Association of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Severe Disability and Mortality Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The Locomotive Syndrome and Health Outcomes in the Aizu Cohort Study

Single-Level Anterolateral and Posterior Interbody Fusion Techniques are Associated With Equivalent Long-Term Lumbar Reoperations

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares reoperation rates and complications following single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)/lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)/posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ALIF, LLIF, TLIF, and PLIF are widely used for degenerative disc disease. Lumbar interbody fusions have high rates of reoperation, primarily related to adjacent segment pathology and pseudarthrosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PearlDiver database was queried for patients (2010-2021) who had single-level ALIF/LLIF or TLIF/PLIF with same-day, single-level posterior instrumentation. ALIF/LLIF were combined, and similarly, TLIF/PLIF were combined, given how these operations are indistinguishable from Current Procedural Terminology coding. All patients were followed for ≥2 years and excluded if they had spinal traumas, fractures, infections, or neoplasms before surgery. The two cohorts, ALIF/LLIF and TLIF/PLIF, were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, Elixhauser-comorbidity index, smoking status, and diabetes. The primary outcome was the incidence of all-cause subsequent lumbar operations. Secondary outcomes included 90-day surgical complications.

RESULTS

After 1:1 matching, each cohort contained 14,070 patients. All-cause subsequent lumbar operations were nearly identical at five-year follow-up (9.4% ALIF/LLIF vs. 9.5% TLIF/PLIF, P =0.91). Survival analysis using all-cause subsequent lumbar operations as the endpoint showed an equivalent 10-year survival rate of 86.0% (95%CI: 85.2-86.8). Within 90 days, TLIF/PLIF had more infections (1.3% vs. 1.7%, P =0.007) and dural injuries (0.2% vs. 0.4%, P =0.001). There was no difference in wound dehiscence, hardware complications, or medical complications.

CONCLUSION

As utilized in real-world clinical practice, single-level anterolateral versus posterior approaches for interbody fusion have no effect on long-term reoperation rates.

Walking Biomechanics and Spine Loading in Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a leading cause of pain and mobility limitation in older adults. It is clinically believed that patients with lumbar spinal stenosis adopt a flexed trunk posture or bend forward and alter their gait pattern to improve tolerance for walking. However, a biomechanical assessment of spine posture and motion during walking is broadly lacking in these patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate lumbar spine and pelvic sagittal angles and lumbar spine compressive loads in standing and walking and to determine the effect of pain and neurogenic claudication symptoms in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Seven participants with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, aged 44–82, underwent a 3D opto-electronic motion analysis during standing and walking trials in asymptomatic and symptomatic states. Passive reflective marker clusters (four markers each) were attached to participants at T1, L1, and S2 levels of the spine, with additional reflective markers at other spinal levels, as well as the head, pelvis, and extremities. Whole-body motion data was collected during standing and walking trials in asymptomatic and symptomatic states. The results showed that the spine was slightly flexed during walking, but this was not affected by symptoms. Pelvic tilt was not different when symptoms were present, but suggests a possible effect of more forward tilt in both standing (p = 0.052) and walking (p = 0.075). Lumbar spine loading during symptomatic walking was increased by an average of 7% over asymptomatic walking (p = 0.001). Our results did not show increased spine flexion (adopting a trunk-flexed posture) and only indicate a trend for a small forward shift of the pelvis during both symptomatic walking and standing. This suggests that provocation of symptoms in these patients does not markedly affect their normal gait kinematics. The finding of increased spine loading with provocation of symptoms supports our hypothesis that spine loading plays a role in limiting walking function in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, but additional work is needed to understand the biomechanical cause of this increase.