The effect of ketorolac on posterior minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an interim analysis from a randomized,double-blinded,placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPostoperative pain control following posterior lumbar fusion continues to be challenging and often requires high doses of opioids for pain relief. The use of ketorolac in spinal fusion is limited due to the risk of pseudarthrosis. However, recent literature suggests it may not affect fusion rates with short-term use and low doses.PURPOSEWe sought to demonstrate noninferiority regarding fusion rates in patients who received ketorolac after undergoing minimally invasive (MIS) posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Additionally, we sought to demonstrate ketorolac's opioid-sparing effect on analgesia in the immediate postoperative period.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGThis is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. We are reporting our interim analysis.PATIENT SAMPLEAdults with degenerative spinal conditions eligible to undergo a one to three-level MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).OUTCOME MEASURESSix-month and 1-year radiographic fusion as determined by Suk criteria, postoperative opioid consumption as measured by intravenous milligram morphine equivalent, length of stay, and drug-related complications. Self-reported and functional measures include validated visual analog scale, short-form 12, and Oswestry Disability Index.METHODSA double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled, noninferiority trial of patients undergoing 1- to 3-level MIS TLIF was performed with bone morphogenetic protein (BMP). Patients were randomized to receive a 48-hour scheduled treatment of either intravenous ketorolac (15 mg every 6 hours) or saline in addition to a standardized pain regimen. The primary outcome was fusion. Secondary outcomes included 48-hour and total postoperative opioid use demonstrated as milligram morphine equivalence, pain scores, length of stay (LOS), and quality-of-life outcomes. Univariate analyses were performed. The present study provides results from a planned interim analysis.RESULTSTwo hundred and forty-six patients were analyzed per protocol. Patient characteristics were comparable between the groups. There was no significant difference in 1-year fusion rates between the two treatments (p=.53). The difference in proportion of solid fusion between the ketorolac and placebo groups did not reach inferiority (p=.072, 95% confidence interval, -.07 to .21). There was a significant reduction in total/48-hour mean opioid consumption (p<.001) and LOS (p=.001) for the ketorolac group while demonstrating equivalent mean pain scores in 48 hours postoperative (p=.20). There was no significant difference in rates of perioperative complications.CONCLUSIONSShort-term use of low-dose ketorolac in patients who have undergone MIS TLIF with BMP demonstrated noninferior fusion rates. Ketorolac safely demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperative opioid use and LOS while maintaining equivalent postoperative pain control.     

The economic impact of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty

We compared hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs between (1) minimally invasive total hip surgery (MIS) combined with an active hip pathway (AHP) and (2) long incision total hip surgery (LIS) with a passive hip pathway (PHP). A prospective consecutive cohort of 214 MIS/AHP patients was compared to a concurrent cohort of 265 LIS/PHP patients. The MIS/AHP cohort had significantly decreased LOS (1.5 days vs. 3.8 days, P < .001) and hospital costs ($12.8 thousand vs. $16.7 thousand, P < .001). The complication rates were similar for MIS/AHP and LIS/PHP. We conclude that, compared to LIS/PHP, MIS/AHP significantly shortened LOS by an average of 2.3 days, and significantly reduced hospital costs by an average of $3.9 thousand per patient.     

直视下微创与切开进行单节段经椎间孔腰椎融合术的临床效果比较

[目的]观察直视下微创(minimally invasive,MIS)采用普通椎弓根螺钉完成单节段经椎间孔腰椎融合(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)的临床结果.[方法]2007～2009年期间26例患者直视下进行单节段腰椎MIS - TLIF手术,45例患者采用Open - TLIF进行单节段腰椎手术,均采用普通椎弓根螺钉内固定,比较两组临床效果.[结果]MIS组术中出血量、术后引流量、下地活动时间和平均住院日均明显低于Open组,术后5 d MIS组腰痛VAS评分优于Open组,而两组腿痛VAS、ODI评分和融合率无显著差异.[结论]直视下MIS与Open两组同样具有长期优良的临床治疗结果,但是MIS组的手术出血量、术后引流量、下地活动时间、术后住院时间和术后短期腰痛均优于Open组.     

Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review

AIM: To compare minimally invasive (MIS) and open techniques for MIS lumbar laminectomy, direct lateral and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries with respect to length of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), neurologic complications, perioperative transfusion, postoperative pain, postoperative narcotic use, and length of stay (LOS).METHODS: A systematic review of previously published studies accessible through PubMed was performed. Only articles in English journals or published with English language translations were included. Level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed. Statistical data was calculated with analysis of variance with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.RESULTS: A total of 11 pertinent laminectomy studies, 20 direct lateral studies, and 27 TLIF studies were found. For laminectomy, MIS techniques resulted in a significantly longer length of surgery (177.5 min vs 129.0 min, P = 0.04), shorter LOS (4.3 d vs 5.3 d, P = 0.01) and less perioperative pain (visual analog scale: 16 ± 17 vs 34 ± 31, P = 0.04). There is evidence of decreased narcotic use for MIS patients (postoperative intravenous morphine use: 9.3 mg vs 42.8 mg), however this difference is of unknown significance. Direct lateral approaches have insufficient comparative data to establish relative perioperative outcomes. MIS TLIF had superior EBL (352 mL vs 580 mL, P < 0.0001) and LOS (7.7 d vs 10.4 d, P < 0.0001) and limited data to suggest lower perioperative pain.CONCLUSION: Based on perioperative outcomes data, MIS approach is superior to open approach for TLIF. For laminectomy, MIS and open approaches can be chosen based on surgeon preference. For lateral approaches, there is insufficient evidence to find non-inferior perioperative outcomes at this time.     

Cost analysis of anterior-posterior circumferential fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Background contextAlthough lumbar interbody fusion has long been a common procedure in the practice of spine surgery, focus on the technological development has produced the relatively new procedure of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). This procedure is often available to surgeons as an alternative to anterior-posterior circumferential fusion (AP fusion), and both procedures have been demonstrated to be clinically equivalent at up to 5 years after surgery. In the context of clinical equipoise, it is unknown which procedure is more economically advantageous.PurposeTo compare the hospital costs, charges, and payments received for surgical treatment with either AP fusion or TLIF. Future directions for health economic research with respect to spine surgery are also considered and discussed.Study designThis is an institutional review board–approved, single-institution retrospective chart review and cost analysis.Patient sampleOur study included patients undergoing either single-level AP fusion or single-level TLIF between 2006 and 2008. All patients were older than 18 years at the time of surgery; the decision of which procedure was performed was entirely at the discretion of the attending surgeon.Outcome measuresHospital costs, charges, and payments received for the treatment of each patient.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of the medical and financial records of patients undergoing either AP fusion (n=179) or TLIF (n=90) on one operative level between 2006 and 2008. Medical records were evaluated for a history of spine surgery, operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay, whereas financial records were reviewed for the hospital costs, charges, and payments received as recorded by the hospital accounting data. Operative materials and service charges were also isolated and compared separately. This study was departmentally sponsored; there were no interest-associated biases for any of the authors involved.ResultsAP fusion patients had a longer operative time than TLIF patients, with a mean time of 246.5 versus 202.7 minutes (p<.01). Conversely, TLIF patients had a higher estimated blood loss during surgery (469.8 cm³) than AP fusion patients (311.2 cm³) (p<.01). The mean hospital cost for AP fusion was $25,165, whereas for TLIF was $23,390 (p=.04). The mean hospital charges and payments received for AP fusion were 1.07 (p=.05) and 1.35 (p<.01) times those received for TLIF, respectively. Therefore, mean hospital charges and payments received for TLIF were 0.93 and 0.76 times those received for AP fusion, respectively.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that a single-level AP fusion results in longer operative time, lower blood loss during surgery, higher hospital costs, higher hospital charges, and greater payments received than a single-level TLIF. Although the decision on how best to treat a patient lies solely at the judgment of the attending surgeon, this comparative cost information may be pertinent in cases of clinical equivalence. This study also calls attention to various shortcomings that are found in present spine surgery cost-effectiveness research, as there is an ongoing need for increased standards of quality in the area of health economics research.     

Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases

Background contextTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become a well-established technique that is traditionally performed with bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation. There are only a small number of case reports of unilateral instrumented TLIF. To our knowledge, there have been few well-designed studies comparing unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation with TLIF.PurposeTo compare clinical and radiographic outcomes in a selected series of patients treated with unilateral versus bilateral PS instrumented TLIF.Study designProspective randomized study in one unit.Patient sampleA total of 80 patients were enrolled in this study. Thirty-seven patients (17 men and 20 women; average age 57.1 years) were randomized to the unilateral PS group and 43 patients (18 men and 25 women; average age 58.2 years) to the bilateral PS group.Outcome measuresThe demographic data collected from both groups were gender, age, preoperative index diagnosis, degenerated segment, and single/double level of fusion. Operative time, blood loss, hospital time, and implant costs were also evaluated. Postsurgical pain and functional results were analyzed by the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Prolo (mProlo) scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographic examinations were carried out to assess total fusion rates, screw failure, and general complications.MethodsPatients were randomized into the unilateral or bilateral PS instrumented TLIF group based on a computer-generated number list. Patients were asked to return to hospital for follow-up at 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and thereafter once a year after surgery.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 25.3 months, with a range of 18 to 32 months. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic data. The unilateral PS group had a significantly shorter operative time, less blood loss, and reduced implant costs compared with the bilateral PS group, although hospital time was the same for double-level cases. The average postoperative VAS, mProlo, and ODI scores improved significantly in both groups, with no significant difference between groups. The total fusion rate, screw failure, and general complication rate were not significantly different.ConclusionsUnilateral PS instrumented TLIF is a viable treatment option generating better results, especially in terms of operative time, blood loss, and hospital time for single-level disease and implant costs. No decrease in the fusion rate or increase in the complication rate was observed in this group. Further improved study design and a longer period of follow-up are needed to confirm this effect.     

Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis

Purpose

The object of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open surgery in a severely affected subgroup of degenerative spondylolisthetic patients with severe stenosis (SDS) and high-grade facet osteoarthritis (FJO).

Methods

From January 2009 to February 2010, 49 patients with severe SDS and high-grade FJO were treated using either MIS or open TLIF. Intraoperative and diagnostic data, including perioperative complications and length of hospital stay (LOS), were collected, using retrospective chart review. Surgical short- and long-term outcomes were assessed according to the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain.

Results

Comparing MIS and open surgery, the MIS group had lesser blood loss, significantly lesser need for transfusion (p = 0.02), more rapid improvement of postoperative back pain in the first 6 weeks of follow-up and a shorter LOS. On the other hand, we experienced in the MIS group a longer operative time. The distribution on the postoperative ODI (p = 0.841), VAS leg (p = 0.943) and back pain (p = 0.735) scores after a mean follow-up of 2 years were similar. The overall proportion of complications showed no significant difference between the groups (29 % in the MIS group vs. 28 % in the open group, p = 0.999).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive surgery for severe SDS leads to adequate and safe decompression of lumbar stenosis and results in a faster recovery of symptoms and disability in the early postoperative period.     

Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review

Background

Although minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to the lumbar spine for posterior fusion are increasingly being utilized, the comparative outcomes of MIS and open posterior lumbar fusion remain unclear.

Questions/purposes

In this systematic review, we compared MIS and open transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF), specifically with respect to (1) surgical end points (including blood loss, surgical time, and fluoroscopy time), (2) clinical outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] and VAS pain scores), and (3) adverse events.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE^®, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Reference lists were manually searched. We included studies with 10 or more patients undergoing MIS compared to open TLIF/PLIF for degenerative lumbar disorders and reporting on surgical end points, clinical outcomes, or adverse events. Twenty-six studies of low- or very low-quality (GRADE protocol) met our inclusion criteria. No significant differences in patient demographics were identified between the cohorts (MIS: n = 856; open: n = 806).

Results

Equivalent operative times were observed between the cohorts, although patients undergoing MIS fusion tended to lose less blood, be exposed to more fluoroscopy, and leave the hospital sooner than their open counterparts. Patient-reported outcomes, including VAS pain scores and ODI values, were clinically equivalent between the MIS and open cohorts at 12 to 36 months postoperatively. Trends toward lower rates of surgical and medical adverse events were also identified in patients undergoing MIS procedures. However, in the absence of randomization, selection bias may have influenced these results in favor of MIS fusion.

Conclusions

Current evidence examining MIS versus open TLIF/PLIF is of low to very low quality and therefore highly biased. Results of this systematic review suggest equipoise in surgical and clinical outcomes with equivalent rates of intraoperative surgical complications and perhaps a slight decrease in perioperative medical complications. However, the quality of the current literature precludes firm conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of MIS versus open posterior lumbar fusion from being drawn and further higher-quality studies are critically required.     

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: one surgeon's learning curve

Background contextThe published literature has not characterized the surgeon's learning curve with the technically demanding technique of a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).PurposeTo characterize based on intra- and perioperative parameters, the learning curve for one spine surgeon during his initial phases of performing an MIS TLIF.Study design/settingRetrospective analysis of a single institution and single surgeon experience with the unilateral MIS TLIF technique between July 2008 and April 2011.Patient sampleSixty-five consecutive patients, with at least 1 year of follow-up, who underwent a unilateral, single-level, index MIS TLIF for the diagnosis of degenerative disk disease or lumbar spinal stenosis with grade I or II spondylolisthesis were analyzed based on data obtained from the medical records and postoperative imaging (computed tomography).Outcome measuresPostoperative radiographic assessment of fusion at 1 year via computed tomography. Surgical parameters of surgical time (skin-skin, minutes), anesthesia time (induction-extubation, minutes), estimated blood loss (mL), intravenous fluids during surgery (mL), intraoperative complications (durotomy), and postoperative complications (pseudarthrosis, implant failure, malpositioned implants, graft-related complications) were also assessed.MethodsThe senior author's first 100 consecutive MIS TLIFs were evaluated initially. Patients undergoing revision or multilevel surgery were excluded leaving a total of 65 consecutive primary MIS TLIFs. The first 33 patients were compared with the second 32 patients in terms of radiographic arthrodesis rates, surgical parameters, and intra-/postoperative complications. A two-tailed Student t test was used to assess for differences between the two cohorts where a p value of less than or equal to .05 denoting statistical significance. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine any association between the date of surgery and surgical time.ResultsAverage surgical time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative fluids, and duration of anesthesia was significantly longer in the first cohort (p<.05). There were no significant differences in intraoperative complications (two durotomies in both groups) or length of stay. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications at final follow-up based on computed tomography analysis (11 vs. 9, p=.649). In the first cohort, these complications included two cases of radiographic pseudarthrosis: one case of graft migration and one case of medial pedicle wall violation necessitating two revision surgeries. There were two cases of pseudarthrosis and one case of an early surgical site infection identified in the second group requiring three revision surgeries. Last, four cases of neuroforaminal bone growth were demonstrated, two in each cohort. Pearson's correlation coefficient demonstrated a negative correlation between the date of surgery and surgical time (r=?0.44; p<.001) estimated blood loss (r=?0.49; p<.001), duration of anesthesia (r=?0.41; p=.001), and intravenous fluids (r=?0.42; p=.001).ConclusionsThe MIS TLIF is a technically difficult procedure to the practicing spine surgeon with regard to intra- and perioperative parameters of surgical time, estimated blood loss, intravenous fluid, and duration of anesthesia. Operative time and proficiency improved with understanding the minimally invasive technique. Further studies are warranted to delineate the methods to minimize the complications associated with the learning curve.     

Cost-effectiveness of circumferential fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: propensity-matched comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with anterior-posterior fusion

Background Context

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and dual-approach anteroposterior (AP) are common techniques to achieve circumferential fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. It is unclear which approach is more cost-effective.

Conversion Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Era of Bundled Care Payments: Impacts on Costs of Care

BackgroundConversion hip arthroplasty is defined as a patient who has had prior open or arthroscopic hip surgery with or without retained hardware that is removed and replaced with arthroplasty components. Currently, it is classified under the same diagnosis-related group as primary total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, it frequently requires a higher cost of care.MethodsA retrospective study of 228 conversion THA procedures in an orthopaedic specialty hospital was performed. Propensity score matching was used to compare the study group to a cohort of 510 primary THA patients by age, body mass index, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. These matched groups were compared based on total costs, implants used, operative times, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, and complications.ResultsConversion THA incurred 25% more mean total costs compared to primary THA (P < .05), longer lengths of surgery (154 versus 122 minutes), and hospital LOS (2.1 versus 1.56 days). A subgroup analysis showed a 57% increased cost for cephalomedullary nail conversion, 34% increased cost for sliding hip screw, 33% for acetabular open reduction and internal fixation conversion, and 10% increased costs in closed reduction and percutaneous pinning conversions (all P < .05). There were 5 intraoperative complications in the conversion group versus none in the primary THA group (P < .01), with no statistically significant difference in readmissions.ConclusionConversion THA is significantly more costly than primary THA and has longer surgical times and greater LOS. Specifically, conversion THA with retained implants had the greatest impact on cost.     

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves return of physiological function in frail patients undergoing one- to two-level TLIFs: an observational retrospective cohort study

Background contextThe enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multimodal approach which has been shown to facilitate recovery of physiological function, and reduce early post-operative pain, complications, and length of stay (LOS) in open one- to two-level TLIF. The benefit of ERAS in specifically frail patients undergoing TLIF has not been demonstrated. Frailty is clinically defined as a syndrome of physiological decline that can predispose patients undergoing surgery to poor outcomes.PurposeThis study primarily evaluated the benefit of an ERAS protocol in frail patients undergoing one- or two-level open TLIF compared to frail patients without ERAS. Secondarily, we assessed whether outcomes in frail patients with ERAS approximated those seen in nonfrail patients with ERAS.Study DesignRetrospective consecutive patient cohort with controls propensity-matched for age, body mass index, sex, and smoking status.Patient SampleConsecutive patients that underwent one- or two-level open TLIF for degenerative disease from August, 2015 to July, 2021 by a single surgeon. ERAS was implemented in December 2018.Outcome MeasuresPrimary outcome measure was return of postoperative physiological function defined as the summation of first day to ambulate, first day to bowel movement, and first day to void. Additional outcome measures included LOS, daily average pain scores, opioid use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and reoperation.MethodsA retrospective analysis of frail patients > 65 years of age undergoing one- to two-level open TLIF post-ERAS were compared to propensity matched frail pre-ERAS patients. Frailty was assessed using the Fried phenotype classification (score >1). Patient demographics, LOS, first-day-to-ambulate (A1), first-day-to-bowel movement (B1), first-day-to-void (V1) were collected. Return of physiological function was defined as A1+B1+V1. Primary analysis was a comparison of frail patients pre-ERAS versus post-ERAS to determine effect of ERAS on return of physiologic function with frailty. Secondary analysis was a comparison of post-ERAS frail versus post-ERAS nonfrail patients to determine if return of physiologic function in frail patients with ERAS approximates that of nonfrail patients.ResultsIn the primary analysis, 32 frail patients were included with mean age ± standard deviation of 72.8±4.4 years, mean BMI 28.8±5.5, 65.6% were male, 15 pre-ERAS and 17 post-ERAS. Patient characteristics were similar between groups. After ERAS implementation, return of physiological function improved by a mean 3.2 days overall (post-ERAS 3.4 vs. pre-ERAS 6.7 days) (p<.0001), indicating a positive effect of ERAS in frail patients. Additionally, length of stay improved by 1 day (4.8±1.6 vs. 3.8±1.9 days, p<.0001). Total daily intravenous morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as well as average daily pain scores were similar between groups. Secondarily, 26 nonfrail patients post ERAS were used as a comparison group with the 17 post-ERAS frail cohort. Mean age of this cohort was 73.4±4.6 years, mean BMI 27.4±4.9, and 61.9% were male. Return of physiologic function was similar between cohorts (post-ERAS nonfrail 3.5 vs. post-ERAS frail 3.4 days) (p=.938), indicating the benefit with ERAS in frail patients approximates that of nonfrail patients.ConclusionsERAS significantly improves return of physiologic function and length of stay in patients with frailty after one- to two-level TLIF, and approximates improved outcomes seen in non-frail patients.     

Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Study design

Prospective observational cohort study.

Objective

Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of single-level open versus minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at 6 months and 2-year follow-up.

Summary of background data

There is recognition that more data are required to ascertain the benefits and risks of MIS vis-a-vis open TLIF. This study aims to report on one of the largest currently available series comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes of the two procedures with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

Methods

From January 2002 to March 2008, 144 single-level open and MIS TLIF were performed at our centre, with 72 patients in each group. Clinical outcomes were based on patient-reported outcome measures recorded at the Orthopaedic Diagnostic Centre by independent assessors before surgery, at 6 months and 2 years post-operatively. These were visual analogue scores (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), short form-36 (SF-36), North American Spine Society (NASS) scores for neurogenic symptoms, returning to full function, and patient rating of the overall result of surgery. Radiological fusion based on the Bridwell grading system was also assessed at 6 months and 2 years post-operatively by independent assessors.

Results

In terms of demographics, the two groups were similar in terms of patient sample size, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), spinal levels operated, and all the clinical outcome measures (p > 0.05). Perioperative analysis revealed that MIS cases have comparable operative duration (open: 181.8 min, MIS: 166.4 min, p > 0.05), longer fluoroscopic time (open: 17.6 s, MIS: 49.0 s, p < 0.05), less intra-operative blood loss (open: 447.4 ml, MIS: 50.6 ml, p < 0.05) and no post-operative drainage (open: 528.9 ml, MIS: 0 ml, p < 0.05). MIS patients needed less morphine (open: 33.5 mg, MIS: 3.4 mg, p < 0.05) and were able to ambulate (open: 3.4 days, MIS: 1.2 days, p < 0.05) and be discharged from hospital earlier (open: 6.8 days, MIS: 3.2 days, p < 0.05). At 6 months, clinical outcome analysis showed both groups improving significantly (>50.0 %) and similarly in terms of VAS, ODI, SF-36, return to full function and patient rating (p > 0.05). Radiological analysis showed similar grade 1 fusion rates (open: 52.2 %, MIS: 59.4 %, p > 0.05) with small percentage of patients developing asymptomatic cage migration (open: 8.7 %, MIS: 5.8 %, p > 0.05). One major complication (open: myocardial infarction, MIS: screw malpositioning requiring subsequent revision) and two minor complications in each group (open: pneumonia and post-surgery anemia, MIS: incidental durotomy and pneumonia) were noted. At 2 years, continued improvements were observed in both groups as compared to the preoperative state (p > 0.05), with 50.8 % of open and 58 % of MIS TLIF patients returning to full function (p > 0.05). Almost all patients have Grade 1 fusion (open: 98.5 %, MIS: 97.0 %, p > 0.05) with minimal new cage migration (open: 1.4 %, MIS: 0 %, p > 0.05).

Conclusions

MIS TLIF is a safe option for lumbar fusion, and when compared to open TLIF, has similar operative duration, good clinical and radiological outcomes, with additional significant benefits of less perioperative blood loss and pain, earlier rehabilitation, and a shorter hospitalization.     

A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy: Clinical and economic analyses

BACKGROUND. Previous randomized studies of laparoscopic appendectomy produced conflicting recommendations, and the adequacy of sample sizes is generally unknown. We compared clinical and economic outcomes after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a sample of predetermined statistical power. METHODS. A pre-study power analysis suggested that 200 randomized patients would yield 80% power to show a mean decrease of 1.3 days' hospitalization. One hundred ninety-eight patients with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized prospectively to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Economic analysis included billed charges, total costs, direct costs, and indirect costs associated with treatment. RESULTS. Laparoscopic appendectomy took longer to perform than open appendectomy (median, 107 vs 91 minutes; P <.01) and was associated with fewer days to return to a general diet (mean, 1.6 versus 2.3 days; P <.01), a shorter duration of parenteral analgesia (mean, 1.6 versus 2.2 days; P <.01), fewer morphine-equivalent milligrams of parenteral narcotic (median, 14 mg versus 34 mg; P =.001), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean, 2.6 versus 3.4 days; P <.01), and earlier return to full activity (median, 14 versus 21 days; P <.02). However, operative morbidity and time to return to work were comparable. Billed charges and direct costs were not significantly different in the 2 groups ($7711 versus $7146 and $5357 versus $4945, respectively), but total costs (including indirect costs) of laparoscopic appendectomy were, on average, nearly $2400 less, given the shorter length of stay and abbreviated recuperative period ($11,577 versus $13,965). Subgroup analyses suggested the benefit of a laparoscopic approach for uncomplicated appendicitis and for patients with active lifestyles. CONCLUSIONS. While laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with statistically significant but clinically questionable advantages over open appendectomy, a laparoscopic approach is relatively less expensive. The estimated difference in total costs of treatment (direct and indirect costs) was at least $2000 in more than 60% of the bootstrapped iterations. The economic significance and implications favoring a laparoscopic approach cannot be ignored.     

Early discharge after nonoperative management of intussusception is both safe and cost-effective

Background/purposeWe implemented a quality improvement (QI) initiative to safely reduce post-reduction monitoring for pediatric patients with ileocolic intussusception. We hypothesized that there would be decreased length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs, with no change in intussusception recurrence rates.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted of pediatric ileocolic intussusception patients who underwent successful enema reduction at a tertiary-care pediatric hospital from January 2015 through June 2020. In September 2017, an intussusception management protocol was implemented, which allowed discharge within four hours of reduction. Pre- and post-QI outcomes were compared for index encounters and any additional encounter beginning within 24 h of discharge. An economic evaluation was performed with hospital costs inflation-adjusted to 2020 United States Dollars ($). Cost differences between groups were assessed using multivariable regression, adjusting for Medicaid and transfer status, P < 0.05 significant.ResultsOf 90 patients, 37(41%) were pre-QI and 53(59%) were post-QI. Patients were similar by age, sex, race, insurance status, and transfer status. Pre-QI patients had a median LOS of 23.4 h (IQR: 16.1–34.6) versus 9.3 h (IQR 7.4–14.2) for post-QI patients, P < 0.001. Mean total costs per patient in the pre-QI group were $3,231 (95% CI, $2,442–$4,020) versus $1,861 (95% CI, $1,481–$2,240) in the post-QI group. The mean absolute cost difference was $1,370 less per patient in the post-QI group (95% CI, [-$2,251]–[-$490]). Five patients had an additional encounter within 24 h of discharge [pre-QI: 1 (3%) versus post-QI: 4 (8%), p = 0.7] with four having intussusception recurrence [pre-QI: 1 (3%) versus post-QI: 3 (6%), p = 0.6].ConclusionsImplementation of a quality improvement initiative for the treatment of pediatric intussusception reduced hospital length of stay and costs without negatively affecting post-discharge encounters or recurrence rates. Similar protocols can easily be adopted at other institutions.Level of evidenceLevel III.Type of studyRetrospective comparative treatment study.     

C3 laminectomy combined with modified unilateral laminoplasty and in situ reconstruction of the midline structures maintained cervical sagittal balance: a retrospective matched-pair case-control study

Background contextOpen-door laminoplasty often results in postoperative complications such as loss of cervical lordosis, limitations of cervical motion, and axial symptoms. However, current modified laminoplasty techniques such as muscle-sparing type or spinous process splitting technique are not as effective as expected.PurposeTo evaluate the radiological and clinical outcomes of C3 laminectomy combined with modified unilateral laminoplasty (preservation of posterior muscle-ligament complex and reconstruction of the midline structures) versus traditional open door laminoplasty in treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.Study designRetrospective case-control study.Patient sampleOne hundred and eleven patients with multilevel cord compression and myelopathic symptoms.Outcome measuresThe outcome parameters were operation time, blood loss volume, complications, osseous fusion status, C0–C2 and C2–C7 Cobb angles, T1 slope, cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), cervical curvature index (CCI), range of motion (ROM), cross-sectional area (CSA) of the semispinalis cervicis, axial symptoms, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and neck disability index (NDI).MethodsWe matched 37 patients who underwent modified laminoplasty with 74 patients treated by traditional open door laminoplasty (ratio, 1:2) according to age, sex, body mass index, compromised level, and radiographic characteristics. Preoperative and postoperative cervical parameters, namely, the C2–C7 Cobb angle, ROM, and CCI were measured on X-ray films. The CSA of the semispinalis cervicis was assessed on magnetic resonance images, and osseous fusion status of the hinge side and the osteotomy site was evaluated by computed tomography. We used the JOA and VAS scores, and the NDI to evaluate clinical outcomes.ResultsThe average follow-up period in the modified group was 24.1 months (range, 18–37 months) compared with 24.7 months (range, 18–38 months) in the control group. At the final follow-up, C0–C2 Cobb angle, T1 slope, and cSVA increased in the control group and were unchanged in the modified group. The C2–C7 Cobb angle decreased significantly in the control group and did not change in the modified group. ROM and CCI loss rate did not change in the modified group but decreased significantly in the control group. The CSA loss in the semispinalis cervicis was 222.90±79.56 mm² in the control group and 49.11±75.93 mm² in the modified group, with a significant difference (p<.001). The final CSA of the semispinalis cervicis at C2 and C4–C7 levels showed no significant difference in the modified group and decreased significantly in the control group compared with preoperation. Changes in the C2–C7 Cobb angle and cSVA were both correlated with the CSA loss of the semispinalis cervicis (r=0.282, p=.003; r=0.267, p=.005, respectively). Moreover, the CSA loss of the semispinalis cervicis also correlated with the CCI loss rate and the changes in ROM (r=0.312, p=.001; r=0.287, p=.002, respectively). Clinical outcomes such as VAS and NDI scores, improved significantly more in the modified group versus the controls (p<.001 and p=.005, respectively), while JOA scores improved similarly in both groups (p=.132). The incidence of axial symptoms was significantly lower in the modified group versus controls (5.4% vs 9.5%, respectively; p=.023).ConclusionsC3 laminectomy combined with modified unilateral laminoplasty is effective for treating patients with multilevel cord compression. This modified technique reconstructs the midline structures and may lead to improved alignment and less axial pain.     

Comparing the medium-term outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion via transforaminal and oblique approach in treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases

BACKGROUND CONTEXTOblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating lumbar degenerative disorders (LDDs) via indirect decompression. However, its superiority over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains questionable, especially in terms of medium-term follow-up.PURPOSETo compare the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of TLIF and OLIF in treating patients with LDDs.STUDY DESIGNRetrospective comparative study.PATIENT SAMPLEFifty-two patients treated by TLIF and forty-six patients treated by OLIF.OUTCOME MEASURESClinical records including the visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological records including disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, and fusion rate. Surgical-related information and complications were also recorded.METHODSA retrospective review was performed on patients who were surgically managed for LDDs at L4–5 between 2015 and 2017 and completed at least 4 years of follow-up. A total of 98 patients were analyzed, with 46 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screw-rod fixation (OLIF-AF group), and 52 patients treated by TLIF (TLIF group). Parameters including postoperative outcomes and perioperative complications were compared with evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches.RESULTSThere was significantly less bleeding, surgical duration, and hospitalization in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group. Significant improvements in the clinical score were achieved in both groups. However, the VAS score of the lower back was significantly higher in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group throughout the whole follow-up period. Significantly higher expansion of the CSA was found in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group. However, the improvements in DH, LL, and SL were significantly lower in the TLIF group. The fusion rate was significantly higher in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group within 6 months postoperatively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final record. No significant difference was found in the rate of overall complications between the two groups (25.0% vs. 23.9%, p=.545). The intraoperative complication rate in the TLIF group (13.5%) was slightly higher than that in the OLIF-AF group (6.5%) (p=.257). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adjacent segment disorder (ASD) between the two groups (7.7% vs. 10.9%, p=.422). Cage subsidence was slightly lower in the TLIF group (5.8%) than in the OLIF-AF group (13.0%) (p=.298).CONCLUSIONSBoth the TLIF and OLIF-AF approaches demonstrated good medium-term outcomes in treating LDDs. Compared with TLIF, OLIF-AF showed advantages in postoperative recovery, improvement of intervertebral space and lumbar sagittal balance, and early intervertebral fusion but was associated with inferior spinal canal decompression efficacy. The two approaches shared comparable overall complication rates. However, OLIF-AF tended to have fewer intraoperative complications, and a higher incidence of subsidence.     

Blood Type O is not associated with increased blood loss in extensive spine surgery

Study ObjectiveTo investigate whether Type O blood group status is associated with increased intraoperative blood loss and requirement of blood transfusion in extensive spine surgery.DesignRetrospective comparative study.SettingUniversity-affiliated, non-profit teaching hospital.MeasurementsData from 1,050 ASA physical status 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 patients who underwent spine surgeries involving 4 or more vertebral levels were analyzed. Patients with Type O blood were matched to similar patients with other blood types using propensity scores, which were estimated via demographic and morphometric data, medical history variables, and extent of surgery. Intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL) was compared among matched patients using a linear regression model; intraoperative transfusion requirement in volume of red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, platelet, cryoprecipitate, cell salvaged blood, volume of intraoperative infusion of hetastarch, 5% albumin, crystalloids, and hospital length of hospital (LOS) were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.Main ResultsIntraoperative EBL and requirement of blood product transfusion were similar in patients with Type O blood group and those with other blood groups.ConclusionThere was no association between Type O blood and increased intraoperative blood loss or blood transfusion requirement during extensive spine surgery, with similar hospital LOS in Type O and non-O patients.