state as a predictor of outcome in spinal stenosis surgery: Four quadrants model integrating patient satisfaction and functional outcome

Introduction

Mental status, characterised by anxiety and depression, significantly influences physical well-being, particularly in patients with spinal stenosis symptoms.

Research question

The prevalence of depression and anxiety in our cohort. The correlation between psychological distress and physical outcome after surgery, including postoperative recovery and satisfaction.

Materials and methods

Questionnaires evaluating anxiety and depression (HADS), functionality (ODI), quality of life (EQ-5D), and perceived recovery (Likert-scale) were sent to a randomly selected cohort of 450 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, with or without spondylolisthesis, who underwent surgery between 2007 and 2013. Results are presented, dichotomised by HADS score (score ≥8 indicating psychologically impaired) and in a Four Quadrants Model integrating functional outcomes and perceived recovery separately for psychologically impaired and non-impaired cases.

Results

Among the 147 included patients, 32 (22%) exhibited anxiety and/or depression (impaired cases). Satisfactory outcome (perceived recovery) was reported in 29.0% of the impaired cases and 78.3% of the non-impaired cases (p < 0.001). The mean postoperative functionality score of the impaired cases was 42.46 ± 16.24, in contrast to 18.48 ± 18.25 for the non-impaired cases (p < 0.001). In the impaired group, only 12.5% achieved both a good functional outcome (ODI ≤24) and satisfactory perceived recovery, compared with 58.4% in the non-impaired group.

Discussion and conclusion

Patients reporting anxiety and/or depression demonstrate an inferior long-term outcome after spinal stenosis surgery compared to non-impaired patients. This clinically relevant difference underscores the importance of addressing depression and anxiety in preoperative counselling to optimize patient satisfaction and functional outcomes.

Multicenter external validation of prediction models for clinical outcomes after spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical prediction models (CPM), such as the SCOAP-CERTAIN tool, can be utilized to enhance decision-making for lumbar spinal fusion surgery by providing quantitative estimates of outcomes, aiding surgeons in assessing potential benefits and risks for each individual patient. External validation is crucial in CPM to assess generalizability beyond the initial dataset. This ensures performance in diverse populations, reliability and real-world applicability of the results. Therefore, we externally validated the tool for predictability of improvement in oswestry disability index (ODI), back and leg pain (BP, LP).

METHODS

Prospective and retrospective data from multicenter registry was obtained. As outcome measure minimum clinically important change was chosen for ODI with ≥ 15-point and ≥ 2-point reduction for numeric rating scales (NRS) for BP and LP 12 months after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease. We externally validate this tool by calculating discrimination and calibration metrics such as intercept, slope, Brier Score, expected/observed ratio, Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL), AUC, sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

We included 1115 patients, average age 60.8 ± 12.5 years. For 12-month ODI, area-under-the-curve (AUC) was 0.70, the calibration intercept and slope were 1.01 and 0.84, respectively. For NRS BP, AUC was 0.72, with calibration intercept of 0.97 and slope of 0.87. For NRS LP, AUC was 0.70, with calibration intercept of 0.04 and slope of 0.72. Sensitivity ranged from 0.63 to 0.96, while specificity ranged from 0.15 to 0.68. Lack of fit was found for all three models based on HL testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing data from a multinational registry, we externally validate the SCOAP-CERTAIN prediction tool. The model demonstrated fair discrimination and calibration of predicted probabilities, necessitating caution in applying it in clinical practice. We suggest that future CPMs focus on predicting longer-term prognosis for this patient population, emphasizing the significance of robust calibration and thorough reporting.

One- and 2-year outcomes of lumbar facet arthroplasty versus spinal fusion in young (<65 years) and old (≥65 years) patients for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis

Background

Facet arthroplasty, an alternative to lumbar fusion, offers stabilization and preserves range of motion. This subanalysis of the TOPS IDE trial (FDA #G160168) compared facet arthroplasty, using the TOPS device, with a standard single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients stratified by age (<65 and ≥65 years) with symptomatic grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis with moderate to severe spinal stenosis at L2-5.

Methods

Patient-reported outcomes (PROMS), including Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog pain scales (VAS), and Zurich claudication questionnaires (ZCQ), were assessed at baseline and multiple postoperative timepoints. Radiographic evaluation of flexion/extension range of motion (ROM) occurred at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Data were analyzed following an intention-to-treat model. Significance was defined as p<.05.

Results

About 299 patients were included (TOPS=206, TLIF=93). The groups were similar at baseline. At 2 years, the TOPS group had a greater proportion of patients report ≥15-point improvement for ODI (93.8% versus 77.1%, p=.011) and ≥20-point improvement for VAS back (84.4% versus 61.8%, p=.014). At 1 year, TOPS group had a greater proportion of patients report clinically significant improvements in all ZCQ categories (91.6% versus 78.5%, p=.012). In patients <65 years, the TOPS group had improved PROMS compared to TLIF at 2 years; however, these differences were less pronounced in patients ≥65 years old. The TOPS groups preserved more ROM at 12 (2.8° 95%CI [1.87; 3.74], p<.0001) and 24 (2.99° 95%CI [1.82; 4.15], p<.0001) months compared to TLIF. ROM was similarly preserved in patients aged <65 and ≥65. The rate of adverse events did not differ significantly between treatment groups.

Conclusions

Facet arthroplasty preserves more ROM in all ages and leads to improved PROMS compared to TLIF, particularly in younger patients.

Decompression alone or with fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (Nordsten-DS): five year follow-up of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether decompression alone is non-inferior to decompression with instrumented fusion five years after primary surgery in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

DESIGN

Five year follow-up of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Nordsten-DS).

SETTING

16 public orthopaedic and neurosurgical clinics in Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18-80 years with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and a spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or more at the stenotic level.

INTERVENTIONS

Decompression surgery alone and decompression with additional instrumented fusion (1:1).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was a 30% or more reduction in Oswestry disability index from baseline to five year follow-up. The predefined non-inferiority margin was a -15 percentage point difference in the proportion of patients who met the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the mean change in Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication questionnaire, numeric rating scale for leg and back pain, and EuroQol Group 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire.

RESULTS

From 12 February 2014 to 18 December 2017, 267 participants were randomly assigned to decompression alone (n=134) and decompression with instrumented fusion (n=133). Of these, 230 (88%) responded to the five year questionnaire: 121 in the decompression group and 109 in the fusion group. Mean age at baseline was 66.2 years (SD 7.6), and 69% were women. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation of missing data, 84 (63%) of 133 people in the decompression alone group and 81 (63%) of 129 people in the fusion group had a at least a 30% reduction in Oswestry disability index, a difference of 0.4 percentage points. (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.2 to 11.9). The respective results of the per protocol analysis were 65 (65%) of 100 in the decompression alone group and 59 (66%) of 89 in the fusion group, a difference of -1.3 percentage points (95% CI -14.5 to 12.2). Both 95% CIs were higher than the predefined non-inferiority margin of -15%. The mean change in Oswestry disability index from baseline to five years was -17.8 in both groups (mean difference 0.02 (95% CI -3.8 to 3.9)). Results of the other secondary outcomes were in the same direction as the primary outcome. From two to five year follow-up, a new lumbar operation occurred in six (5%) of 123 people in the decompression group and 11 (10%) of 113 people in the fusion group, with a total from baseline to five years of 21 (16%) of 129 people and 23 (18%) of 125, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression alone was non-inferior to decompression with instrumented fusion five years after primary surgery. Proportions of subsequent surgeries at the index level or an adjacent lumbar level were no different between the groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02051374.

Reliability of facet fluid on preoperative MRI for prediction of segmental instability after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to determine whether preoperative facet fluid on MRI can help predict segmental instability (SI) after decompression surgery.

METHODS

We analyzed 34 patients (14 men and 20 women, a total of 37 segments) who underwent decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis from June 2011 to August 2019 at a single institution. Mean age at the time of operation was 67.8. Postoperative assessment was performed uniformly 12 months (11~15 months) after the surgery. Preoperative facet fluid on MRI, pre- and postoperative slip percentage, and segmental motion on lumbar lateral neutral and flexion-extension (LFE) radiographic images were measured. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and necessities of interventional procedure or medication was also assessed for clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

No significant association was found between preoperative facet fluid indices and pre- or postoperative slip percentage (P=0.134) and segmental motion (P=0.936). There were no significant association also between facet fluid indices and VAS of back or leg (P=0.997 and P=0.437 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative facet fluid is not a predictive index of postoperative segmental instability or clinical outcome. Without segmental instability on LFE radiographic images, the presence of facet fluid in MRI is not an absolute indication for fusion.

Rate of Reoperation Following Decompression-Only Procedure for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review of Literature

Background

Management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with decompression-only procedure has been performed for its added benefit of a shorter duration of surgery, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. However, reported failure rates for decompression-only procedures vary depending on the methods utilized for decompression. Hence, we aim to identify the failure rates of individual methods of decompression-only procedures performed for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Methods

An independent systematic review of 4 scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science) was performed to identify relevant articles as per the preferred reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on failure rates defined by reoperation at the index level following decompression-only procedure for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included for analysis. Studies were appraised using ROBINS tool of Cochrane, and analysis was performed using the Open Meta[Analyst] software.

Results

The overall failure rate of decompression-only procedure was 9.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] [6.5-11.7]). Furthermore, open decompression had failure rate of 10.9% (95% CI [6.0-15.8]), while microendoscopic decompression had failure rate of 6.7% (95% CI [2.9-10.6]). The failure rate gradually increased from 6.9% (95% CI [2.0-11.7]) at 1 year to 7% (95% CI [3.6-10.3]), 11.7% (95% CI [4.5-18.9]), and 11.7% (95% CI [6.6-16.7]) at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Single level decompression had a failure rate of 9.6% (95% CI [6.3-12.9]), while multilevel decompression recorded a failure rate of 8.7% (95% CI [5.6-11.7]).

Conclusion

High-quality evidence on the decompression-only procedure for degenerative spondylolisthesis is limited. The decompression-only procedure had an overall failure rate of 9.1% without significant differences between the decompression techniques.

Level of Evidence

Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: five-year clinical results from a randomized clinical trial

Aims

We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.

Methods

The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.

Results

Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)).

Conclusion

Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis.

The attainment of a patient acceptable symptom state in patients undergoing revision spine fusion

INTRODUCTION

Revision lumbar fusion is most commonly due to nonunion, adjacent segment disease (ASD), or recurrent stenosis, but it is unclear if diagnosis affects patient outcomes. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether patients achieved the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) or minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after revision lumbar fusion and assess whether this was influenced by the indication for revision.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified all 1-3 level revision lumbar fusions at a single institution. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was collected at preoperative, three-month postoperative, and one-year postoperative time points. The MCID was calculated using a distribution-based method at each postoperative time point. PASS was set at the threshold of ≤ 22.

RESULTS

We identified 197 patients: 56% with ASD, 28% with recurrent stenosis, and 15% with pseudarthrosis. The MCID for ODI was 10.05 and 10.23 at three months and one year, respectively. In total, 61% of patients with ASD, 52% of patients with nonunion, and 65% of patients with recurrent stenosis achieved our cohort-specific MCID at one year postoperatively with ASD (p = 0.78). At one year postoperatively, 33.8% of ASD patients, 47.8% of nonunion patients, and 37% of patients with recurrent stenosis achieved PASS without any difference between indication (p = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience significant postoperative improvements regardless of the indication for revision. However, a large proportion of these patients do not achieve the patient acceptable symptom state. While revision spine surgery may offer substantial benefits, these results underscore the need to manage patient expectations.

Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty Versus Fusion for Grade-I Degenerative Spondylolisthesis with Stenosis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The comparative effectiveness of decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty versus decompression plus instrumented lumbar spinal fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis is unknown.

METHODS

In this randomized, controlled, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial, we assigned patients who had single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis to undergo decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty (arthroplasty group) or decompression plus fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a predetermined composite clinical success score. Secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Short Form (SF)-12, radiographic parameters, surgical variables, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 321 adult patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with 219 patients assigned to undergo facet arthroplasty and 102 patients assigned to undergo fusion. Of these, 113 patients (51.6%) in the arthroplasty group and 47 (46.1%) in the fusion group who had either reached 24 months of postoperative follow-up or were deemed early clinical failures were included in the primary outcome analysis. The arthroplasty group had a higher proportion of patients who achieved composite clinical success than did the fusion group (73.5% versus 25.5%; p < 0.001), equating to a between-group difference of 47.9% (95% confidence interval, 33.0% to 62.8%). The arthroplasty group outperformed the fusion group in most patient-reported outcome measures (including the ODI, VAS back pain, and all ZCQ component scores) at 24 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups in surgical variables or complications, except that the fusion group had a higher rate of developing symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis, lumbar facet arthroplasty was associated with a higher rate of composite clinical success than fusion was at 24 months postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Lumbar Decompression With and Without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis With Spondylolisthesis: A Cost Utility Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Markov model.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of lumbar decompression alone (DA) with lumbar decompression with fusion (DF) for the management of adults undergoing surgery for lumbar stenosis with associated degenerative spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Rates of lumbar fusion have increased for all indications in the United States over the last 20 years. Recent randomized controlled trial data, however, have suggested comparable functional outcomes and lower reoperation rates for lumbar decompression and fusion as compared with DA in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multistate Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective of a hypothetical cohort of patients with lumbar stenosis with associated spondylolisthesis requiring surgery. Data regarding clinical improvement, costs, and reoperation were generated from contemporary randomized trial evidence, meta-analyses of recent prospective studies, and large retrospective cohorts. Base case, one-way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, and the results were compared with a WTP threshold of $100,000 (in 2022 USD) over a two-year time horizon. A discount rate of 3% was utilized.

RESULTS

The incremental cost and utility of DF relative to DA were $12,778 and 0.00529 aggregated quality adjusted life years. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2,416,281 far exceeded the willingness to pay threshold of $100,000. In sensitivity analysis, the results varied the most with respect to rate of improvement after DA, rate of improvement after lumbar decompression and fusion, and odds ratio of reoperation between the two groups. Zero percent of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses achieved cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of contemporary surgical data, DF is not cost-effective compared with DA in the surgical management of lumbar stenosis with associated spondylolisthesis over a two-year time horizon.

Longitudinal Analysis of the Care Pathway of Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in the US

Background

Evidence regarding the frequency and timing of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) fails to offer clear consensus. We describe the LSS care journey from initial diagnosis to first surgical intervention.

Methods

Using Medicare claims database from 2009 through 2020, we identified patients who were diagnosed with LSS. The use and timing of conservative and surgical treatments during the entire follow-up from the initial diagnosis were reported.

Results

Of the 143,849 patients identified, 68% received conservative care within 8.4 months and 25.3% received a surgical or minimally invasive intervention over 5.7 years following initial diagnosis, with 12.6% undergoing open decompression alone, 10.2% undergoing open decompression with fusion, and 5.1% undergoing fusion surgery alone. Fewer than 1% were provided with interspinous spacers or a percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression.

Conclusion

Approximately three-quarters of patients in the study received no surgical or non-invasive interventions for approximately six years following diagnosis with LSS.

The Gathering Storm: The 2023 Rovenstine Lecture

Anesthesiologists are currently in demand and highly compensated. What appears to be a great success from our perspective is considered problematic from every other healthcare perspective. Consequently, there are powerful healthcare forces seeking to improve anesthesia access and reduce service cost. They will try to impose solutions that may radically change operative anesthesia. The Rovenstine lecture, delivered on World Anesthesia Day 2023, identified substantial challenges our specialty faces and discusses solutions that might be forced on us. It also presented opportunities in perioperative care.

Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments.

METHODS

The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria.

RESULTS

The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

Dural Sac Cross-sectional area change from preoperatively and up to 2 years after decompressive surgery for central lumbar spinal stenosis: investigation of operated levels, data from the NORDSTEN study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to investigate how canal area size changed from before surgery and up to 2 years after decompressive lumbar surgery lumbar spinal stenosis. Further, to investigate if an area change postoperatively (between 3 months to 2 years) was associated with any preoperative demographic, clinical or MRI variables or surgical method used.

METHODS

The present study is analysis of data from the NORDSTEN- SST trial where 437 patients were randomized to one of three mini-invasive surgical methods for lumbar spinal stenosis. The patients underwent MRI examination of the lumbar spine before surgery, and 3 and 24 months after surgery. For all operated segments the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) was measured in mm2. Baseline factors collected included age, gender, BMI and smoking habits. Furthermore, surgical method, index level, number of levels operated, all levels operated on and baseline Schizas grade were also included in the analysis.

RESULTS

437 patients were enrolled in the NORDSTEN-SST trial, whereof 310 (71%) had MRI at 3 months and 2 years. Mean DSCA at index level was 52.0 mm2 (SD 21.2) at baseline, at 3 months it increased to 117.2 mm2 (SD 43.0) and after 2 years the area was 127.7 mm2 (SD 52.5). Surgical method, level operated on or Schizas did not influence change in DSCA from 3 to 24 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The spinal canal area after lumbar decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis increased from baseline to 3 months after surgery and remained thereafter unchanged 2 years postoperatively.

Recovery of the Japanese orthopedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire score and walking ability following lumbar spinal stenosis surgery

PURPOSE

We investigated the recovery of the Japanese orthopedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ) scores and 6 min walk distance (6MWD) in patients after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and identified the items among 25 questions of JOABPEQ that showed recovery.

METHODS

A total of 227 patients (average age 71.5 years; SD: 7.5; 121 men) were included from a single center. The outcome measures were JOABPEQ, visual analog scale (VAS), and 6MWD and obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Mixed-model repeated measures were used to compare the variables at each time point between the surgery groups.

RESULTS

The JOABPEQ, VAS, and 6MWD scores generally improved at 1 month postoperatively compared with those obtained preoperatively, and some parameters further improved at 3 months. However, improvement in the lumbar spine dysfunction item of JOABPEQ was delayed, showing improvement at 3 months postoperatively for decompression surgery (average score: pre, 64.6; 3 months, 78.5) and 6 months postoperatively for fusion surgery (average score: Pre, 64.3; 6 months, 77.1). Responses to the individual JOABPEQ questions generally improved after surgery. No significant changes in lumbar spine dysfunction occurred in the fusion group.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated the early postoperative recovery course of JOABPEQ and 6MWD. In the fusion group, significant changes in lumbar spine dysfunction started at 6 months postoperatively. These findings could help medical staff explain postoperative recovery to patients after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery and in their decision making regarding surgery.

Development and Validation of Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model for Prolonged Hospital Stay after Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis

Introduction

Precise prediction of hospital stay duration is essential for maximizing resource utilization during surgery. Existing lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) surgery prediction models lack accuracy and generalizability. Machine learning can improve accuracy by considering preoperative factors. This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning-based model for estimating hospital stay duration following decompression surgery for LSS.

Methods

Data from 848 patients who underwent decompression surgery for LSS at three hospitals were examined. Twelve prediction models, using 79 preoperative variables, were developed for postoperative hospital stay estimation. The top five models were chosen. Fourteen models predicted prolonged hospital stay (≥14 days), and the most accurate model was chosen. Models were validated using a randomly divided training sample (70%) and testing cohort (30%).

Results

The top five models showed moderate linear correlations (0.576-0.624) between predicted and measured values in the testing sample. The ensemble of these models had moderate prediction accuracy for final length of stay (linear correlation 0.626, absolute mean error 2.26 days, standard deviation 3.45 days). The c5.0 decision tree model was the top predictor for prolonged hospital stay, with accuracies of 89.63% (training) and 87.2% (testing). Key predictors for longer stay included JOABPEQ social life domain, facility, history of vertebral fracture, diagnosis, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of low back pain.

Conclusions

A machine learning-based model was developed to predict postoperative hospital stay after LSS decompression surgery, using data from multiple hospital settings. Numerical prediction of length of stay was not very accurate, although favorable prediction of prolonged stay was accomplished using preoperative factors. The JOABPEQ social life domain score was the most important predictor.

Opportunistic prediction of osteoporosis in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases: a simplified T12 vertebral bone quality approach

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is one of the risk factors for screw loosening after lumbar fusion. However, the probability of preoperative osteoporosis screening in patients with lumbar degenerative disease is low. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether a simplified vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score based on T12 T1-MRI could opportunistically predict osteoporosis in patients with degenerative lumbar spine diseases.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed cases treated for lumbar degenerative diseases at a single institution between August 2021 and June 2022. The patients were divided into three groups by the lowest T-score: osteoporosis group, osteopenia group, and normal bone mineral density (BMD) group. The signal intensity based on the T12 vertebral body divided by the signal intensity of the cerebrospinal fluid was calculated to obtain the simplified VBQ score, as well as the CT-based T12HU value and the traditional L1-4VBQ score. Various statistical analyses were used to compare VBQ, HU and DEXA, and the optimal T12VBQ threshold for predicting osteoporosis was obtained by plotting the receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

Total of 166 patients were included in this study. There was a statistically significant difference in T12VBQ scores between the three groups (p < 0.001). Pearson correlation showed that there was a moderate correlation between T12VBQ and T-score (r=-0.406, p < 0.001). The AUC value of T12VBQ, which distinguishes between normal and low BMD, was 0.756, and the optimal diagnostic threshold was 2.94. The AUC value of T12VBQ, which distinguishes osteoporosis from non-osteoporosis, was 0.634, and the optimal diagnostic threshold was 3.18.

CONCLUSION

T12VBQ can be used as an effective opportunistic screening method for osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. It can be used as a supplement to the evaluation of DEXA and preoperative evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

retrospectively registered number:1502-009-644; retrospectively registered number date:27 oct 2022.

Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the optimal surgical fusion approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis, to provide the latest and most reliable evidence for future clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Ovid-Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to September 1, 2023, to identify relevant records. Two independent reviewers performed the literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of study quality.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving 892 patients met the inclusion criteria. The network evidence plot showed that posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were the most used fusion techniques. The network meta-analysis results revealed that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) had a significantly greater improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) compared to endoscopic-TLIF, while PLIF had a significantly better fusion effect than posterolateral fusion. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed between other fusion surgeries in terms of improving ODI, fusion rate, complications, or the improvement of visual analog scale-low back pain. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve results indicated that MIS-TLIF had the greatest potential for improving ODI, visual analog scale-low back pain, and complications, while PLIF had the greatest potential for increasing fusion rates. However, the existing selection bias, measurement bias, reporting bias, and publication bias may have reduced the reliability of the meta-analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the various fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis, MIS-TLIF appears to provide the greatest benefit to patients. However, more high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to further investigate the treatment efficacy of different fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Projections of Single-level and Multilevel Spinal Instrumentation Procedure Volume and Associated Costs for Medicare Patients to 2050

BACKGROUND

Instrumented spinal fusions can be used in the treatment of vertebral fractures, spinal instability, and scoliosis or kyphosis. Construct-level selection has notable implications on postoperative recovery, alignment, and mobility. This study sought to project future trends in the implementation rates and associated costs of single-level versus multilevel instrumentation procedures in US Medicare patients aged older than 65 years in the United States.

METHODS

Data were acquired from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2019. Procedure costs and counts were abstracted using Current Procedural Terminology codes to identify spinal level involvement. The Prophet machine learning algorithm was used, using a Bayesian Inference framework, to generate point forecasts for 2020 to 2050 and 95% forecast intervals (FIs). Sensitivity analyses were done by comparing projections from linear, log-linear, Poisson and negative-binomial, and autoregressive integrated moving average models. Costs were adjusted for inflation using the 2019 US Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2019, the annual spinal instrumentation volume increased by 776% (from 7,342 to 64,350 cases) for single level, by 329% (from 20,319 to 87,253 cases) for two-four levels, by 1049% (from 1,218 to 14,000 cases) for five-seven levels, and by 739% (from 193 to 1,620 cases) for eight-twelve levels (P < 0.0001). The inflation-adjusted reimbursement for single-level instrumentation procedures decreased 45.6% from $1,148.15 to $788.62 between 2000 and 2019, which is markedly lower than for other prevalent orthopaedic procedures: total shoulder arthroplasty (-23.1%), total hip arthroplasty (-39.2%), and total knee arthroplasty (-42.4%). By 2050, the number of single-level spinal instrumentation procedures performed yearly is projected to be 124,061 (95% FI, 87,027 to 142,907), with associated costs of $93,900,672 (95% FI, $80,281,788 to $108,220,932).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of single-level instrumentation procedures is projected to double by 2050, while the number of two-four level procedures will double by 2040. These projections offer a measurable basis for resource allocation and procedural distribution.

Surgical site infection rates in open versus endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Lumbar decompression is a commonly performed procedure for the operative management of several degenerative lumbar spinal pathologies. Although open approaches are considered the traditional method, endoscopic techniques represent a relatively novel, less-invasive option to achieve neural element decompression. Here within, we examine if the use of endoscopic techniques decreases the risk of post operative infections.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis to directly compare patients who underwent either open or endoscopic lumbar decompression at a single institution. Rates of postoperative outcomes such as surgical site infection, hospital length of stay, estimated blood loss, and others were compared between the two treatment groups. A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed using patient comorbidities and procedural characteristics to identify the risk factors for surgical site infection.

Results

150 patients were identified as undergoing lumbar spine decompression surgeries that met inclusion criteria for the study, of whom 108 (72.0%) underwent open and 61 (28.0%) underwent endoscopic approaches. Unpaired analysis revealed positive associations between operative duration, estimated blood loss, drain placement rates. Multivariate logistic regression did not reveal an association between surgical approach (open versus endoscopic) and the development of surgical site infection.

Conclusions

Surgical site infections following endoscopic lumbar spine decompression are relatively uncommon, however, after adjusting for baseline differences between patient populations, surgical approach does not independently predict the development of postoperative infection.

Biomechanical response of decompression alone in lower grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis--A finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated the clinical efficacy of decompression alone in lower-grade spondylolisthesis. A higher rate of surgical revision and a lower rate of back pain relief was also observed. However, there is a lack of relevant biomechanical evidence after decompression alone for lower-grade spondylolisthesis.

PURPOSE

Evaluating the biomechanical characteristics of total laminectomy, hemilaminectomy, and facetectomy for lower-grade spondylolisthesis by analyzing the range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP), annulus fibrosus stress (AFS), facet joints contact force (FJCF), and isthmus stress (IS).

METHODS

Firstly, we utilized finite element tools to develop a normal lumbar model and subsequently constructed a spondylolisthesis model based on the normal model. We then performed total laminectomy, hemilaminectomy, and one-third facetectomy in the normal model and spondylolisthesis model, respectively. Finally, we analyzed parameters, such as ROM, IDP, AFS, FJCF, and IS, for all the models under the same concentrate force and moment.

RESULTS

The intact spondylolisthesis model showed a significant increase in the relative parameters, including ROM, AFS, FJCF, and IS, compared to the intact normal lumbar model. Hemilaminectomy and one-third facetectomy in both spondylolisthesis and normal lumbar models did not result in an obvious change in ROM, IDP, AFS, FJCF, and IS compared to the pre-operative state. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the degree of parameter changes between the spondylolisthesis and normal lumbar models after undergoing the same surgical procedures. However, total laminectomy significantly increased ROM, AFS, and IS and decreased the FJCF in both normal lumbar models and spondylolisthesis models.

CONCLUSION

Hemilaminectomy and one-third facetectomy did not have a significant impact on the segment stability of lower-grade spondylolisthesis; however, patients with LDS undergoing hemilaminectomy and one-third facetectomy may experience higher isthmus stress on the surgical side during rotation. In addition, total laminectomy changes the biomechanics in both normal lumbar models and spondylolisthesis models.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Epidural Analgesia for Pain Relief After Lumbar Interlaminar Decompressive Spine Surgery: The RAPID trial

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

If an intraoperative single bolus of epidural bupivacaine can result in less postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Adequate postoperative pain management following lumbar spinal decompression surgery is important, as it will lead to early mobilization, less complications, and a shorter hospital stay. Opioid consumption should be limited due to their frequently accompanied side effects and their addictive nature. During the final phase of lumbar decompression surgery, the epidural space becomes easily accessible. This might be an ideal moment for surgeons to administer an epidural bolus of analgesia as a safe and effective method for postoperative pain relief.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this trial, we compared a single intraoperative bolus of epidural analgesia using bupivacaine 0.25% to placebo (NaCl 0.9%) and its effect on postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery. The primary outcome was the difference in Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale between the intervention and placebo groups during the first 48 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

Both the intervention group and the placebo group consisted of 20 randomized patients (N=40). Statistically significant lower mean Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale pain scores were observed in the intervention group in comparison with the control group (main effect group: -2.35±0.77, P =0.004). The average pain score was lower in the intervention group at all postoperative time points. No study-related complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

This randomized controlled trial shows that administrating a bolus of intraoperative epidural bupivacaine is a safe and effective method for reducing early postoperative pain following lumbar decompression surgery.

The Impact of Frailty on Surgical Outcome of Patients with Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis

Introduction

Frailty is an important factor in surgical outcomes. The current study aimed to evaluate the effect of preoperative frailty on postoperative outcomes in older patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS).

Methods

We retrospectively examined 209 patients aged ≥65 years who underwent surgery for LSCS. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) tools, including the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), were used in the assessment conducted before surgery and at 6 months and 1 year after surgery. Frailty was categorized based on the 11-item modified frailty index (mFI-11). Patients with mFI-11 of 0, <0.21, and >0.21 were classified under the robust (R), pre-frailty (P), and frailty (F) groups, respectively.

Results

According to the mFI-11, 24, 138, and 47 patients were included in the R, P, and F groups, respectively. Regarding preoperative radiographic parameters, there was a remarkable increase in the sagittal vertical axis and a significant decrease in the development of lumbar lordosis with frailty progression. The preoperative scores of RDQ and ZCQ, and lumbar function, walking ability, social life, and psychological disorder domain scores of JOABPEQ differed significantly among these groups. The frequency of revision surgery was not higher in the F group than in the other groups. After adjustment for factors have shown different distributions among the three groups, the frequency of effective surgical cases did not show a clear trend among the three groups in all domains of the JOABPEQ.

Conclusions

The preoperative HRQOL scores and the radiographic parameters of patients with LSCS worsened with frailty severity. However, frailty did not affect the rate of revision surgery and surgical efficacy in patients with LSCS. Although this study has limitations, our findings indicated that even LSCS patients with frailty can be considered for surgery if they have an indication for LSCS surgery.