ODI <25 Denotes Patient Acceptable Symptom State After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spine Surgery

Early Experiences With Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Safety and Outcomes

Background

Performing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in a single prone position may pose many advantages over the traditional lateral decubitus position, but there are questions concerning its safety profile and outcomes.

Purpose

We sought to study the safety and efficacy of LLIF performed with the patient in the prone position.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including patients who underwent primary LLIF in the prone position for degenerative lumbar conditions. Complications and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], and visual analogue scale [VAS] scores for leg and back pain) were collected. Patients who underwent single-position prone LLIF were then propensity score matched for age, race, comorbidity index, number of levels, body mass index, and smoking status with patients who underwent single-position lateral LLIF. Patient-reported outcome measures and complications were compared between the 2 groups. Two postoperative timepoints were defined: early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months).

Results

Twenty single-position prone LLIF patients were included (35% 1-level, 35% 2-level, 15% 3-level, and 15% 4-level). No intraoperative complications were reported. Eleven (55%) patients experienced transient postoperative anterior thigh weakness. Five (25%) patients experienced postoperative complications such as anemia, urinary retention, ileus, and new-onset sensory symptoms. Oswestry Disability Index, VAS leg, and VAS back scores all improved at the >6-month time point compared with preoperative states. There were no significant differences at any postoperative time point for PROMs between prone and lateral LLIF groups. Among the matched cohort, complications were observed in 3 (21%) of patients compared with only 1 (7%) in the lateral group although this difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

This retrospective study suggests that prone LLIF procedures may be safe and effective. Ergonomic and logistic benefits from the approach may make it a beneficial approach for surgeons to begin implementing.

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.

Practical Answers to Frequently Asked Questions in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery for Degenerative Conditions

INTRODUCTION

Surgical counseling enables shared decision making and optimal outcomes by improving patients' understanding about their pathologies, surgical options, and expected outcomes. Here, we aimed to provide practical answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) from patients undergoing an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) for the treatment of degenerative conditions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary one-level or two-level ACDF or CDR for the treatment of degenerative conditions with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Data were used to answer 10 FAQs that were generated from author's experience of commonly asked questions in clinic before ACDF or CDR.

RESULTS

A total of 395 patients (181 ACDF, 214 CDR) were included. (1, 2, and 3) Will my neck/arm pain and physical function improve? Patients report notable improvement in all patient-reported outcome measures. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? 13% (ACDF) and 5% (CDR) reported worsening. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? Patients on average received a 3.7 (ACDF) and 5.5 mGy (CDR) dose during. (6) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one. (7) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 13% (8% minor and 5% major) experienced in-hospital complications (ACDF) and 5% (all minor) did (CDR). (8) Will I need another surgery? 2.2% (ACDF) and 2.3% (CDR) of patients required a revision surgery. (9 & 10) When will I be able to return to work/driving? Most patients return to working (median of 16 [ACDF] and 14 days [CDR]) and driving (median of 16 [ACDF] and 12 days [CDR]).

CONCLUSIONS

The answers to the FAQs can assist surgeons in evidence-based patient counseling.

Patient-reported outcomes after minimally invasive sacro-iliac joint surgery: a cohort study based on the Swedish Spine Registry

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is conflicting evidence regarding treatment outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for long-lasting severe sacroiliac joint pain. The primary aim of our cohort study was to investigate change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint surgery in daily practice in the Swedish Spine Registry. Secondary aims were to explore the proportion of patients reaching a patient acceptable symptom score (PASS) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for pain scores, physical function, and health-related quality of life outcomes; furthermore, to evaluate self-reported satisfaction, walking distance, and changes in proportions of patients on full sick leave/disability leave and report complications and reoperations.

METHODS

Data from the Swedish Spine Registry was collected for patients with first-time sacroiliac joint fusion, aged 21 to 70 years, with PROMs available preoperatively, at 1 or 2 years after last surgery. PROMs included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for low back pain (LBP) and leg pain, and EQ-VAS, in addition to demographic variables. We calculated mean change from pre- to postoperative and the proportion of patients achieving MCID and PASS.

RESULTS

68 patients had available pre- and postoperative data, with a mean age of 45 years (range 25-70) and 59 (87%) were female. At follow-up the mean reduction was 2.3 NRS points (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-2.9; P < 0.001) for LBP and 14.8 points (CI 10.6-18.9; P < 0.001) for ODI. EQ-VAS improved by 22 points (CI 15.4-30.3, P < 0.001) at follow-up. Approximately half of the patients achieved MCID and PASS for pain (MCID NRS LBP: 38/65 [59%] and PASS NRS LBP: 32/66 [49%]) and physical function (MCID ODI: 27/67 [40%] and PASS ODI: 24/67 [36%]). The odds for increasing the patient's walking distance to over 1 km at follow-up were 3.5 (CI 1.8-7.0; P < 0.0001), and of getting off full sick leave or full disability leave was 0.57 (CI 0.4-0.8; P = 0.001). In the first 3 months after surgery 3 complications were reported, and in the follow-up period 2 reoperations.

CONCLUSION

We found moderate treatment outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion when applied in daily practice with moderate pain relief and small improvements in physical function.

The Impact of Preoperative Sagittal Imbalance on Long-term Postoperative Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Laminectomy

Background: Postoperative sagittal alignment has been shown to be associated with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following open lumbar decompression procedures, although it is unknown whether preoperative sagittal imbalance affects clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) decompression only surgery. Purpose: We sought to evaluate the impact of preoperative pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) imbalance on PROMs after MIS laminectomy for the treatment of neurogenic claudication symptoms. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing MIS laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between April 2017 and April 2021 at a single institution. Of the 52 patients included (mean follow-up, 17 months) radiographs were taken prior to surgery and assessed for sagittal alignment parameters. Patients were grouped based on the preoperative PI-LL (balanced vs unbalanced). Changes in PROMs were compared between unbalanced PI-LL and balanced PI-LL groups. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was also assessed. Results: Of the 52 patients, 17 (32.7%) had unbalanced age-adjusted preoperative PI-LL. There was no significant difference found in PROMs between unbalanced and balanced PI-LL groups preoperatively or at final follow-up. Compared with those with unbalanced PI-LL, patients with balanced PI-LL were shown to have no added benefit in achieving MCID for ODI at long-term follow-up and no added benefit in the time to achieving MCID. Conclusion: These retrospective findings suggest that patients with unbalanced preoperative PI-LL may experience significant benefit in long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy, similarly to those with balanced PI-LL at baseline. The findings also suggest that the presence of sagittal imbalance preoperatively may not appreciably influence the long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy. Prospective study involving a larger population is warranted.

Comparison of the Safety of Inpatient Versus Outpatient Lumbar Fusion : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to synthesize the early data regarding and analyze the safety profile of outpatient lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Performing lumbar fusion in an outpatient or ambulatory setting is becoming an increasingly employed strategy to provide effective value-based care. As this is an emerging option for surgeons to employ in their practices, the data is still in its infancy.

METHODS

This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that described outcomes of inpatient and outpatient lumbar fusion cohorts were searched from PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, and Embase. Rates of individual medical and surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation were collected when applicable. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were additionally collected if reported. Individual pooled comparative meta-analysis was performed for outcomes of medical complications, surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation. PROMs were reviewed and qualitatively reported.

RESULTS

The search yielded 14 publications that compared outpatient and inpatient cohorts with a total of 75,627 patients. Odds of readmission demonstrated no significant difference between outpatient and inpatient cohorts [OR=0.94 (0.81-1.11)]. Revision surgery similarly was no different between the cohorts [OR=0.81 (0.57-1.15)]. Pooled medical and surgical complications demonstrated significantly decreased odds for outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts [OR=0.58 (0.34-0.50), OR=0.41 (0.50-0.68), respectively]. PROM measures were largely the same between the cohorts when reported, with few studies showing better ODI and VAS Leg outcomes among outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary data regarding the safety of outpatient lumbar fusion demonstrates a favorable safety profile in appropriately selected patients, with PROMs remaining comparable in this setting. There is no data in the form of prospective and randomized trials which is necessary to definitively change practice.

Predictors of Subsidence and its Clinical Impact After Expandable Cage Insertion in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected multisurgeon data.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the rate, clinical impact, and predictors of subsidence after expandable minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) cage.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Expandable cage technology has been adopted in MI-TLIF to reduce the risks and optimize outcomes. Although subsidence is of particular concern when using expandable technology as the force required to expand the cage can weaken the endplates, its rates, predictors, and outcomes lack evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level MI-TLIF using expandable cages for degenerative lumbar conditions and had a follow-up of >1 year were included. Preoperative and immediate, early, and late postoperative radiographs were reviewed. Subsidence was determined if the average anterior/posterior disc height decreased by >25% compared with the immediate postoperative value. Patient-reported outcomes were collected and analyzed for differences at the early (<6 mo) and late (>6 mo) time points. Fusion was assessed by 1-year postoperative computed tomography.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-eight patients were included (mean age, 61 yr, 86% 1-level, 14% 2-level). Twenty-two (14.9%) demonstrated subsidence. Although statistically not significant, patients with subsidence were older, had lower bone mineral density, and had higher body mass index and comorbidity burden. Operative time was significantly higher ( P = 0.02) and implant width was lower ( P < 0.01) for subsided patients. Visual analog scale-leg was significantly lower for subsided patients compared with nonsubsided patients at a >6 months time point. Long-term (>6 mo) patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rate was lower for subsided patients (53% vs . 77%), although statistically not significant ( P = 0.065). No differences existed in complication, reoperation, or fusion rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the patients, 14.9% experienced subsidence predicted by narrower implants. Although subsidence did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported outcome measures and complication, reoperation, or fusion rates, patients had lower visual analog scale-leg and patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rates at the >6-month time point.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

Preoperative Disability Influences Effectiveness of MCID and PASS in Predicting Patient Improvement Following Lumbar Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) are utilized to interpret Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), it is unclear whether there is a clearly better metric between the two and if not, which metric should be utilized when.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the characteristics of MCID and PASS when interpreting ODI after lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or decompression were included. The ODI and global rating change data at 1 year were analyzed. The global rating change was collapsed to a dichotomous outcome variable-(a) improved, (b) not improved The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of MCID and PASS were calculated for the overall cohort and separately for patients with minimal, moderate, and severe preoperative disability. Two groups with patients who achieved PASS but not MCID and patients who achieved MCID but not PASS were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty patients (mean age 62 y, 57% males) were included. PASS (86% vs. 69%) and MCID (88% vs. 63%) had significantly greater sensitivity in patients with moderate and severe preoperative disability, respectively. Nineteen percent of patients achieved PASS but not MCID and 10% of patients achieved MCID but not PASS, with the preoperative ODI being significantly greater in the latter. Most of these patients still reported improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (93% vs. 86%).

CONCLUSION

Significant postoperative clinical improvement is most effectively assessed by PASS in patients with minimal or moderate preoperative disability and by MCID in patients with severe preoperative disability. Adequate interpretation of ODI using the PASS and MCID metrics warrants individualized application as their utility is highly dependent on the degree of preoperative disability.

Preoperative Disability Influences Effectiveness of Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Predicting Patient Improvement Following Cervical Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the characteristics of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) metrics when interpreting Neck Disability Index (NDI) following cervical spine surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary cervical fusion, discectomy, or laminectomy were included. NDI and global rating change (GRC) data at 6 months/1 year/2 years were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MCID and PASS in predicting improvement on GRC were calculated for the overall cohort and separately for patients with minimal (NDI <30), moderate (NDI 30 - 49), and severe (NDI ≥ 50) preoperative disability. Two groups with patients who achieved PASS but not MCID and patients who achieved MCID but not PASS were analyzed.

RESULTS

141 patients (206 responses) were included. PASS had significantly greater sensitivity for the overall cohort (85% vs 73% with MCID, P = .02) and patients with minimal disability (96% vs 53% with MCID, P < .001). MCID had greater sensitivity for patients with severe disability (78% vs 57% with PASS, P = .05). Sensitivity was not significantly different for PASS and MCID in patients with moderate preoperative disability (83% vs 92%, P = .1). 17% of patients achieved PASS but not MCID and 9% of patients achieved MCID but not PASS. Most of these patients still reported improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (89% vs 72%, P = .13).

CONCLUSION

PASS and MCID are better metrics for patients with minimal and severe preoperative disability, respectively. Both metrics are equally effective for patients with moderate preoperative disability.

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state

PURPOSE

While patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) define value in spine surgery, several values such as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) help guide the interpretation of PROMs and identify thresholds of clinical significance. Significant variation exists in reported values and their calculation, so the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the spine surgery literature for metrics of clinical significance derived from PROMs.

METHODS

We conducted a query of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to January 1, 2023, for studies that derived quantitative metrics (e.g., SCB, MCID, PASS) from PROMs in the setting of spine surgery with minimum 1-year follow-up. Details regarding the specific PROMs were collected including which PROM was measured, whether anchor- or distribution-based methods were utilized, the specific calculations, and the recommended value for a given PROM based on all evaluated calculations.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies of 21,780 patients were included. The most commonly evaluated PROM-derived value was the MCID (n = 28), followed by PASS (n = 6) and SCB (n = 4). Twenty-one studies only utilized anchor-based calculations, 15 utilized both anchor-based and distribution-based methods, and one only utilized distribution-based calculations. The most commonly evaluated legacy PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (N = 11, MCID range 4-20) and visual analog scale back pain (N = 5, MCID range 0.5-4.6). All 10 studies that derived SCB or PASS utilized the receiver operating characteristic methods. Among the six studies deriving a PASS value, four only evaluated ODI, identifying PASS ranging from 5 to 22.

CONCLUSION

While calculated measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB exist, significant heterogeneity exists in the current literature. Current shortcomings include a wide variability of reported value thresholds across the literature, and limited applicability to more heterogenous patient populations than the targeted cohorts included in published investigations. Continued investigations that apply these methods to heterogenous, large-scale populations can help increase generalizability and validity of these measures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Floor-Mounted Robotic Pedicle Screw Placement in Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Analysis of 1,050 Screws

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the usage of floor-mounted robot in minimally invasive lumbar fusion.

METHODS

Patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology using floor-mounted robot (ExcelsiusGPS) were included. Pedicle screw accuracy, proximal level violation rate, pedicle screw size, screw-related complications, and robot abandonment rate were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients were included. Most surgeries were primary single-level fusion. Sixty-five percent of surgeries had intraoperative computed tomography (CT) workflow, 35% had preoperative CT workflow. Sixty-six percent were transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 16% were lateral, 8% were anterior, and 10% were a combined approach. A total of 1,050 screws were placed with robotic assistance (85% in prone position, 15% in lateral position). Postoperative CT scan was available for 80 patients (419 screws). Overall pedicle screw accuracy rate was 96.4% (prone, 96.7%; lateral, 94.2%; primary, 96.7%; revision, 95.3%). Overall poor screw placement rate was 2.8% (prone, 2.7%; lateral, 3.8%; primary, 2.7%; revision, 3.5%). Overall proximal facet and endplate violation rates were 0.4% and 0.9%. Average diameter and length of pedicle screws were 7.1 mm and 47.7 mm. Screw revision had to be done for 1 screw (0.1%). Use of the robot had to be aborted in 2 cases (0.8%).

CONCLUSION

Usage of floor-mounted robotics for the placement of lumbar pedicle screws leads to excellent accuracy, large screw size, and negligible screw-related complications. It does so for screw placement in prone/lateral position and primary/revision surgery alike with negligible robot abandonment rates.