Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: factors associated with the decision to fuse

BACKGROUND CONTEXTThe indication to perform a fusion and decompression surgery as opposed to decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) remains controversial. A variety of factors are considered when deciding on whether to fuse, including patient demographics, radiographic parameters, and symptom presentation. Likely surgeon preference has an important influence as well.PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the decision of a Canadian academic spine surgeon to perform a fusion for LDS.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGThis study is a retrospective analysis of patients prospectively enrolled in a multicenter Canadian study that was designed to evaluate the assessment and surgical management of LDS.PATIENT SAMPLEInclusion criteria were patients with: radiographic evidence of LDS and neurogenic claudication or radicular pain, undergoing posterior decompression alone or posterior decompression and fusion, performed in one of seven, participating academic centers from 2015 to 2019.OUTCOME MEASURESPatient demographics, patient-rated outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], numberical rating scale back pain and leg pain, SF-12), and imaging parameters were recorded in the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Surgeon factors were retrieved by survey of each participating surgeon and then linked to their specific patients within the database.METHODSUnivariate analysis was used to compare patient characteristics, imaging measures, and surgeon variables between those that had a fusion and those that had decompression alone. Multivariate backward logistic regression was used to identify the best combination of factors associated with the decision to perform a fusion.RESULTSThis study includes 241 consecutively enrolled patients receiving surgery from 11 surgeons at 7 sites. Patients that had a fusion were younger (65.3±8.3 vs. 68.6±9.7 years, p=.012), had worse ODI scores (45.9±14.7 vs. 40.2±13.5, p=.007), a smaller average disc height (6.1±2.7 vs. 8.0±7.3 mm, p=.005), were more likely to have grade II spondylolisthesis (31% vs. 14%, p=.008), facet distraction (34% vs. 60%, p=.034), and a nonlordotic disc angle (26% vs. 17%, p=.038). The rate of fusion varied by individual surgeon and practice location (p<.001, respectively). Surgeons that were fellowship trained in Canada more frequently fused than those who fellowship trained outside of Canada (76% vs. 57%, p=.027). Surgeons on salary fused more frequently than surgeons remunerated by fee-for-service (80% vs. 64%, p=.004). In the multivariate analysis the clinical factors associated with an increased odds of fusion were decreasing age, decreasing disc height, and increasing ODI score; the radiographic factors were grade II spondylolisthesis and neutral or kyphotic standing disc type; and the surgeon factors were fellowship location, renumeration type and practice region. The odds of having a fusion surgery was more than two times greater for patients with a grade II spondylolisthesis or neutral and/or kyphotic standing disc type (opposed to lordotic standing disc type). Patients whose surgeon completed their fellowship in Canada, or whose surgeon was salaried (opposed to fee-for-service), or whose surgeon practiced in western Canada had twice the odds of having fusion surgery.CONCLUSIONSThe decision to perform a fusion in addition to decompression for LDS is multifactorial. Although patient and radiographic parameters are important in the decision-making process, multiple surgeon factors are associated with the preference of a Canadian spine surgeon to perform a fusion for LDS. Future work is necessary to decrease treatment variability between surgeons and help facilitate the implementation of evidence-based decision making.     

Is the modified Gartland classification system important in deciding the need for operative management of supracondylar humerus fractures?

PurposeThis study examined levels of agreement between paediatric orthopaedic surgeons in the need for operative management of extension-type supracondylar humerus fractures.MethodsThis was the second phase of a two-part study. De-identified baseline anteroposterior and lateral elbow radiographs from 60 paediatric patients with extension-type supracondylar humerus fractures were compiled. After classifying each fracture according to Gartland classification guidelines, radiographs were randomized, and surgeons indicated whether they would use operative or non-operative management to treat each fracture. Kappa statistics using pairwise comparisons were calculated to determine agreement levels.ResultsIn total, 11 international surgeons participated, and 10/11 completed both survey rounds. The overall weighted interobserver agreement was moderate (0.530, 95%CI [0.215,0.854]) while overall weighted intraobserver agreement was substantial (0.740, 95%CI [0.513,0.963]). The largest variability in preferred treatment methods between surgeons was observed for type IIA fractures, with 6/11 preferring non-operative and 5/11 preferring operative management. The largest individual surgeon variability was observed for type IIA fractures, with 8/11 showing variability (defined by not having made the same decision for at least 90% of the cases) in choosing whether to operate.ConclusionsOur findings suggest moderate interobserver, and substantial intraobserver agreement in treatment decision making. The largest disagreements between surgeons were observed for type IIA and IIB fractures and treatment decisions did not follow expected trends based on surgeons’ preferred treatment methods for each fracture type. This suggests differences in treatment approaches between surgeons in the management of type IIA fractures and highlights the role of other variables that underlie differences between surgeons’ treatment preferences.Level of evidenceIII     

Management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: development of appropriate use criteria

BACKGROUND CONTEXTOutcomes of treatment in care of patients with spinal disorders are directly related to patient selection and treatment indications. However, for many disorders, there is absence of consensus for precise indications. With the increasing emphasis on quality and value in spine care, it is essential that treatment recommendations and decisions are optimized.PURPOSEThe purpose of the North American Spine Society Appropriate Use Criteria was to determine the appropriate (ie reasonable) multidisciplinary treatment recommendations for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis across a spectrum of more common clinical scenarios.STUDY DESIGNA Modified Delphi process was used.METHODSThe methodology was based on the Appropriate Use Criteria development process established by the Research AND Development Corporation. The topic of degenerative spondylolisthesis was selected by the committee, key modifiers determined, and consensus reached on standard definitions. A literature search and evidence analysis were completed by one work group simultaneously as scenarios were written, reviewed, and finalized by another work group. A separate multidisciplinary rating group was assembled. Based on the literature, provider experience, and group discussion, each scenario was scored on a nine-point scale on two separate occasions, once without discussion and then a second time following discussion based on the initial responses. The median rating for each scenario was then used to determine if indications were rarely appropriate (1 – 3), uncertain (4-6), or appropriate (7-9). Consensus was not mandatory.RESULTSThere were 131 discrete scenarios. These addressed questions on bone grafting, imaging, mechanical instability, radiculopathy with or without neurological deficits, obesity, and yellow flags consisting of psychosocial and medical comorbidities. For most of these, appropriateness was established for physical therapy, injections, and various forms of surgical intervention. The diagnosis of spondylolisthesis should be determined by an upright x-ray. Scenarios pertaining to bone grafting suggested that patients should quit smoking prior to surgery, and that use of BMP should be reserved for patients who had risk factors for non-union. Across all clinical scenarios, physical therapy (PT) had an adjusted mean of 7.66, epidural steroid injections 5.76, and surgery 4.52. Physical therapy was appropriate in most scenarios, and most appropriate in patients with back pain and no neurological deficits. Epidural steroid injections were most appropriate in patients with radiculopathy. Surgery was generally more appropriate for patients with neurological deficits, higher disability scores, and dynamic spondylolisthesis. Mechanical back pain and presence of yellow flags tended to be less appropriate, and obesity in general had relatively little influence on decision making. Decompression alone was more strongly considered in the presence of static versus dynamic spondylolisthesis. On average, posterior fusion with or without interbody fusion was similarly appropriate, and generally more appropriate than stand-alone interbody fusion which was in turn more appropriate than interspinous spacers.CONCLUSIONSMultidisciplinary appropriate treatment criteria were generated based on the Research AND Development methodology. While there were consistent and significant differences between surgeons and non-surgeons, these differences were generally very small. This document provides comprehensive evidence-based recommendations for evaluation and treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. The document in its entirety will be found on the North American Spine Society website (https://www.spine.org/Research-Clinical-Care/Quality-Improvement/Appropriate-Use-Criteria).     

Degenerative spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine: analysis of 58 patients treated with anterior cervical decompression and fusion

Background contextDegenerative spondylolisthesis has been well described as a disorder of the lumbar spine. Few authors have suggested that a similar disorder occurs in the cervical spine. To our knowledge, the present study represents the largest series of patients with long-term follow-up who were managed surgically for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine.PurposeTo describe the clinical presentation and radiographic findings associated with degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis, and to report the long-term results of surgically managed patients.Study designAnalysis of 58 patients treated with anterior cervical decompression and fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine.Patient sampleFrom 1974 to 2003, 58 patients were identified as having degenerative spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine occurring in the absence of trauma, systemic inflammatory arthropathy, or congenital abnormality. These patients were identified from a database of approximately 500 patients with degenerative cervical spine disorders treated by the senior one of us.Outcome measuresPatient outcomes were evaluated with regard to neurologic improvement (Nurick grade myelopathy) and osseous fusion.MethodsThe records of 58 patients were reviewed. The average follow-up period was 6.9 years (range, 2–24 years). Seventy-two cervical levels demonstrated spondylolisthesis. In all cases, there was radiographic evidence of facet degeneration and subluxation. All patients were treated with anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis with iliac crest structural graft. This most commonly involved corpectomy of the caudal vertebrae. Three patients required additional posterior facet fusion.ResultsFifty-eight patients demonstrated 72 levels of involvement. The C4–C5 level was most frequently involved (43%). Two radiographically distinct types of listhesis were observed based on the amount of disc degeneration and the degree of spondylosis at adjacent levels. The average neurologic improvement was 1.5 Nurick grades. The overall fusion rate was 92%. Three patients were treated with combined anterior-posterior arthrodesis. The prevalence of myelopathy and instability pattern was greater in the listheses occurring adjacent to spondylotic levels.ConclusionsDegenerative spondylolisthesis is relatively common in the cervical spine. Common to all cases is facet arthropathy and neurologic compression. Anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis appears to yield excellent union rates and neurological improvement in those patients having cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis and significant neurological sequelae who have failed nonoperative treatments.     

Etiology-Based Classification of Adjacent Segment Disease Following Lumbar Spine Fusion

Background

Adjacent segment disease (ASDz) is a potential complication following lumbar spinal fusion. A common nomenclature based on etiology and ASDz type does not exist and is needed to assist with clinical prognostication, decision making, and management.

Questions/Purposes

The objective of this study was to develop an etiology-based classification system for ASDz following lumbar fusion.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 65 consecutive patients who had undergone both a lumbar fusion performed by a single surgeon and a subsequent procedure for ASDz. We established an etiology-based classification system for lumbar ASDz with the following six categories: “degenerative” (degenerative disc disease or spondylosis), “neurologic” (disc herniation, stenosis), “instability” (spondylolisthesis, rotatory subluxation), “deformity” (scoliosis, kyphosis), “complex” (fracture, infection), or “combined.” Based on this scheme, we determined the rate of ASDz in each etiologic category.

Results

Of the 65 patients, 27 (41.5%) underwent surgery for neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy for adjacent-level stenosis or disc herniation and were classified as “neurologic.” Ten patients (15.4%) had progressive degenerative disc pathology at the adjacent level and were classified as “degenerative.” Ten patients (15.4%) had spondylolisthesis or instability and were classified as “instability,” and three patients (4.6%) required revision surgery for adjacent-level kyphosis or scoliosis and were classified as “deformity.” Fifteen patients (23.1%) had multiple diagnoses that included a combination of categories and were classified as “combined.”

Conclusion

This is the first study to propose an etiology-based classification scheme of ASDz following lumbar spine fusion. This simple classification system may allow for the grouping and standardization of patients with similar pathologies and thus for more specific pre-operative diagnoses, personalized treatments, and improved outcome analyses.

     

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Background ContextThe objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is to provide evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of January 2007. The goal of the guideline recommendations is to assist the practitioner in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment of and functional recovery from this common disorder.PurposeTo provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.Study DesignSystematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.MethodsThis report is from the Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Work Group of the NASS Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group was comprised of multidisciplinary spine care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member participated in the development of a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology) and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at via face-to-face meetings among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I–IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline.ResultsNineteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The answers to these 19 clinical questions are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence.ConclusionsA clinical guideline for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to aid practitioners involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.     

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons

Purpose

To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field.

Methods

Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed.

Results

Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique.

Conclusion

A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

     

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) 2022 Expert Consensus Document: The use of mechanical circulatory support in lung transplantation

ObjectiveThe use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in lung transplantation has been steadily increasing over the prior decade, with evolving strategies for incorporating support in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative settings. There is significant practice variability in the use of these techniques, however, and relatively limited data to help establish institutional protocols. The objective of the AATS Clinical Practice Standards Committee (CPSC) expert panel was to review the existing literature and establish recommendations about the use of MCS before, during, and after lung transplantation.MethodsThe AATS CPSC assembled an expert panel of 16 lung transplantation physicians who developed a consensus document of recommendations. The panel was broken into subgroups focused on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative support, and each subgroup performed a focused literature review. These subgroups formulated recommendation statements for each subtopic, which were evaluated by the entire group. The statements were then developed via discussion among the panel and refined until consensus was achieved on each statement.ResultsThe expert panel achieved consensus on 36 recommendations for how and when to use MCS in lung transplantation. These recommendations included the use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridging strategy in the preoperative setting, a preference for central veno-arterial ECMO over traditional cardiopulmonary bypass during the transplantation procedure, and the benefit of supporting selected patients with MCS postoperatively.ConclusionsAchieving optimal results in lung transplantation requires the use of a wide range of strategies. MCS provides an important mechanism for helping these critically ill patients through the peritransplantation period. Despite the complex nature of the decision making process in the treatment of these patients, the expert panel was able to achieve consensus on 36 recommendations. These recommendations should provide guidance for professionals involved in the care of end-stage lung disease patients considered for transplantation.     

Factors influencing the long-term outcomes of instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbar spinal canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common indications for spinal surgery. However, the factors that influence its long-term (>10 years) outcomes remain unknown.DESIGNThis is a post-hoc analysis of a prospective randomized study.PURPOSEThis study aimed to determine factors that influence the long-term outcomes of instrumentation surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients aged ≤75 years with single L4/5 level lumbar canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis prospectively underwent instrumentation surgery at two hospitals between May 1, 2003, and April 30, 2012; the final follow-up examination was on May 20, 2021.OUTCOME MEASURESThe following data were collected: modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, JOA score recovery rate, visual analog scale (VAS) score for lower back and leg pain, and scores from eight short-form 36 (SF-36) subscales preoperatively and at the final follow-up examination.METHODSSpearman's correlation analysis and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to examine preoperative factors that affect the JOA score recovery rate in patients who underwent instrumentation surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis at the L4/5 level due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.RESULTSA total of 42 patients who underwent instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and had a long-term follow-up period were included. Of these, 25 and 17 underwent posterolateral fusion and Graf stabilization, respectively. The mean postoperative follow-up duration was 12.5 years. Spearman's correlation analysis revealed that the long-term recovery rate was correlated with the preoperative VAS score for low back pain. In the univariate regression analysis, sex, preoperative VAS score for low back pain, and the SF-36 general health score were significantly associated with the long-term recovery rate. Meanwhile, the multiple stepwise regression analysis identified the preoperative VAS score for low back pain as an independent predictor of the long-term recovery rate.CONCLUSIONSThis study identified the preoperative VAS score for low back pain as an independent predictor of the long-term recovery rate following instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Therefore, when performing posterolateral fusion or Graf stabilization for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, attention should be paid to the intensity of preoperative low back pain and considerations should be given to whether these procedures can improve the patient's symptoms in the long term.     

Published Operative Times Do Not Reflect Surgeon Effort: A Novel Approach for Calculating Operative Times in Total Hip Arthroplasty to Better Quantify Surgeon Work

BackgroundCurrent estimates of operative time (OT) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) are reported as the mean OT across all procedures. This method does not reflect variability among surgeons and surgical settings and should not be used to infer individual surgeon work. We hypothesized that this method would underestimate the time it takes individual surgeons to perform THA. Therefore, we compared the mean OT for all THA cases (“overall OT”) with the mean OT for individual surgeons (“individual surgeon OT”) and examined which factors were associated with each.MethodsMean OT was calculated for 3972 primary THA cases (“overall OT”) by 41 surgeons from 2015 to 2018 in a single health system. The mean OT for each surgeon was determined (“individual surgeon OT”), averaged across surgeons, and compared with overall OT. Overall OT and individual surgeon OT were assessed for associations with surgeon-related (adult reconstruction fellowship training, THA volume, years’ experience), hospital-related (hospital type, trainee presence), and patient-related (age, body mass index category, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification) factors (alpha = 0.05).ResultsMean individual surgeon OT was significantly longer (106 ± 21 minutes) than overall OT (96 ± 28 minutes) (P = .03), with 73% of individual surgeon OTs being greater than overall OT. Although all surgeon-, hospital-, and patient-related factors were associated with significant differences in overall OT, only hospital type was associated with differences in individual surgeon OT.ConclusionIndividual surgeon OT was longer than overall OT for most surgeons and provides a better estimate of surgeon work.     

Mini posterior lumbar interbody fusion with presacral screw stabilization in early lumbosacral instability

Background:Surgical options for the management of early lumbosacral spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease with instability vary from open lumbar interbody fusion with transpedicular fixation to a variety of minimal access fusion and fixation procedures. We have used a combination of micro discectomy and axial lumbosacral interbody fusion with presacral screw fixation to treat symptomatic patients with lumbosacral spondylolisthesis or lumbosacral degenerative disc disease, which needed surgical stabilization. This study describes the above technique along with analysis of results.Results:We had nine females and three males with a mean age of 47.33 years (range 26–68 years). Postoperative assessment revealed three patients to have screw placed in anterior 1/4^th of the 1^st sacral body, in rest nine the screws were placed in the posterior 3/4^th of sacral body. At 2 years followup, eight patients (67%) showed evidence of bridging trabeculae at bone graft site and none of the patients showed evidence of instability or implant failure.Conclusion:Presacral screw fixation along with micro discectomy is an effective procedure to manage early symptomatic lumbosacral spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease with instability.     

Does loss of spondylolisthesis reduction impact clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?

BACKGROUND CONTEXTMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is a common operative approach to address degenerative lumbar stenosis and spondylolisthesis which has failed nonoperative care. Compared to open TLIF, MI-TLIF relies to a greater extent on indirect decompression resulting in a heightened awareness of spondylolisthesis reduction among MI surgeons. To what extent intraoperative reduction is achieved as well as the rate and clinical impact of loss or reduction and slip recurrence remain unknown.PURPOSETo determine the rate and clinical impact of slip recurrence after MI-TLIF with expandable cage technologySTUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective Cohort StudyPATIENT SAMPLEPatients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis using an articulating, expandable cageOUTCOME MEASURESPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, Short Form-12 (SF-12), and PROMIS Physical Function (PF)METHODSPatients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis using articulating, expandable cages from 2017 to 2019 were retrospectively studied. Lateral radiographs were reviewed and evaluated for the presence or absence of spondylolisthesis preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at follow-up times including 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Spondylolisthesis was measured from the posterior inferior corner of the cephalad vertebra to the posterior superior corner of the caudal vertebra, with any measurement >1 mm classified as spondylolisthesis, and Meyerding grade was noted. Intraoperative reduction was measured, and loss of reduction was defined as >1 mm increase in spondylolisthesis comparing follow-up imaging to intraoperative films. PROMs were recorded at the preoperative and follow-up time points. Fusion was assessed at 1 year postoperatively via CT.RESULTSA total of 63 patients and 70 levels were included, with mean age 59.8 years (SD,13.8). 19 levels (27.1%) had complete reduction intraoperatively, 40 (57.1%) had partial reduction, and 11 (15.7%) had no reduction. Of the 30 levels with loss of reduction (50.8%), 20 (66.7%) occurred by 2 weeks postoperatively and 28 (93.3%) occurred by 12 weeks postoperatively. At 6 months, there were significant differences between those who had loss of reduction and those who did not in VAS back pain (3.0 vs. 0.9, p = .017) and SF-12 PCS (41.5 vs. 50.0, p = .035), but no differences were found between the groups for any instruments at any other time points. The overall fusion rate was 82.1% (32/39) at 1 year postoperatively. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between the loss of reduction (16/20) and no loss of reduction (20/23) groups. Patients with loss of reduction had no difference in reoperation rate (1/28) compared to those without loss of reduction (2/24).CONCLUSIONSWhile a majority of patients demonstrated reduction intraoperatively, 51% had loss of reduction, most commonly in the acute postoperative period. There were few differences in PROMs between patients who had loss of reduction and those who did not, suggesting that radiographic loss of reduction after MI-TLIF in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis may not be clinically meaningful.     

Should patients with lumbar stenosis and grade I spondylolisthesis be treated differently based on spinopelvic alignment? A retrospective,two-year,propensity matched,comparison of patient-reported outcome measures and clinical outcomes from multiple sites within a single health system

BACKGROUNDDegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common pathologies addressed by surgeons. Recently, data demonstrated improved outcomes with fusion in conjunction with laminectomy compared to laminectomy alone. However, given not all degenerative spondylolistheses are clinically comparable, the best treatment option may depend on multiple parameters. Specifically, the impact of spinopelvic alignment on patient reported and clinical outcomes following fusion versus decompression for grade I spondylolisthesis has yet to be explored.PURPOSEThis study assessed two-year clinical outcomes and one-year patient reported outcomes following laminectomy with concomitant fusion versus laminectomy alone for management of grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis. The present study is the first to examine the effect of spinopelvic alignment on patient-reported and clinical outcomes following decompression alone versus decompression with fusion.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective sub-group analysis of observational, prospectively collected cohort study.PATIENT SAMPLE679 patients treated with laminectomy with fusion or laminectomy alone for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis and comorbid spinal stenosis performed by orthopaedic and neurosurgeons at three medical centers affiliated with a single, tertiary care center.OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcome was the change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Global Physical Health (GPH), and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores at baseline and post-operatively at 4-6 and 10-12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included operative parameters (estimated blood loss and operative time), and two-year clinical outcomes including reoperations, duration of postoperative physical therapy, and discharge disposition.METHODSRadiographs/MRIs assessed stenosis, spondylolisthesis, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, and pelvic tilt; from this data, two cohorts were created based on pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PILL), denoted as “high” and “low” mismatch. Patients underwent either decompression or decompression with fusion; propensity score matching (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to create matched cohorts of “cases” (fusion) and “controls” (decompression). Binary comparisons used McNemar test; continuous outcomes used Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Between-group comparisons of changes in PROMIS GPH and GMH scores were analyzed using mixed-effects models; analyses were conducted separately for patients with high and low pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PILL) mismatch.RESULTS49.9% of patients (339) underwent lumbar decompression with fusion, while 50.1% (340) received decompression. In the high PLL mismatch cohort at 10-12 months postoperatively, fusion-treated patients reported improved PROs, including GMH (26.61 vs. 20.75, p<0.0001) and GPH (23.61 vs. 18.13, p<0.0001). They also required fewer months of outpatient physical therapy (1.61 vs. 3.65, p<0.0001) and had lower 2-year reoperation rates (12.63% vs. 17.89%, p=0.0442) compared to decompression-only patients. In contrast, in the low PLL mismatch cohort, fusion-treated patients demonstrated worse endpoint PROs (GMH: 18.67 vs. 21.52, p<0.0001; GPH: 16.08 vs. 20.74, p<0.0001). They were also more likely to require skilled nursing/rehabilitation centers (6.86% vs. 0.98%, p=0.0412) and extended outpatient physical therapy (2.47 vs. 1.34 months, p<0.0001) and had higher 2-year reoperation rates (25.49% vs. 14.71%,p=0.0152).CONCLUSIONSLumbar laminectomy with fusion was superior to laminectomy in health–related quality of life and reoperation rate at two years postoperatively only for patients with sagittal malalignment, represented by high PILL mismatch. In contrast, the addition of fusion for patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and spinopelvic harmony (low PILL mismatch) resulted in worse quality of life outcomes and reoperation rates.     

Decompression alone versus decompression with fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Surgical decompression is standard care in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, but there remains controversy over the benefits of adding fusion. The persistent lack of consensus on this matter and the availability of new data warrants a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

Methods

Multiple online databases were systematically searched up to October 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing outcomes of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes included leg and back pain, surgical outcomes, and radiological outcomes. Pooled effect estimates were calculated and presented as mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) at two-year follow-up.

Results

Of the identified 2403 studies, eventually five RCTs and two prospective studies were included. Overall, most studies had a low or unclear risk of selection bias and most studies were focused on low grade degenerative spondylolisthesis. All patient-reported outcomes showed low statistical heterogeneity. Overall, there was high-quality evidence suggesting no difference in functionality at two years of follow-up (MD − 0.31, 95% CI − 3.81 to 3.19). Furthermore, there was high-quality evidence of no difference in leg pain (MD − 1.79, 95% CI − 5.08 to 1.50) or back pain (MD − 2.54, 95% CI − 6.76 to 1.67) between patients undergoing decompression vs. decompression with fusion. Pooled surgical outcomes showed less blood loss after decompression only, shorter length of hospital stay, and a similar reoperation rate compared to decompression with fusion.

Conclusion

Based on the current literature, there is high-quality evidence of no difference in functionality after decompression alone compared to decompression with fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 2 years of follow-up. Further studies should focus on long-term comparative outcomes, health economic evaluations, and identifying those patients that may benefit more from decompression with fusion instead of decompression alone. This review was registered at Prospero (CRD42021291603).

     

Inter- and intra-observer agreement using the new AOSpine sacral fracture classification,with a comparison between spine and pelvic trauma surgeons

BackgroundSacral fractures treatment frequently involves both spine and pelvic trauma surgeons; therefore, a consistent communication among surgical specialists is required. We independently assessed the new AOSpine sacral fracture classification's agreement from the perspective of spine and pelvic trauma surgeons.MethodsComplete computerized tomography (CT) scans of 80 patients with sacral fractures were selected and classified using the new AOSpine sacral classification system by six spine surgeons and three pelvic trauma surgeons. After four weeks, the 80 cases were presented and reassessed by the same raters in a new random sequence. The Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to measure the inter-and intra-observer agreement.ResultsThe inter-observer agreement considering the fracture severity types (A, B, or C) was substantial for spine surgeons (κ= 0.68 [0.63 - 0.72]) and pelvic trauma surgeons (κ= 0.74 (0.64 - 0.84). Regarding the subtypes, both groups achieved moderate agreement with κ= 0.52 (0.49 - 0.54) for spine surgeons and κ= 0.51 (0.45 - 0.57) for pelvic trauma surgeons. The intra-observer agreement considering the fracture types was substantial for spine surgeons (κ= 0.74 [0.63 - 0.75]) and almost perfect for pelvic trauma surgeons (κ= 0.84 [0.74 - 0.93]). Concerning the subtypes, both groups achieved substantial agreement with, κ= 0.61 (0.56 - 0.67) for spine surgeons and κ= 0.68 (0.62 - 0.74) for pelvic trauma surgeons.ConclusionThis classification allows an adequate communication for spine surgeons and pelvic trauma surgeons at the fracture severity type, but the agreement is only moderate at the subtype level. Future prospective studies are required to evaluate whether this classification allows for treatment recommendations and establishing prognosis in patients with sacral fractures.     

In-hospital postoperative radiographs for instrumented single-level degenerative spinal fusions: utility after intraoperative fluoroscopy

Background contextThere is a paucity of literature examining the clinical yield of in-hospital postoperative radiographs for patients who have had instrumented single-level spinal fusions with intraoperative fluoroscopic guidance. Many spinal surgeons consider postoperative standing radiographs to be the appropriate standard of care, even in patients who have an uneventful postoperative course.PurposeTo evaluate the additional clinical yield and cost-effectiveness of in-hospital postoperative standing radiographs for patients undergoing instrumented single-level cervical and lumbar fusions in which intraoperative fluoroscopy is used. Are postoperative standing radiographs necessary before hospital discharge?Study designRetrospective review of 100 consecutive degenerative spinal surgical cases in which intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging was compared with immediate postoperative radiographs using a vertebral grid mapping technique.MethodsA retrospective review of 100 consecutive patients who had an instrumented single-level cervical (30) or lumbar (70) fusion for a degenerative spinal condition performed by the same surgeon using intraoperative fluoroscopy. All patients had a documented uneventful postoperative hospitalization without evidence of new postoperative neurologic finding. All patients had both anteroposterior (AP) and lateral intraoperative fluoroscopic images and same-hospitalization standing AP and lateral radiographic images, which were performed within 72 hours postoperatively. Intraoperative and postoperative images were compared by two observers independently using a vertebral grid mapping technique to locate screw position and control magnification differences. Study parameters included screw tip position grids, interbody graft position, segmental sagittal plane alignment, spondylolisthesis grade, and hospital charges for patient imaging and interpretation.ResultsEarly instrumentation failure and/or screw position change was not observed in any patient. Seventy-four patients demonstrated a grid match for all screw tip positions on both true AP and lateral radiographs. Twenty-six patients had either a postoperative AP or lateral radiograph that was clinically malrotated and precluded comparison with the intraoperative true fluoroscopic images. Segmental sagittal alignment difference between intraoperative fluoroscopic and postoperative radiographic sagittal images averaged only 1.2° (range, 0–9) and was not statistically significant (paired Student t test, p=.88). Significant difference between intraoperative and immediate postoperative interbody graft position and spondylolisthesis grade was not demonstrated in any patient. Patient hospital billing charges for postoperative AP and lateral radiographic imaging with interpretation averaged $600.ConclusionsIn patients who have a single-level instrumented fusion and a documented uneventful postoperative course, in-hospital postoperative standing AP and lateral radiographs do not appear to provide additional clinically relevant information when intraoperative fluoroscopy is properly used. Fluoroscopy also demonstrated more consistent accuracy and a potential for significant cost savings.     

International Sleeve Gastrectomy Expert Panel Consensus Statement: best practice guidelines based on experience of >12,000 cases

BackgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is an emerging surgical approach, but 1 that has seen a surge in popularity because of its perceived technical simplicity, feasibility, and good outcomes. An international expert panel was convened in Coral Gables, Florida on March 25 and 26, 2011, with the purpose of providing best practice guidelines through consensus regarding the performance of LSG. The panel comprised 24 centers and represented 11 countries, spanning all major regions of the world and all 6 populated continents, with a collective experience of >12,000 cases. It was thought prudent to hold an expert consensus meeting of some of the surgeons across the globe who have performed the largest volume of cases to discuss and provide consensus on the indications, contraindications, and procedural aspects of LSG. The panel undertook this consensus effort to help the surgical community improve the efficacy, lower the complication rates, and move toward adoption of standardized techniques and measures. The meeting took place at on-site meeting facilities, Biltmore Hotel, Coral Gables, Florida.MethodsExpert panelists were invited to participate according to their publications, knowledge and experience, and identification as surgeons who had performed >500 cases. The topics for consensus encompassed patient selection, contraindications, surgical technique, and the prevention and management of complications. The responses were calculated and defined as achieving consensus (≥70% agreement) or no consensus (<70% agreement).ResultsFull consensus was obtained for the essential aspects of the indications and contraindications, surgical technique, management, and prevention of complications. Consensus was achieved for 69 key questions.ConclusionThe present consensus report represents the best practice guidelines for the performance of LSG, with recommendations in the 3 aforementioned areas. This report and its findings support a first effort toward the standardization of techniques and adoption of working recommendations formulated according to expert experience.     

The necessity and risk factors of subsequent fusion after decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis: 5 years follow-up in two different large populations

BACKGROUND/CONTEXTAlthough decompression without fusion is a reasonable surgical treatment option for some patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) secondary to spondylolisthesis, some of these patients will require secondary surgery for subsequent fusion. Long-term outcome and need for subsequent fusion in patients treated with decompression alone in the setting of lumbar spondylolisthesis remains controversial.PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to examine the rate, timing, and risk factors of subsequent fusion for patients after decompression alone for LSS with spondylolisthesis.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGA retrospective cohort study.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients who had LSS with spondylolisthesis and underwent decompression alone at 1 or 2 levels as a primary lumbar surgery with more than 5 year follow-up.OUTCOME MEASURESThe rate, timing, and risk factors for subsequent fusion.METHODSSubjects were extracted from both public and private insurance resources in a nationwide insurer database. Risk factors for subsequent fusion were evaluated by multivariate cox proportion-hazard regression controlling for age, gender, comorbidities and the presence or absence of claudication.RESULTSFive thousand eight hundred and seventy-five patients in the public insurance population (PI population) and 1,456 patients in the private insurance population (PrI population) were included in this study. The rates of patients who needed subsequent fusion were 1.9% at 1 year, 3.5% at 2 years, and 6.7% at 5 years in the PI population, whereas they were 4.3% at 1 year, 8.9% at 2 years, 14.6% at 5 years in the PrI population. The time to subsequent fusion was 730 (365–1234) days in the PI population and 588 (300–998) days in the PrI population. Age less than 70 years, presence of neurogenic claudication and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/collagen vascular diseases (CVD) were independent risk factors for subsequent fusion in both populations.CONCLUSIONSDecompression surgery alone can demonstrate good outcomes in some patients with LSS with spondylolisthesis. It is important for surgeons to recognize, however, that patient age less than 70 years, symptomatic neurogenic claudication, and presence of RA and/or CVD are significant independent factors associated with greater likelihood of needing secondary fusion surgery.