The incidence of lumbar spine surgery following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Superion Indirect Decompression System for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective review

Incidence of subsequent surgical decompression following minimally invasive approaches to treat lumbar spinal stenosis: A retrospective review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Surgical decompression is the definitive treatment for managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis; however, select patients are poor surgical candidates. Consequently, minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity, but there exists the potential for failure of therapy necessitating eventual surgical decompression.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of patients who require surgical decompression following minimally invasive procedures to treat lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis (Percutaneous Image-guided Lumbar Decompression [PILD] or interspinous spacer device [ISD]) and progressed to subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the rate of surgical decompression within 5 years following the minimally invasive approach. Secondary outcomes included demographic and comorbid factors associated with increased odds of requiring subsequent surgery.

METHODS

Patient data were collected using the PearlDiver-Mariner database. The rate of subsequent decompression was described as a percentage while univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used for the analysis of predictors.

RESULTS

A total of 5278 patients were included, of which 3222 (61.04%) underwent PILD, 1959 (37.12%) underwent ISD placement, and 97 (1.84%) had claims for both procedures. Overall, the incidence of subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years was 6.56% (346 of 5278 patients). Variables associated with a significantly greater odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of requiring subsequent surgical decompression included male gender and a prior history of surgical decompression by 1.42 ([1.14, 1.77], p = 0.002) and 2.10 times ([1.39, 3.17], p < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, age 65 years and above, a diagnosis of obesity, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three or greater were associated with a significantly reduced OR [95% CI] by 0.64 ([0.50, 0.81], p < 0.001), 0.62 ([0.48, 0.81], p < 0.001), and 0.71 times ([0.56, 0.91], p = 0.007), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive procedures may provide an additional option to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who do not desire open decompression; however, there still exists a subset of patients who will require subsequent surgical decompression. Factors such as gender and prior surgical decompression increase the likelihood of subsequent surgery, while older age, obesity, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score reduce it. These findings aid in selecting suitable surgical candidates for better outcomes in the elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression

INTRODUCTION

Treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) typically begins with conservative care and progresses to minimally invasive procedures, including interspinous spacer without decompression or fusion (ISD) or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). This study examined safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures among LSS patients receiving an ISD versus MILD as the first surgical intervention.

METHODS

100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files were used to identify patients with an ISD or MILD (first procedure=index date) from 2017 to 2021. ISD and MILD patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching based on demographics and clinical characteristics. Safety outcomes and subsequent spinal procedures were captured from index date until end of follow-up. Cox models were used to analyze rates of subsequent surgical interventions, LSS-related interventions, open decompression, fusion, ISD, and MILD. Cox models were used to assess postoperative complications during follow-up and logistic regression to analyze life-threatening complications within 30 days of index procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 3682 ISD and 5499 MILD patients were identified. After matching, 3614 from each group were included in the analysis (mean age=74 years, mean follow-up=20.0 months). The risk of undergoing any intervention, LSS-related intervention, open decompression, and MILD were 21%, 28%, 21%, and 81% lower among ISD compared with MILD patients. Multivariate analyses showed no significant differences in the risk of undergoing fusion or ISD, experiencing postoperative complications, or life-threatening complications (all p≥0.241) between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed ISD and MILD procedures have an equivalent safety profile. However, ISDs demonstrated lower rates of open decompression and MILD.

Assessment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis as a Risk Factor for Development of Sleep Disorder: The Locomotive Syndrome and Health Outcome in Aizu Cohort Study (LOHAS)

Purpose

Insomnia has been reported to coexist with various musculoskeletal disorders. Although lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most frequently operated on spinal disease, the causal relationship between LSS and development of sleep disorders remains unclear due to lack of longitudinal studies. This study aimed to determine whether LSS was a risk factor for developing new sleep disorders, primarily insomnia, using a prospective cohort of community residents.

Patients and Methods

This study was a prospective cohort study. Participants aged ≥65 years from the "Locomotive Syndrome and Health Outcomes in Aizu Cohort Study (LOHAS)" conducted in 2008 formed our study population. LSS was diagnosed using the self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire, a validated diagnostic support tool for LSS. Sleep disorder was investigated using a questionnaire during the 2-year follow-up. The impact of LSS on sleep disorder onset was analyzed after adjusting for potential confounders, such as age, sex, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, depression, and smoking habits, using propensity score matching.

Results

Of the 489 participants who were followed up for two years, 38 (7.8%) had newly developed a sleep disorder in 2010. After adjusting for confounding factors, a comparison of 133 participants each in the control and LSS groups showed significantly higher frequency of new-onset sleep disorders (19 [14.3%] in the LSS group versus 6 [4.5%] in the control group).

Conclusion

LSS was found to be an independent risk factor for sleep disorders.

Platelet Rich Plasma and Platelet-Related Products in the Treatment of Radiculopathy-A Systematic Review of the Literature

Back pain with radicular symptoms is associated with detrimental physical and emotional functioning and economic burden. Conservative treatments including physical, pharmacologic and injection therapy may not provide clinically significant or long-standing relief. Regenerative medicine research including Platelet rich plasma (PRP), Platelet lysate (PL) or Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) continues to develop, however evidence appraisal for treatment of radicular pain remains lacking. Thus, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections containing PRP or related products to treat radicular pain. Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases were queried. Twelve studies were included in qualitative analysis, consisting of three randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies. The primary outcome was pain intensity, and secondary outcomes included functional improvement, anatomical changes on advanced imaging, and adverse events. All studies identified improved pain intensity and functional outcomes after epidural injection of PRP, PRGF and/or PL. Similar or longer lasting pain relief was noted in the PRP cohort compared to the cohort receiving epidural steroid injections with effects lasting up to 12-24 months. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis revealed a very-low certainty of evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.