Isthmic Spondylolisthesis is Associated with Less Revisions for Adjacent Segment Disease After Lumbar Spine Fusion Than Degenerative Spinal Conditions: A 10-Year Follow-Up Study

Benefits of lumbar spine fusion surgery reach 10 years with various surgical indications

Background Context

Lumbar spine fusion (LSF) surgery is a viable form of treatment for several spinal disorders. Treatment effects are preferably to be endorsed in real-life settings.

Methods

This prospective study evaluated the 10-year outcomes of LSF. A population-based series of elective LSFs performed at 2 spine centers between January 2008 and June 2012 were enrolled. Surgeries for tumor, acute fracture, or infection, neuromuscular scoliosis, or postoperative conditions were excluded. The following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected at baseline, and 1, 2, 5, and 10 years postsurgery: VAS for back and leg pain, ODI, SF-36. Longitudinal measures of PROMs were analyzed using mixed-effects models.

Results

A total of 683 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 630 (92%) of them completed baseline and at least 1 follow-up PROMs, and they constituted the study population. Mean age was 61 (SD 12) years, 69% women. According to surgical indication, patients were stratified into degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS, n=332, 53%), spinal stenosis (SS, n=102, 16%), isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS, n=97, 15%), degenerative disc disease (DDD, n=52, 8%), and deformity (DF, n=47, 7%).All diagnostic cohorts demonstrated significant improvement at 1 year, followed by a partial loss of benefits by 10 years. ODI baselines and changes at 1 and 10 years were: (DS) 45, -21, and -14; (SS) 51, -24, and -13; (IS) 41, -24, and -20; (DDD) 50, -20, and -20; and (DF) 50, -21, and -16, respectively. Comparable patterns were seen in pain scores. Significant HRQoL achievements were recorded in all cohorts, greatest in physical domains, but also substantial in mental aspects of HRQoL.

Conclusions

Benefits of LSF were partially lost but still meaningful at 10 years of surgery. Long-term benefits seemed milder with degenerative conditions, reflecting the progress of the ongoing spinal degeneration. Benefits were most overt in pain and physical function measures.

A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy

Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.