5-Year Revision Rates After Elective Multilevel Lumbar/Thoracolumbar Instrumented Fusions in Older Patients: An Analysis of State Databases

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Patients with Osteoporosis Undergoing Spine Fusion Surgery in Japan

Introduction

Spinal fusion surgery with instrumentation is a treatment of choice for many spinal disorders; however, there is little data related to factors associated with early and late outcomes, especially among patients with poor bone quality (e.g., osteoporosis). We conducted this study to characterize the epidemiology and outcomes of patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery with instrumentation in Japan, especially in patients with poor bone quality and those needing additional fixation methods.

Methods

This retrospective observational study used real-world health insurance claims data from the Japanese Medical Data Vision. Adult patients undergoing an index spinal fusion procedure from April 1, 2010, to September 30, 2017, with procedural details, length of stay (LOS), total in-hospital costs, spine-related reoperation, all-cause readmission, and postoperative complications recorded. Data were summarized descriptively overall, by osteoporosis status, and additional fixation method used, and were analyzed in bivariate analyses. Multivariate logistic and linear regressions were used to explore associations between covariates and variables of interest.

Results

A total of 22,932 patients (mean age, 67.3 years; 51.2% male) met the study criteria and were included. A total of 5,288 (23.0%) patients had osteoporosis, and 2,507 (10.9%) needed additional fixation methods; these patients were older, more frequently female, and had higher Elixhauser comorbidity index scores. Osteoporosis and additional fixation use were also associated with longer LOS, higher hospital costs, and higher rates of complications.

Conclusions

Patients with osteoporosis and those needing additional fixation methods have a higher risk for procedural and postoperative complications, reoperation, longer LOS, and higher total hospital costs.

Identification of preoperative radiological risk factors for reoperation following percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression to treat degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

Background

This study aimed to identify radiological risk factors associated with reoperation after percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS).

Methods

The preoperative clinical data of 527 consecutive patients with DLSS who underwent PTED were retrospectively reviewed. Overall, 44 patients who underwent reoperation were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and surgical segment to 132 control patients with excellent or good clinical outcomes. Radiological characteristics were compared between the groups using independent sample t-tests and Pearson's chi-square tests. A predictive model was established based on multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

The analyses revealed significant differences in the presence of lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV, 43.2% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.001), the number of levels with senior-grade disc degeneration (2.57 vs. 1.96, p = 0.018) and facet degeneration (1.91 vs. 1.25 p = 0.002), and the skeletal muscle index (SMI, 849.7 mm²/m² vs. 1008.7 mm²/m², p < 0.001) between patients in the reoperation and control groups. The results of the logistic analysis demonstrated that LSTV (odds ratio [OR] = 2.734, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.222-6.117, p < 0.014), number of levels with senior-grade facet degeneration (OR = 1.622, 95% CI:1.137-2.315, p = 0.008), and SMI (OR = 0.997, 95% CI:0.995-0.999, p = 0.001) were associated with reoperation after PTED. The application of the nomogram based on these three factors showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.754, 95% CI 0.670-0.837) and good calibration.

Conclusion

LSTV, more levels with senior-grade facet degeneration, and severe paraspinal muscle atrophy are independent risk factors for reoperation after PTED. These factors can thus be used to predict reoperation risk and to help tailor treatment plans for patients with DLSS.

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.