Time-demand, Radiation Exposure and Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery With the Use of Skin-Anchored Intraoperative Navigation: The Effect of the Learning Curve

Feasibility of Saphenous Nerve Somatosensory-Evoked Potential Intraoperative Monitoring During Lumbar Spine Surgery: Early Results

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the feasibility of saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SN-SSEP) monitoring in lumbar spine surgeries.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

SN-SSEPs have been proposed for detecting lumbar plexus and femoral nerve injury during lateral lumbar surgery where tibial nerve (TN) SSEPs alone are insufficient. SN-SSEPs may also be useful in other types of lumbar surgery, as stimulation of SN below the knee derives solely from the L4 root and provides a means of L4 monitoring, whereas TN-SSEPs often do not detect single nerve root injury. The feasibility of routine SN-SSEP monitoring has not been established.

METHODS

A total of 563 consecutive cases using both TN-SSEP and SN-SSEP monitoring were included. Anesthesia was at the discretion of the anesthesiologist, using an inhalant in 97.7% of procedures. SN stimulation was performed using 13 mm needle electrodes placed below the knee using 200-400 μsec pulses at 15 to 100 mA. Adjustments to stimulation parameters were made by the neurophysiology technician while obtaining baselines. Data were graded retrospectively for monitorability and cortical response amplitudes were measured by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight percent of TN-SSEPs and 92.5% of SN-SSEPs were monitorable at baseline, with a mean response amplitude of 1.35 μV for TN-SSEPs and 0.71 μV for SN-SSEPs. A significant difference between the stimulation parameters used to obtain reproducible TN and SN-SSEPs at baseline was observed, with SN-SSEPs requiring greater stimulation intensities. Body mass index is not associated with baseline monitorability. Out of 20 signal changes observed, 11 involved SN, while TN-SSEPs were unaffected.

CONCLUSION

With adjustments to stimulation parameters, SN-SSEP monitoring is feasible within a large clinical cohort without modifications to the anesthetic plan. Incorporating SN into standard intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring protocols for lumbar spine procedures may expand the role of SSEP monitoring to include detecting injury to the lumbar plexus.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Perspective: How can risks to patients be limited during spine surgeons' learning curves?

Background

Learning curves (LC) are typically defined by the number of different spinal procedures surgeons must perform before becoming "proficient," as demonstrated by reductions in operative times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), adverse events (AE), fewer conversions to open procedures, along with improved outcomes. Reviewing 12 studies revealed LC varied widely from 10-44 cases for open vs. minimally invasive (MI) lumbar diskectomy, laminectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and oblique/extreme lateral interbody fusions (OLIF/XLIF). We asked whether the risks of harm occurring during these LC could be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring (i.e., via industry, academia, or well-trained colleagues).

Methods

We evaluated LC for multiple lumbar operations in 12 studies.

Results

These studies revealed no LC for open vs. MI lumbar diskectomy. LC required 29 cases for MI laminectomy, 10-44 cases for MI TLIF, 24-30 cases for MI OLIF, and 30 cases for XLIF. Additionally, the LC for MI ALIF was 30 cases; one study showed that 32% of major vascular injuries occurred in the first 25 vs. 0% for the next 25 cases. Shouldn't the risks of harm to patients occurring during these LC be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring?

Conclusions

Twelve studies showed that the LC for at different MI lumbar spine operations varied markedly (i.e., 10-44 cases). Wouldn't and shouldn't spine surgeons avail themselves of routine in-person/intraoperative mentoring to limit patients' risks of injury during their respective LC for these varied spine procedures ?

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

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) cutoff for achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at one year following minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An absolute score denoting PASS, rather than a change score denoting minimal clinically important difference (MCID), might be a better metric to assess clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or decompression were included. The outcome measure was ODI. The anchor question was the Global Rating Change: "Compared with preoperative, you feel (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) same, (4) slightly worse, or (5) much worse." For analysis, it was collapsed to a dichotomous outcome variable (acceptable=response of 1 or 2, unacceptable=response of 3, 4, or 5). Proportion of patients achieving PASS and the ODI cutoff using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were assessed for the overall cohort as well as subgroups based on age, sex, type of surgery, and preoperative ODI. Differences between the PASS and MCID metrics were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients were included. In all, 87% of patients achieved PASS. Patients less than or equal to 65 years and those undergoing fusion were more likely to achieve PASS. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed an ODI cutoff of 25.2 to achieve PASS (area under the curve: 0.872, sensitivity: 82%, specificity: 83%). The subgroup analyses based on age, sex, and preoperative ODI revealed area under the curve >0.8 and ODI threshold values consistent between 25.2 and 25.5 (except 28.4 in patients with preoperative ODI >40). PASS was found to have significantly higher sensitivity compared with MCID (82% vs. 69%, P =0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ODI <25 are expected to achieve PASS, irrespective of age, sex, and preoperative disability. PASS was found to have significantly higher sensitivity than MCID.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Improvement following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients aged 70 years or older compared with younger age groups

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in patients ≥ 70 years old and compare them to younger age groups.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of data that were collected prospectively. Patients who underwent primary single-level MI-TLIF were included and divided into 3 groups: age < 60, 60-69, and ≥ 70 years. The outcome measures were as follows: 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (i.e., visual analog scale [VAS] for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary [SF-12 PCS]); 2) minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement; 3) return to activities; 4) opioid discontinuation; 5) fusion rates; and 6) complications/reoperations.

RESULTS

A total of 147 patients (age < 60 years, 62; 60-69 years, 47; ≥ 70 years, 38) were included. All the groups showed significant improvements in all PROMs at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) time points and there was no significant difference between the groups. Although MCID achievement rates for VAS leg and ODI were similar, they were lower in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and SF-12 PCS. Although the time to MCID achievement for ODI and SF-12 PCS was similar, it was greater in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and leg. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of return to activities, opioid discontinuation, fusion rates, and complication/reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients > 70 years of age may be less likely and/or take longer to achieve MCID compared to their younger counterparts, they show an overall significant improvement in PROMs, a similar likelihood of returning to activities and discontinuing opioids, and comparable fusion and complication/reoperation rates following MI-TLIF.

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding.

PURPOSE

To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy).

CONCLUSIONS

These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

Robotics Reduces Radiation Exposure in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Compared With Navigation

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotics and navigation for minimally invasive elective lumbar fusion in terms of radiation exposure and time demand.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although various studies have been conducted to demonstrate the benefits of both navigation and robotics over fluoroscopy in terms of radiation exposure, literature is lacking in studies comparing robotics versus navigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective one-level or two-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by a single surgeon using navigation (Stryker SpineMask) or robotics (ExcelsiusGPS) were included (navigation 2017-2019, robotics 2019-2021, resulting in prospective cohorts of consecutive patients for each modality). All surgeries had the intraoperative computed tomography workflow. The two cohorts were compared for radiation exposure [fluoroscopy time and radiation dose: image capture, surgical procedure, and overall) and time demand (time for setup and image capture, operative time, and total operating room (OR) time].

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients (robotics 111, navigation 133) were included. The two cohorts were similar in terms of baseline demographics, primary/revision surgeries, and fusion levels. For one-level TLIF, total fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, and % of radiation for surgical procedure were significantly less with robotics compared with navigation (20 vs. 25 s, P <0.001; 38 vs. 42 mGy, P =0.05; 58% vs. 65%, P =0.021). Although time for setup and image capture was significantly less with robotics (22 vs. 25 min, P <0.001) and operative time was significantly greater with robotics (103 vs. 93 min, P <0.001), there was no significant difference in the total OR time (145 vs. 141 min, P =0.25). Similar findings were seen for two-level TLIF as well.

CONCLUSION

Robotics for minimally invasive TLIF, compared with navigation, leads to a significant reduction in radiation exposure both to the surgeon and patient, with no significant difference in the total OR time.