A retrospective comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes in single-level degenerative lumbar disease undergoing anterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

A retrospective study on the relationship between 5 modified frailty index (5-mFI) and postoperative complications of gynecological elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Aim to evaluate the application of 5 modified frailty index (5-mFI) in predicting postoperative complications in elderly gynecological patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A total of 294 elderly gynecological patients who were hospitalized in the affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College and underwent abdominal surgery from November 2019 to May 2022 were collected from the Union Digital Medical Record (UniDMR) Browser of the hospital. According to whether postoperative complications (infection, hypokalemia, hypoproteinemia, poor wound healing and intestinal obstruction) occurred, the patients were divided into complication group (n = 98) and non-complication group (n = 196). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the risk factors of complications in elderly gynecological patients undergoing abdominal surgery. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the predictive value of the frailty index score in elderly gynecological patients with postoperative complications after abdominal surgery.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred in 98 of 294 elderly gynecological patients undergoing abdominal surgery, accounting for 33.3%, 5-mFI (OR1.63, 95%CI 1.07-2.46,P = 0.022), age (OR1.08,95%CI 1.02-1.15, P = 0.009), operation time (OR 1.01, 95%CI 1.00-1.01). P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for postoperative complications in elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery, and the area under the curve of postoperative complications in elderly gynecological patients was 0.60. (95%CI: 0.53-0.67, P = 0.005) CONCLUSION: Five modified frailty index can effectively predict the occurrence of postoperative complications in elderly gynecological patients.

Is Indirect Decompression and Fusion More Effective than Direct Decompression and Fusion for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Instability? A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis

Study design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Objective: Surgical alternatives to treat lumbar spinal stenosis and instability include indirect (ALIF, OLIF, and LLIF) and direct (TLIF or posterior lumbar interbody fusion) decompression and fusion interventions. Although both approaches have proven to be effective in reducing symptoms, it is unknown if there is any difference in effectiveness between them. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate postoperative pain and disability in patients treated whit indirect vs direct decompression and fusion approaches.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature consulting several databases and identified studies that enrolled patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and instability treated with indirect or direct decompression and fusion techniques. Our primary endpoints were the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and the Japanese Orthopedics Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire 1 year after the procedure. Secondary outcomes included complication rate, blood loss, and surgical time.Results: Nine retrospective and comparative studies were included enrolling a total of 1004 participants. Both surgical strategies had satisfactory clinical outcomes with no significant difference at 1 year. Although the complication rate was similar for both groups, the profile of the adverse events was different. In addition, patients treated with indirect decompression and fusion had significantly less blood loss and operative times.Conclusions: Indirect and direct decompression and fusion techniques are similarly effective in treating patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and instability. The ID group had significantly lower intraoperative blood loss and surgical time values.

OLIF versus ALIF: Which is the better surgical approach for degenerative lumbar disease? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes between OLIF and ALIF in treating lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Changes in disc height (DH), segmental lordosis angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis (LL), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between baseline and final follow-up, along with other important surgical outcomes, were assessed and analysed. Data on the global fusion rate and main complications were collected and compared.

RESULTS

Approximately, 2041 patients from 36 studies were included, consisting of 1057 patients who underwent OLIF and 984 patients who underwent ALIF. The results reveal no significant difference in DH, SLA, VAS score, and ODI between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The operation time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay were also comparable between the two groups. Over 90% of the fusion rate was achieved in both groups. The OLIF group showed a higher complication rate than the ALIF group (OLIF 18.83% vs ALIF 7.32%).

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF leads to a higher complication rate, with the most notable complication being cage subsidence. Both OLIF and ALIF are effective treatments for degenerative lumbar diseases and have similar therapeutic effects. ALIF was expected to be more expensive for patients because of the necessity of involving vascular surgeons.

Correlation of mental health with physical function, pain, and disability following anterior lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated the influence of preoperative mental health on outcomes following spine surgery, but prior literature has not assessed the influence of mental health at time of outcome survey collection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) were identified from a prospective registry. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected preoperatively and up to 1 year postoperatively. Mental health measures studied included 12-item Short Form (SF-12) Mental Component Score (MCS) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), SF-12 Physical Component Score (PCS), visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were compared to the mental health measures by Pearson's correlation tests.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients were included. SF-12 MCS demonstrated positive correlation to PROMIS-PF preoperatively (|r|= 0.379) and at 6 weeks (|r|= 0.387) (p ≤ 0.016, all). SF-12 MCS demonstrated negative correlation to VAS back at 6 months (|r|= 0.359), VAS leg at 6 weeks (|r|= 0.475) and 12 weeks (|r|= 0.422), and ODI up to 6 months postoperatively (|r|= 0.417-0.526) (p ≤ 0.037, all). PHQ-9 negatively correlated with PROMIS-PF at all periods studied (|r|= 0.425-0.587) and SF-12 PCS up to 6 months postoperatively (|r|= 0.367-0.642) (p ≤ 0.016, all). PHQ-9 positively correlated to VAS back at 6 weeks (|r|= 0.408) and 6 months (|r|= 0.411), VAS leg at 6 weeks (|r|= 0.344), and ODI up to 6 months postoperatively (|r|= 0.321-0.669) (p ≤ 0.034, all).

CONCLUSION

Inferior mental health correlated with inferior pain, function, and disability scores at one or more periods postoperatively. This finding was most consistent for correlation between mental health scores and disability. Optimization of mental health may positively influence outcomes, especially regarding disability, following ALIF.

Radiographic comparison of L5-S1 lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage subsidence and displacement by fixation strategy: anterior plate versus integrated screws

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to radiographically compare cage subsidence and displacement between L5-S1 lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages secured with an anterior buttress plate and cages secured with integrated screws.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent L5-S1 lateral ALIF with supplemental posterior fixation by a single surgeon from June 2016 to January 2021 were reviewed. Radiographs were analyzed and compared between the two groups based on the type of fixation used to secure the L5-S1 lateral ALIF cage: 1) anterior buttress plate or 2) integrated screws. The following measurements at L5-S1 were analyzed on radiographs obtained preoperatively, before discharge, and at latest follow-up: 1) anterior disc height, 2) posterior disc height, and 3) segmental lordosis. Cage subsidence and anterior cage displacement were determined radiographically.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine patients (mean age 60.0 ± 14.3 years) were included for analysis. Sixty-eight patients were treated with an anterior buttress plate (mean follow-up 12 ± 5 months), and 71 were treated with integrated screws (mean follow-up 9 ± 3 months). Mean age, sex distribution, preoperative L5-S1 lordosis, preoperative L5-S1 anterior disc height, and preoperative L5-S1 posterior disc height were statistically similar between the two groups. After surgery, the segmental L5-S1 lordosis and L5-S1 anterior disc heights significantly improved for both groups, and each respective measurement was similar between the groups at final follow-up. Posterior disc heights significantly increased after surgery with integrated screws but not with the anterior buttress plate. As such, posterior disc heights were significantly greater at final follow-up for integrated screws. Compared with patients who received integrated screws, significantly more patients who received the anterior buttress plate had cage subsidence cranially through the L5 endplate (20.6% vs 2.8%, p < 0.01), cage subsidence caudally through the S1 endplate (27.9% vs 0%, p < 0.01), and anterior cage displacement (22.1% vs 0%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this radiographic analysis of 139 patients who underwent lateral L5-S1 ALIF supplemented by posterior fixation, L5-S1 cages secured with an anterior buttress plate demonstrated significantly higher rates of cage subsidence and anterior cage displacement compared with cages secured with integrated screws. While the more durable stability afforded by cages secured with integrated screws suggests that they may be a more viable fixation strategy for L5-S1 lateral ALIFs, there are multiple factors that can contribute to cage subsidence, and, thus, definitive presumption cannot be made that the findings of this study are directly related to the buttress plate.

Comparison of Outcomes of Multi-Level Anterior, Oblique, Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery : Impact on Global Sagittal Alignment

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in terms of global sagittal alignment.

METHODS

From January 2007 to December 2019, 141 adult patients who underwent multilevel interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders were enrolled. Regarding the approach, patients were divided into the ALIF (n=23), OLIF (n=60), and TLIF (n=58) groups. Outcomes, including local radiographic parameters and global sagittal alignment, were then compared between the treatment groups.

RESULTS

Regarding local radiographic parameters, ALIF and OLIF were superior to TLIF in terms of the change in the anterior disc height (7.6±4.5 mm vs. 6.9±3.2 mm vs. 4.7±2.9 mm, p<0.001), disc angle (-10.0°±6.3° vs. -9.2°±5.2° vs. -5.1°±5.1°, p<0.001), and fused segment lordosis (-14.5°±11.3° vs. -13.8°±7.5° vs. -7.4°±9.1°, p<0.001). However, regarding global sagittal alignment, postoperative lumbar lordosis (-42.5°±9.6° vs. -44.4°±11.6° vs. -40.6°±12.3°, p=0.210), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (7.9°±11.3° vs. 6.7°±11.6° vs. 11.5°±13.0°, p=0.089), and the sagittal vertical axis (24.3±28.5 mm vs. 24.5±34.0 mm vs. 25.2±36.6 mm, p=0.990) did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Although the anterior approaches were superior in terms of local radiographic parameters, TLIF achieved adequate global sagittal alignment, comparable to the anterior approaches.