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.     

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUNDThe enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach which has been shown to facilitate recovery of physiological function, and reduce postoperative pain, complication rates, and length of stay without adversely affecting readmission rates. Design and implementation of ERAS protocols in the recent spine surgery literature has primarily focused on patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar surgery. However, conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains a common procedure and to date there are no studies assessing an ERAS protocol in this patient population.PURPOSEThis study presents a single surgeon experience implementing an ERAS protocol in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level open TLIF.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective consecutive patient cohort with controls propensity-matched for age, body mass index, sex, and smoking status.PATIENT SAMPLEConsecutive patients that underwent 1- or 2-level open TLIF for degenerative disease from 12/2018 – 02/2021 and controls from 12/2011-12/2017 by a single surgeon. ERAS was implemented in December 2018.OUTCOME MEASURESPrimary: length of stay; Secondary: first day to ambulate, first day to bowel movement, first day to void, daily average and maximum pain scores, opioid use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and re-operations.METHODSDemographic, perioperative, clinical, radiographic data were collected. Multivariate mixed-linear regression models were developed for length of stay, physiological function, pain scales, and opiate use.RESULTSThere were 114 patients included with 57 in each cohort. After propensity matching, patient characteristics were similar between groups. Operative time decreased significantly after institution of ERAS (170±44 vs. 141±37 minutes, p <.0001) as did length of stay (4.6±1.7 vs. 3.6±1.6 days, p<.0001). First day of ambulation, bowel movement, and bladder voiding improved by 0.8 (p<.0001), 0.7 (p=.008), and 0.8 (p<.0001) days, respectively, in the ERAS cohort. Total daily intravenous morphine milligram equivalent (MME) (8±9 vs. 36±38, p<0.0001) and total 72-hour MME consumption (53±33 vs. 68±48, p<.0001) was significantly lower in the ERAS cohort; however, 72-hour MME consumption was not found to be significantly different in a sensitivity analysis controlling for preoperative MME. Average daily pain scores were similar between groups.CONCLUSIONSConsistent with other studies demonstrating benefit of an ERAS protocol for minimally invasive spine procedures, ERAS was associated with decreased operative time, reduced length of stay, decrease in IV opioid consumption, and improved physiological outcomes for open 1- and 2-level TLIF. ERAS can be a potentially effective strategy for improving patient outcome and efficiency of healthcare resources for common conventional spinal surgeries such as open TLIF.     

Comparing rates of early pedicle screw loosening in posterolateral lumbar fusion with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXTAddition of interbody fusion via a transforaminal approach (TLIF) has become a popular surgical option for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions. Although technically more complicated than posterolateral fusion surgery (PLF), it has been suggested that TLIF provides superior immediate stability and protects against early pedicle screw loosening. This theory has never been formally examined in a clinical study.PURPOSETo determine the impact of TLIF on early pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion rates compared with PLF using pedicle screws alone in the treatment of single level lumbar degenerative conditions.STUDY DESIGNRetrospective computed tomography (CT) based review.PATIENT SAMPLEOne hundred ninety-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF with local autograft bone or PLF alone with local autograft bone.OUTCOME MEASURESRadiographic fusion rates and screw loosening were measured at 6 and 12 months using strict CT criteria. Patient self-reported outcome measures included Visual Analog Scale for low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index.METHODSPostoperative thin-cut CTs were examined for pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion status. Early screw loosening rates were determined using 6-month postoperative CT, whereas radiographic fusion rates were determined using 12-month postoperative CT. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in mean outcome scores and other continuous measures between groups at baseline and follow-up. Chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures.RESULTSEighty-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF (Group A) and 115 patients underwent PLF alone (Group B). At 6-month follow-up, loosening was observed in 49 of 792 total screws (6.19%). Of Group A, 7.23% of patients demonstrated loosening of one or more screws compared with 18.3% of Group B (Chi-Square value 4.98; p=.0256). Six-month radiographic fusion rates were 36.1% in Group A versus 44.3% in Group B. Twelve-month radiographic fusion rates increased to 58.6% in Group A versus 73.1% in Group B. Among Group A patients not yet fused at 6 months, screw loosening was associated with a 0% rate of radiographic fusion at 12 months versus 41.2% without screw loosening. Rates for Group B were 6.25% and 70.3%, respectively. Patient age was a significant independent predictor of loosening (p=.0336).CONCLUSIONSTLIF appears to have a protective effect, reducing rates of early screw loosening by approximately 60% versus PLF. However, this effect appears independent of actual overall radiographic fusion rates which may be approximately 20% lower with TLIF at 12 months. TLIF may have advantages in patients where early loosening is a particular concern, for example, in the setting of increased patient age.     

A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Background contextEmerging literature suggests superior clinical short- and long-term outcomes of MIS (minimally invasive surgery) TLIFs (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) versus open fusions. Few studies to date have analyzed the cost differences between the two techniques and their relationship to acute clinical outcomes.PurposeThe purpose of the study was to determine the differences in hospitalization costs and payments for patients treated with primary single-level MIS versus open TLIF. The impact of clinical outcomes and their contribution to financial differences was explored as well.Study design/settingThis study was a nonrandomized, nonblinded prospective review.Patient sampleSixty-six consecutive patients undergoing a single-level TLIF (open/MIS) were analyzed (33 open, 33 MIS). Patients in either cohort (MIS/open) were matched based on race, sex, age, smoking status, medical comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity index), payer, and diagnosis. Every patient in the study had a diagnosis of either degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis and stenosis.Outcome measuresOperative time (minutes), length of stay (LOS, days), estimated blood loss (EBL, mL), anesthesia time (minutes), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, and hospital cost/payment amount were assessed.MethodsThe MIS and open TLIF groups were compared based on clinical outcomes measures and hospital cost/payment data using SPSS version 20.0 for statistical analysis. The two groups were compared using bivariate chi-squared analysis. Mann-Whitney tests were used for non-normal distributed data. Effect size estimate was calculated with the Cohen d statistic and the r statistic with a 95% confidence interval.ResultsAverage surgical time was shorter for the MIS than the open TLIF group (115.8 minutes vs. 186.0 minutes respectively; p=.001). Length of stay was also reduced for the MIS versus the open group (2.3 days vs. 2.9 days, respectively; p=.018). Average anesthesia time and EBL were also lower in the MIS group (p<.001). VAS scores decreased for both groups, although these scores were significantly lower for the MIS group (p<.001). Financial analysis demonstrated lower total hospital direct costs (blood, imaging, implant, laboratory, pharmacy, physical therapy/occupational therapy/speech, room and board) in the MIS versus the open group ($19,512 vs. $23,550, p<.001). Implant costs were similar (p=.686) in both groups, although these accounted for about two-thirds of the hospital direct costs in the MIS cohort ($13,764) and half of these costs ($13,778) in the open group. Hospital payments were $6,248 higher for open TLIF patients compared with the MIS group (p=.267).ConclusionsMIS TLIF technique demonstrated significant reductions of operative time, LOS, anesthesia time, VAS scores, and EBL compared with the open technique. This reduction in perioperative parameters translated into lower total hospital costs over a 60-day perioperative period. Although hospital reimbursements appear higher in the open group over the MIS group, shorter surgical times and LOS days in the MIS technique provide opportunities for hospitals to reduce utilization of resources and to increase surgical case volume.     

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.     

Wound drain in lumbar arthrodesis for degenerative disease: an experimental,multicenter, randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTIONDrains for surgical wound management are frequently used in spine surgery. They are often used to decrease the incidence of postoperative hematoma and decrease wound tension. No conclusive evidence in the literature supports using drains to avoid complications in degenerative lumbar spine surgery.PURPOSEWe aimed to evaluate wound drains in patients with lumbar arthrodesis for degenerative disorders based on clinical outcomes, complications, hematocrit, and length of stay.STUDY DESIGNA multicenter randomized prospective controlled clinical trial.PATIENT SAMPLEWe enrolled surgical candidates for posterior lumbar decompression and fusion surgery for degenerative disorders from October 2019 to August 2021. Patients were randomized into the drain or nondrain group at nine hospitals. The inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged 40 to 80 years with lumbar and radicular pain, lumbar degenerative disorder, and primary surgery up to three levels. The exclusion criteria were bleeding abnormalities, bleeding >2,500 mL and dural tears.OUTCOME MEASURESPreoperative data including Oswestry disability index (ODI), SF-36, lumbar and lower extremity visual analog scale (VAS), body mass index (BMI), hematocrit, and temperature were recorded. Surgical parameters, including surgical time, complications, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative temperature and hematocrit (days 1 and 4), dressing saturation, and length of hospital stay (LOS), were registered.METHODSThe two groups were assessed preoperatively, perioperatively and at the 1-month follow-up. A REDCap database was used for registration. Data analysis was performed using classical statistics.RESULTSOne hundred one patients were enrolled using the Redcap database, and 93 patients were evaluated at the final follow-up. Forty-five patients were randomized to the drain group, and 48 were randomized to the nondrain group. The preoperative characteristics were equivalent in both groups: demographic aspects, pain, ODI, SF-36, BMI, hematocrit, and spine pathology. Surgical time, EBL and complications were similar, with no difference between the groups. No difference was found between BMI and complications. No difference was observed in dressing saturation or postoperative temperature between the groups. The postoperative day 4 hematocrit was higher in the nondrain group [36.4% (32–39)] than in the drain group [34% (29.7–37.6)] without statistically differences (p=.054). The LOS was higher in the drain group [4 (3–5) days] than in the nondrain group [3 (2–4) days] (p=.007). The quality-of-life score, SF-36, was higher in the nondrain group [67.9 (53.6–79.2)] than in the drain group [56.7 (49.1–66)] (p=.043).CONCLUSIONSNondrain patients presented shorter LOS and better outcomes, with similar complication rates. No difference was found between BMI and complications. Based on this study, in patients undergoing primary posterior spinal decompression and fusion up to three levels for degenerative lumbar disorders, we do not recommend the use of postoperative drains.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of complications,costs, and length of stay of three different lumbar interbody fusion techniques: an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database

Background contextLumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques have been used for years to treat a number of pathologies of the lower back. These procedures may use an anterior, posterior, or combined surgical approach. Each approach is associated with a unique set of complications, but the exact prevalence of complications associated with each approach remains unclear.PurposeTo investigate the rates of perioperative complications of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (P/TLIF), and LIF with a combined anterior-posterior interbody fusion (APF).Study design/settingRetrospective review of national data from a large administrative database.Patient samplePatients undergoing ALIF, P/TLIF, or APF.Outcome measuresPerioperative complications, length of stay (LOS), total costs, and mortality.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried for patients undergoing ALIF, P/TLIF, or APF between 2001 and 2010 as identified via International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision codes. Univariate analyses were carried out comparing the three cohorts in terms of the outcomes of interest. Multivariate analysis for primary outcomes was carried out adjusting for overall comorbidity burden, race, gender, age, and length of fusion. National estimates of annual total number of procedures were calculated based on the provided discharge weights. Geographic distribution of the three cohorts was also investigated.ResultsAn estimated total of 923,038 LIFs were performed between 2001 and 2010 in the United States. Posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions accounted for 79% to 86% of total LIFs between 2001 and 2010, ALIFs for 10% to 15%, and APF decreased from 10% in 2002 to less than 1% in 2010. On average, P/TLIF patients were oldest (54.55 years), followed by combined approach (47.23 years) and ALIF (46.94 years) patients (p<.0001). Anterior lumbar interbody fusion, P/TLIF, and combined surgical costs were $75,872, $65,894, and $92,249, respectively (p<.0001). Patients in the P/TLIF cohort had the greatest number of comorbidities, having the highest prevalence for 10 of 17 comorbidities investigated. Anterior-posterior interbody fusion group was associated with the greatest number of complications, having the highest incidence of 12 of the 16 complications investigated.ConclusionsThese data help to define the perioperative risks for several LIF approaches. Comparison of outcomes showed that a combined approach is more expensive and associated with greater LOS, whereas ALIF is associated with the highest postoperative mortality. These trends should be taken into consideration during surgical planning to improve clinical outcomes.     

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

For over 70 years, interbody lumbar fusions have evolved from modifications to discectomy procedures to more advanced techniques such as the posterolateral interbody fusion (PLIF) and ultimately the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The advent of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques provided advantages of decreased soft tissue dissection, lower blood loss, and decreased post-operative pain.⁹ Recently, further developments have lead to the introduction of endoscopic techniques with an awake anesthesia protocol that has shown improved results over the standard MIS TLIF.12., 13., 14.^,20,31 While the standard MIS TLIF has now become commonplace, endoscopic MIS TLIF will also see widespread adoption over time.     

Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Background contextThe transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure has become an increasingly popular means of obtaining a circumferential fusion while avoiding the morbidity of the anterior approach. Concerns remain, however, regarding the clinical efficacy and safety of its use.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the complications of the single-level TLIF procedure. The difference in complications observed with the use of iliac crest autograft compared with rhBMP-2 will be assessed.Study designRetrospective cohort study; a review of complications.MethodsPatients who underwent a single-level TLIF between January 2004 to May 2007 with either autograft iliac crest or rhBMP-2 were identified. A retrospective review of these patients included operative reports, pre- and postoperative medical records, most recent postoperative dynamic and static lumbar radiographs, and computed tomography scans (when available).ResultsA total of 130 patients met the study criteria; 119 patients were available for follow-up, with an average radiographic follow-up of 19.1 months and an average clinical follow-up of 27.6 months. Thirty-three patients received iliac crest autograft and 86 patients received rhBMP-2. Complications occurred in 40 of the 119 study patients (33.6%). The autograft group had a higher complication rate (45.5% vs. 29.1%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=.09). Complications in the autograft group included persistent donor-site pain (30.3%), donor-site infection (3.1%), lumbar wound infection (6.1%), and postoperative radiculitis (3.0%). Complications in the rhBMP-2 group included postoperative radiculitis (14.0%), vertebral osteolysis (5.8%), ectopic bone formation (2.3%), and lumbar wound infection (3.5%). A hydrogel sealant (Duraseal; Confluent Surgical Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) was used in 37 out of 86 patients in the rhBMP-2 group. The use of this sealant decreased the rate of postoperative radiculitis in the rhBMP-2 group from 20.4% to 5.4% (p=.047). The radiographic nonunion rate at most recent follow-up was 3.0% in the autograft group and 3.5% (p=.90) in the rhBMP-2 group.ConclusionsThe most common complications in the autograft group were related to the donor site. The most common complication in the rhBMP-2 group was postoperative radiculitis, the incidence of which is reduced by the use of a hydrogel sealant.     

自制微创拉钩辅助改良双侧Wiltse入路经椎间孔椎体间融合术在腰椎退行性病变治疗中的应用

目的:探讨自制微创拉钩辅助改良双侧Wiltse入路经椎间孔椎体间融合术(transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion,TLIF)在治疗腰椎退行性病变中的优势.方法:回顾性分析2016年10月至2017年10月行腰椎融合手术的140例患者的临床资料,其中72例患者采用自制微创拉钩辅助改良...     

微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗连续双节段腰椎退行性疾病

目的比较微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)及传统开放TLIF治疗双节段腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法 2015年1月-2019年9月收治双节段腰椎退行性疾病患者56例,采用MIS-TLIF治疗26例(MIS-TLIF组)、采用传统开放TLIF治疗30例(TLIF组)。记录2组手术时间、术中透视次数、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后卧床时间、术后肌酸激酶(CK)等指标及并发症发生情况。术前及术后1周、3个月、12个月时采用疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评估腰腿痛程度及腰椎功能。采用Bridwell分级评估术后椎间融合情况。在术后腰椎CT上采用Rao分级评价螺钉位置。结果所有手术顺利完成,所有患者随访(14.7±2.1)个月。MIS-TLIF组较TLIF组手术时间长,术中透视次数多,但术后卧床时间短,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05);2组术中出血量、术后引流量及术后CK水平差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组术后各时间点腰腿痛VAS评分及ODI较术前均显著改善,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);MIS-TLIF组术后1周腰痛VAS评分较TLIF组更低,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),2组术后3、12个月时腰腿痛VAS评分差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);各随访时间点2组ODI差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组患者均未发生内固定松动或融合器移位等并发症。2组椎间融合率组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组A型螺钉分布差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),B型螺钉分布差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。术后共发生硬膜撕裂4例、下肢麻木加重4例、切口愈合不良1例,2组并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论 MIS-TLIF与传统开放TLIF临床疗效类似,且在手术时间、术中辐射暴露情况及椎旁肌肉损伤等方面并无明显优势,双节段腰椎退行性疾病患者建议选择传统开放TLIF治疗。     

Efficacy of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine for postoperative analgesia following bariatric surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

BackgroundThe impact of intravenous lidocaine in adults undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgeries (LBS) remains unclear.ObjectivesThis study aimed at investigating the effect of intravenous lidocaine on postoperative opioid consumption and recovery following LBS.SettingMeta-analysis.MethodsWe searched databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the use of intravenous lidocaine compared to placebo only prior to May 2021. The primary outcome was 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption, while secondary outcomes included pain score, quality of recovery (QOR)-40 score, length of hospital stay (LOS), and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV).ResultsSeven trials (496 participants) were included. Intraoperative intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced 24-hour equivalent morphine consumption (mean difference [MD]: ?11.97 mg; 95% confidence interval [CI]: ?23.12 to ?.83), pain score at 1 to 3 hours (MD: ?.77; 95% CI: ?1.5 to ?.04), and LOS (MD: ?8.93 hr; 95% CI: ?13.41 to ?4.44) without positive impact on 24-hour pain score and PONV. There was also an increase in time to first opioid requirement (MD: 20.23 min; 95% CI: 11.76–28.7) and QOR-40 score (MD: 24.38; 95% CI: 5.57–43.18). However, sensitivity analysis demonstrated evidence supporting the beneficial effect of lidocaine only for time to first opioid requirement and QOR-40. The associations of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine with reductions in morphine consumption, pain score at 1 to 3 hours, and LOS after LBS were also weak.ConclusionIntraoperative intravenous lidocaine during LBS prolonged time to first opioid requirement and improved quality of recovery postoperatively without 24-hour pain or nausea/vomiting benefits. Due to the small number of trials, larger studies are warranted to verify our findings.     

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXTTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) is an effective treatment for lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS). However, the effects of TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) on LFS treatment have not been clearly elucidated.PURPOSEWe conducted this study to compare clinical outcomes and radiographic results of TLIF with UPSF and BPSF 2 years after the surgical treatment.DESIGNProspective randomized study.PATIENT SAMPLEThis study included 23 patients undergoing TLIF with UPSF and 25 patients undergoing TLIF with BPSF.OUTCOME MEASURESClinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Radiographic outcomes included foraminal height, disc space height, segmental lordosis, and final fusion rates.METHODSThe clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared between the UPSF and BPSF group. The postoperative improvements were evaluated in either group. Intraoperative data such as duration of operation and estimated blood loss were collected. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov.RESULTSAnalysis of the VAS and ODI scores showed significant improvements in clinical outcomes within each group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were noted in the improvements of the VAS and ODI scores. The mean operative duration and blood loss were significantly greater in the BPSF group than in the UPSF group. There were significant improvements in the height of the foramen and intervertebral space and segmental lordosis in both groups, while there was no significant difference between the groups in amount of the improvements. No significant difference was found in the final fusion rates.CONCLUSIONSTLIF is an appropriate procedure for LFS treatment. With balanced intervertebral support using a cage, UPSF could achieve similar and satisfactory effects on lumbar segmental stability and fusion compared to BPSF. The unilateral approach appears to be associated with slightly shorter operative time and less blood loss.     

Intra-operative ketorolac 15 mg versus 30 mg for analgesia following cesarean delivery: a retrospective study

BackgroundKetorolac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug used as part of multimodal analgesia in women undergoing cesarean delivery. The lowest effective dose of ketorolac that best optimizes analgesia without increasing side effects is unclear. We performed this retrospective study to compare the analgesic efficacy of 15 mg or 30 mg ketorolac administered intra-operatively to our obstetric population.MethodsWe included patients who underwent cesarean delivery under neuraxial anesthesia and received 15 mg or 30 mg of ketorolac intra-operatively. Our multimodal analgesic regimen is standardized and includes 150 µg spinal or 3 mg epidural morphine, 975 mg rectal acetaminophen, and 15–30 mg intravenous ketorolac within 15 min of surgery completion. The primary outcome was opioid use in the first 6 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were opioid use at 24 and 48 h, opioid dose, pain scores, breastfeeding, postoperative serum creatinine and need for rescue anti-emetics.ResultsOne-thousand-three-hundred and forty-nine patients were analyzed (15 mg ketorolac n=999; 30 mg n=350). There was no difference between the two groups in patient demographics or intra-operative characteristics. There was no significant difference between groups for opioid use at 6 h after surgery (50.3% vs 52.0%, odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.13 [0.87 to 1.47]). There were also no significant differences between the groups for secondary outcomes.ConclusionsThere was no difference in opioid use between patients receiving either a 15 mg or a 30 mg dose of ketorolac given intra-operatively for postoperative analgesia following cesarean delivery.     

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.     

斜侧方/经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗退行性腰椎滑脱的近期疗效

目的　比较斜侧方入路腰椎椎间融合术(OLIF)与经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)治疗退行性腰椎滑脱(DLS)的近期疗效。方法回顾性分析海军军医大学附属长征医院2018年1月—2018年6月收治的30例DLS患者临床资料,其中采用OLIF治疗15例(OLIF组)、采用TLIF治疗15例(TLIF组)。记录2组手术时间、术中出血量、椎间融合、椎间孔高度及椎间高度恢复情况等;采用疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分评估腰腿疼痛程度;采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评估术后功能恢复情况。结果所有手术顺利完成。所有患者随访(8.5±2.3)个月,末次随访时OLIF组均获得椎间融合,TLIF组1例未完全融合。OLIF组手术时间、术中出血量均少于TLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。2组术后1 d及末次随访VAS评分、ODI均较术前显著改善,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05);术后1 d及末次随访VAS评分组间相比差异无统计学意义(P 0.05);OLIF组术后1 d及末次随访ODI优于TLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。2组术后1 d及末次随访椎间孔高度及椎间高度均较术前明显改善,且术后1 d时OLIF组优于TLIF组,差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。结论 2种术式治疗DLS近期临床疗效良好。OLIF创伤小,ODI、椎间和椎间孔高度恢复优于TLIF。     

National utilization and inpatient safety measures of lumbar spinal fusion methods by race/ethnicity

BACKGROUND CONTEXTDegenerative lumbar conditions are prevalent, disabling, and frequently managed with decompression and fusion. Black patients have lower spinal fusion rates than White patients.PURPOSEDetermine whether specific lumbar fusion procedure utilization differs by race/ethnicity and whether length of stay (LOS) or inpatient complications differ by race/ethnicity after accounting for procedure performed.STUDY DESIGNLarge database retrospective cohort studyPATIENT SAMPLELumbar fusion recipients at least age 50 in the 2016 National Inpatient Sample with diagnoses of degenerative lumbar conditions.OUTCOME MEASURESType of fusion procedure used and inpatient safety measures including LOS, prolonged LOS, inpatient medical and surgical complications, mortality, and cost.METHODSWe examined the association between race/ethnicity and the safety measures above. Covariates included several patient and hospital factors. We used multiple linear or logistic regression to determine the association between race and fusion type (PLF, P/TLIF, ALIF, PLF + P/TLIF, and PLF + ALIF [anterior-posterior fusion]) and to determine whether race was associated independently with inpatient safety measures, after adjustment for patient and hospital factors.RESULTSFusion method use did not differ among racial/ethnic groups, except for somewhat lower anterior-posterior fusion utilization in Black patients compared to White patients (crude odds ratio [OR]: 0.81 [0.67–0.97]). Inpatient safety measures differed by race/ethnicity for rates of prolonged LOS (Blacks 18.1%, Hispanics 14.5%, and Whites 11.7%), medical complications (Blacks 9.9%, Hispanics 8.7%, and Whites 7.7%), and surgical complications (Blacks 5.2%, Hispanics 6.9%, and Whites 5.4%). Differences persisted after adjustment for procedure type as well as patient and hospital factors. Blacks and Hispanics had higher risk for prolonged LOS compared to Whites (adjusted OR Blacks 1.39 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.22–1.59]; Hispanics 1.24 [95% CI 1.02–1.52]). Blacks had higher risk for inpatient medical complications compared to Whites (adjusted OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.05–1.48]), and Hispanics had higher risk for inpatient surgical complications compared to Whites (adjusted OR 1.34 [95% CI 1.06–1.68]).CONCLUSIONSFusion method use was generally similar between racial/ethnic groups. Inpatient safety measures, adjusted for procedure type, patient and hospital factors, were worse for Blacks and Hispanics.     

Utility of the transversus abdominis plane and rectus sheath blocks in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusions

BACKGROUND CONTEXTAnterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established technique to address numerous pathological conditions of the spine and to restore sagittal spine balance. Improving patient comfort and reducing opioid consumption following lumbar fusions is a significant goal for spine surgeons. Therefore, there is a growing need to explore multimodal options for pain management post-surgery.PURPOSEDetermine the effectiveness of combined transversus abdominis plane (TAP) and rectus sheath (RS) blocks in those undergoing (ALIF) as compared to a historical control.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective comparative cohort performed at a tertiary referral orthopedic specialty hospital.PATIENT SAMPLEOf the 175 patients (88 patients received a combined regional block) who underwent an ALIF between January 1, 2018 and August 1, 2021.OUTCOME MEASURESPain scores both during activity and at rest, opioid consumption during the first 72 hours postoperatively, total postoperative anesthesia care unit length of stay (PACU LOS), 30-day emergency department visits, 30-day readmissions, and unplanned returns to the operating room.METHODSCharts of patients undergoing an ALIF during the open period for this study were placed into two groups: those that received combined regional anesthesia and those that did not. A t test assuming unequal variances was used to determine if there were differences in outcome variables between the two groups.RESULTSThe study group, those receiving the combine block, demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in opioid pain medicine (24.8%), reported pain (10-13%), and PACU LOS (18.7%). There were no differences in complication rates between the two groups.CONCLUSIONSThe combined use of TAP and RS blocks appears to be a well-tolerated and effective means of pain management in this patient cohort.