Management of lymphocele following anterior lumbar interbody fusion, case report and review of literature.

While anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is known as an established and safe procedure for treatment of degenerative disc disease, albeit rare, the development of postoperative intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal collection of lymph warrants timely diagnosis and management. This study presents the case of a 62-year-old male who underwent L4-L5 and L5-S1 ALIF and developed a persistent left-sided fluid collection, resulting in a symptomatic retroperitoneal lymphocele confirmed by computed tomography (CT). After percutaneous drainage by interventional radiology (IR), output remained high at 1 liter (L) per day, necessitating sclerotherapy with doxycycline and ethanol. In the absence of improvement, a lymphangiogram demonstrating a persistent lymph leak and glue embolization was performed. Due to refractory symptoms, retroperitoneal exploration with methylene blue dye was utilized for lymphatic mapping, and a lymphatic capillary leak in proximity to the left iliac artery was identified and successfully ligated with resolution of symptoms. With suspected fluid collections following ALIF, confirmation with CT or ultrasound (US) imaging followed by percutaneous drainage and testing of fluid is necessary. In mild cases, drainage alone or nonsurgical chemical sclerotherapy may suffice. In symptomatic refractory cases, localization of the site with lymphangiogram or US-guided injection of methylene blue dye allows for easier identification and definitive management with either transabdominal laparoscopic fenestration or retroperitoneal surgical exploration and ligation.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Replacement for a Workers' Compensation Population in an Ambulatory Surgical Center.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement outcomes between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disk replacement (CDR) in the Workers' Compensation (WC) population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No studies to our knowledge have compared PROMs and MCID attainment between ACDF and CDR among patients with WC insurance undergoing surgery in an outpatient ambulatory surgical center (ASC). METHODS: WC insurance patients undergoing primary, single/double-level ACDF/CDR in an ASC were identified. Patients were divided into ACDF versus CDR. PROMs were collected at preoperative/6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year timepoints, including PROMIS-PF, SF-12 PCS/MCS, VAS neck/arm, and NDI. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were included, 51 ACDF/28 CDR. While operative time (56.4 vs. 54.4 min), estimated blood loss (29.2 vs. 25.9 mL), POD0 pain (4.9 vs. 3.8), and POD0 narcotic consumption (21.2 vs. 14.5 oral morphine equivalents) were higher in ACDF patients, none reached statistical significance ( P >0.050, all). One-year arthrodesis rate was 100.0% among ACDF recipients with available imaging (n=36). ACDF cohort improved from preoperative for PROMIS-PF from 12 weeks to 1 year, SF-12 PCS at 6 months, all timepoints for VAS neck/arm, and 12 weeks/6 months for NDI ( P ≤0.044, all). CDR cohort improved from preoperative for PROMIS-PF at 6 months, VAS neck/arm from 12 weeks to 1 year, and NDI at 12 weeks/6 months ( P ≤0.049, all). CDR cohort reported significantly lower VAS neck at 12 weeks/1 year and VAS arm at 12 weeks ( P ≤0.039, all). MCID achievement rates did not differ. CONCLUSION: While operative duration/estimated blood loss/acute postoperative pain/narcotic consumption were, on average, higher among ACDF recipients, these were not statistically significant, possibly due to the limited sample size. ACDF and CDR ASC patients generally demonstrated comparable arm pain/disability/physical function/mental health, though neck pain was significantly lower at multiple timepoints among CDR patients. Clinically meaningful PROM improvements were comparable. Larger, multicentered studies are required to confirm our results.

Impact of American Society of Anesthesiologists' Classification on Postoperative Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes Following Lumbar Decompression: Cohort-Matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement, and postoperative satisfaction following minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients stratified by American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Some guidelines recommend against performing elective procedures for patients with an ASA score of 3 or greater; however, long-term postoperative outcomes are not well described. METHODS: Primary, single-level, minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedures were identified. PROMs were administered at preoperative, 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year timepoints and included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function, visual analog scale (VAS) back/leg, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and 12-item short form physical component score. Satisfaction scores were collected postoperatively for VAS back/leg, ODI, and individual ODI subcategories. Patients were grouped (ASA<3, ASA≥3), and propensity scores were matched to control for significant differences. Demographic and perioperative characteristics were compared using χ 2 and the Student's t test. Mean PROMs and postoperative satisfaction were compared at each time point by a 2-sample t test. Postoperative PROM improvement from the preoperative baseline within each cohort was calculated with a paired t test. MCID achievement was determined by comparing ΔPROMs to established thresholds and comparing between groups using simple logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine propensity-matched patients were included: 99 ASA<3 and 30 ASA≥3. No significant demographic differences were observed between groups. ASA≥3 patients experienced significantly increased length of stay and postoperative narcotic consumption on surgery day ( P <0.048, all). Mean PROMs and MCID achievement did not differ. The ASA<3 cohort significantly improved from the preoperative baseline for all PROMs at all postoperative time points. ASA<3 patients demonstrated higher levels of postoperative satisfaction at 6 weeks for VAS leg, VAS back, ODI, sleeping, lifting, walking, standing, sex, travel, and at 6 months for VAS back ( P <0.045, all). CONCLUSION: ASA≥3 patients may achieve similar long-term clinical outcomes to ASA<3 patients, though they may show poorer short-term satisfaction for disability, leg pain, and back pain, which could be related to differing preoperative expectations.

The Influence of Presenting Physical Function on Postoperative Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: The study of retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), satisfaction, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MIS-LD) in patients stratified by the preoperative patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function (PROMIS-PF) score. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although prior studies have assessed the predictive utility of preoperative PROMIS-PF scores on patient outcomes in spinal fusion, its utility has not been studied for patients undergoing MIS-LD. METHODS: Primary, single/multilevel MIS-LD procedures were identified. PROMs were administered at preoperative/6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year/2-year time points and included PROMIS-PF/visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Satisfaction scores were collected postoperatively. The patients were grouped by preoperative PROMIS-PF score (≤35, >35), with higher scores indicating improved physical function. Demographic/perioperative characteristics were compared using χ 2 /Student t test. Mean PROMs/postoperative satisfaction was compared utilizing 2-sample t test. Postoperative PROM improvement from preoperative was calculated with paired t tests. MCID achievement rates were compared using simple logistic regression. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen patients were included, 58 PROMIS-PF≤35 and 158 PROMIS-PF>35. Ethnicity/insurance differed ( P ≤0.004, all). Hospital length of stay was greater for PROMIS-PF>35 ( P =0.042). All preoperative mean PROMs significantly differed except for VAS Back. Several postoperative mean PROMs differed: PROMIS-PF at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/1 year, SF-12 PCS at 6 weeks/12 weeks/1 year, VAS Back at 6 weeks/12 weeks, VAS leg at 6 weeks/12 weeks, and ODI at 6 weeks/12 weeks ( P <0.050, all). All PROMs significantly improved from preoperative at all postoperative time points ( P <0.003, all). The MCID achievement rates differed only for VAS back for 6 weeks, favoring PROMIS-PF>35 cohort ( P =0.001). Postoperative satisfaction was greater in PROMIS-PF>35 cohort for VAS leg at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/2 years, VAS back at 6-weeks/12-weeks, and ODI at all time points ( P <0.037, all). Postoperative satisfaction was greater in PROMIS-PF>35 cohort for individual ODI categories: sleep at 6-weeks/12-weeks/1-year/2-years, lifting, walking, standing, and travel at all time points, and sexual at 6-weeks/12-weeks/1-year/2-years ( P <0.030, all). CONCLUSION: Poorer preoperative PROMIS-PF scores were associated with worse postoperative clinical outcomes and satisfaction. By stratifying patients with preoperative PROMIS-PF scores, surgeons may better predict postoperative clinical improvement and seek to manage patient expectations.

Impact of Postoperative Length of Stay on Patient-Reported and Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Existing literature has not yet evaluated the impact of postoperative length of stay (LOS) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). The authors investigates the influence of postoperative LOS following ALIF on PROMs and MCID achievement rates. METHODS: A single-surgeon database was retrospectively reviewed for patients undergoing single-level ALIF. The following 2 cohorts were studied: patients with LOS <45 hours and patients with LOS ≥45 hours. The following PROMs were recorded at preoperative and 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative timepoints: visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-item short form (SF-12) physical composite score (PCS), and patient-reported outcome measurement information system physical function. MCID achievement was compared by LOS grouping using χ 2 analysis. The rates of complications by LOS grouping and the relative risk among demographic and perioperative characteristics for a longer hospital stay of ≥45 hours were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 52 subjects were included in each cohort. LOS ≥45 hours demonstrated worse ODI at 6 weeks and SF-12 PCS preoperative and at 12 weeks (P ≤ 0.026, all). LOS <45 hours demonstrated greater MCID rates for all PROMs except VAS back (P ≤ 0.004, all). Postoperative urinary retention (POUR), fever, and total complications (P ≤ 0.003, all) were associated with increased LOS. Diabetes (P = 0.037), preoperative VAS neck ≥7 (P = 0.012), and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥2 (P = 0.003) served as preoperative risk factors for postoperative stay ≥45 hours. CONCLUSION: Following single-level ALIF, patients with shorter LOS demonstrated significantly greater overall MCID achievement for most PROMs. POUR, fever, and total complications were associated with longer LOS and greater blood loss. Diabetes and higher preoperative leg pain were identified as risk factors for longer LOS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients undergoing ALIF with shorter LOS had greater MCID achievement for disability, physical function, and leg pain outcomes. Patients with greater preoperative leg pain and diabetes may be at risk for longer LOS.

Does Baseline Severity of Arm Pain Influence Outcomes Following Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. PURPOSE: To assess preoperative arm pain severity influence on postoperative patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There is evidence that preoperative symptom severity can affect postoperative outcomes. Few have evaluated this association between preoperative arm pain severity and postoperative PROMs and MCID achievement following ACDF. METHODS: Individuals undergoing single-level ACDF were identified. Patients were grouped by preoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) arm ≤8 vs. >8. PROMs collected preoperatively and postoperatively included VAS-arm/VAS-neck/Neck Disability Index (NDI)/12-item Short Form (SF-12) Physical Composite Score (PCS)/SF-12 mental composite score (MCS)/Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF). Demographics, PROMs, and MCID rates were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included. The VAS arm ≤8 cohort significantly improved for all PROMs excepting VAS arm at 1-year/2-years, SF-12 MCS at 12-weeks/1-year/2-years, and SF-12 PCS/PROMIS-PF at 6-weeks, only (p ≤0.021, all). The VAS arm >8 cohort significantly improved for VAS neck at all timepoints, VAS arm from 6-weeks to 1-year, NDI from 6-weeks to 6-months, and SF-12 MCS/PROMIS-PF at 6-months (p ≤0.038, all). Postoperatively, the VAS arm >8 cohort had higher VAS-neck (6 weeks/6 months), VAS-arm (12 weeks/6 months), NDI (6 weeks/6 months), lower SF-12 MCS (6 weeks/6 months), SF-12 PCS (6 months), and PROMISPF (12 weeks/6 months) (p ≤0.038, all). MCID achievement rates were higher among the VAS arm >8 cohort for the VAS-arm at 6-weeks/12-weeks/1-year/overall and NDI at 2 years (p ≤0.038, all). CONCLUSIONS: Significance in PROM score differences between VAS arm ≤8 vs. >8 generally dissipated at the 1-year and 2-year timepoint, although higher preoperative arm pain patients suffered from worse pain, disability, and mental/physical function scores. Furthermore, clinically meaningful rates of improvement were similar throughout the vast majority of timepoints for all PROMs studied.

Validation of Neck Disability Index Severity among Patients Receiving One or Two-Level Anterior Cervical Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of established severity thresholds for Neck Disability Index (NDI) among patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Few studies have examined the validity of established NDI threshold values among patients undergoing ACDF or CDA. METHODS: A surgical database was reviewed to identify patients undergoing cervical spine procedures. Demographics, operative characteristics, comorbidities, NDI, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and 12-item Short Form (SF-12) physical and mental composite scores (PCS and MCS) were recorded. NDI severity was categorized using previously established threshold values. Improvement from preoperative scores at each postoperative timepoint and convergent validity of NDI was evaluated. Discriminant validity of NDI was evaluated against VAS neck and arm and SF-12 PCS and MCS. RESULTS: All 290 patients included in the study demonstrated significant improvements from baseline values for all patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at all postoperative timepoints (p<0.001) except SF-12 MCS at 2 years (p =0.393). NDI showed a moderate- to-strong correlation (r≥0.419) at most timepoints for VAS neck, VAS arm, SF-12 PCS, and SF-12 MCS (p<0.001, all). NDI severity categories demonstrated significant differences in mean VAS neck, VAS arm, SF-12 PCS, and SF-12 MCS at all timepoints (p<0.001, all). Differences between NDI severity groups were not uniform for all PROMs. VAS neck values demonstrated significant intergroup differences at most timepoints, whereas SF-12 MCS showed significantly different values between most severity groups. CONCLUSIONS: Neck disability is strongly correlated with neck and arm pain, physical function, and mental health and demonstrates worse outcomes with increasing severity. Previously established severity categories may be more applicable to pain than physical function or mental health and may be more uniformly applied preoperatively for cervical spine patients.

History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a popular surgical technique for lumbar arthrodesis, widely considered to hold great efficacy while conferring an impressive safety profile through the minimization of soft tissue damage. This elegant approach to lumbar stabilization is the byproduct of several innovations throughout the past century. In 1934, Mixter and Barr's paper in the New England Journal of Medicine elucidated the role of disc herniation in spinal instability and radiculopathy, prompting surgeons to explore new approaches and instruments to access the disc space. In 1944, Briggs and Milligan published their novel technique, the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), involving continuous removal of vertebral bone chips and replacement of the disc with a round bone peg. The following decades witnessed several PLIF modifications, including the addition of long pedicle screws. In 1982, Harms and Rolinger sought to redefine the posterior corridor by approaching the disc space through the intervertebral foramen, establishing the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). In the 1990s, lumbar spine surgery experienced a paradigm shift, with surgeons placing increased emphasis on tissuesparing minimally invasive techniques. Spurred by this revolution, Foley and Lefkowitz published the novel MIS-TLIF technique in 2002. The MIS-TLIF has demonstrated comparable surgical outcomes to the TLIF, with an improved safety profile. Here, we present a view into the history of the posterior-approach treatment of the discogenic radiculopathy, culminating in the MIS-TLIF. Additionally, we evaluate the hallmark characteristics, technical variability, and reported outcomes of the modern MIS-TLIF and take a brief look at technologies that may define the future MIS-TLIF.

Single-level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Surgical Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Limited studies have compared minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. This study aims to compare perioperative variables, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rates between these surgical approaches. METHODS: Patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis undergoing primary, single-level MIS TLIF or ALIF were identified in a surgical database. Patients were divided into MIS TLIF and ALIF cohorts. Demographics and perioperative characteristics were collected and compared between groups using the chi square test or Student t-test. PROMs including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, 12-Item Short Form Physical Composite Score, visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index were collected at preoperative, 6-, 12-week, 6-month, 1-, and 2-year time points. Mean PROMs were compared using the Student t-test for independent samples. MCID attainment was determined using established values in the literature; achievement rates by grouping were compared using chi square analysis. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-one patients were included, 121 MIS TLIF and 50 ALIF. No demographic differences were observed. Mean surgical times were 139.7 minutes (MIS TLIF) and 165.5 minutes (ALIF) (P < 0.001). No other perioperative differences were observed. Mean estimated blood loss values were 63.8 mL (MIS TLIF) and 73.7 mL (ALIF). Mean postoperative lengths of stay were 43.9 hours (MIS TLIF) and 42.5 hours (ALIF). Mean PROMs did not markedly differ among groups at any time point. MCID attainment was markedly higher among MIS TLIF patients for the Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks (P = 0.046) and 12 weeks (P = 0.007), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function at 12 weeks (P = 0.015), and VAS leg at 6 weeks (P = 0.031) and 12 weeks (P = 0.045). No other notable differences were observed among MCID achievement by grouping. DISCUSSION: While single-level ALIF demonstrated markedly higher surgical times, other perioperative characteristics and PROMs were comparable among ALIF and MIS TLIF patients. Although MCID achievement rates were generally lower for disability and leg pain among ALIF patients, significance was not reached at 6 months, 1 year, or during the overall postoperative period after fusion.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis with Predominant Back Pain versus Predominant Leg Pain Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement following anterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis in patients presenting with predominant back pain versus predominant leg pain symptoms. METHODS: A single-surgeon database was reviewed for anterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures for isthmic spondylolisthesis. Patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, postoperative complications, and PROMs were collected. Demographic/perioperative characteristics were compared among groups using χ2 and Student t tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Mean PROM scores were compared using an unpaired Student t test. Postoperative improvement from preoperative baseline within each cohort was assessed with paired-samples t test. MCID achievement rates were compared with χ2 analysis. RESULTS: In total, 143 patients were included with 65 patients in the predominant back pain and 78 patients in the predominant leg pain cohort. Preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) leg was noted to be significantly greater in predominant leg pain cohort (P < 0.001). Cohorts demonstrated significant mean postoperative differences for the following PROMs at the following postoperative time points: significant differences were noted between cohorts for rate of achievement of MCID for the following PROMs at the following time points: VAS back at 2 years and VAS leg at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/overall (P < 0.036, all). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients presenting for surgery with predominant leg pain symptoms, patients undergoing lumbar fusion at L4-L5 and L5-S1 for isthmic spondylolisthesis with predominant back pain symptoms may demonstrate improved long-term clinical outcomes for reported back pain, leg pain, and disability and reduced postoperative length of stay and narcotic consumption.

Influence of Predominant Neck versus Arm Pain on Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Outcomes: A Follow-Up Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) attainment following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion based on predominant preoperative pain symptom. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary, single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion were identified. PROMs included visual analog scale (VAS) arm and neck, 12-item short-form physical component summary (SF-12 PCS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), and Neck Disability Index, collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Patients were placed in preoperative predominant arm pain (pAP) and preoperative predominant neck pain groups. χ2 test compared demographic and perioperative characteristics, and MCID attainment rates. Student t test evaluated change from preoperative to postoperative PROM values and compared PROMs between groups. RESULTS: There were 110 patients assessed (52 neck pain, 58 arm pain). Patients with preoperative predominant neck pain improved significantly from preoperative to postoperative at 12 weeks to 1 year for PROMIS-PF, 6 months and 1 year for SF-12 PCS, 6 weeks to 1 year for VAS neck, 6 weeks to 6 months for VAS arm, and 6 weeks to 2 years for Neck Disability Index (all P ≤ 0.035). Patients with pAP improved significantly from preoperative to all postoperative time points for PROMIS-PF, 6 months to 2 years for SF-12 PCS, 6 weeks to 1 year for VAS neck, 6 weeks to 1 year for VAS arm, and 6 weeks to 6 months for Neck Disability Index (all P ≤ 0.040). Mean PROMIS-PF was higher at 6 weeks, preoperative VAS neck was lower, and preoperative VAS arm was higher for pAP patients (all P ≤ 0.013). MCID attainment was significantly higher in pAP patients for PROMIS-PF from 6 weeks to 6 months, SF-12 PCS 6 weeks, and VAS arm 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Predominant pain symptom demonstrated little effect on perioperative characteristics and postoperative PROMs. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion candidates will likely experience similar clinically meaningful postoperative improvements in physical function, disability, and pain.

Effects of Anterior Plating on Achieving Clinically Meaningful Improvement Following Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical utility of anterior cervical plating for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures remains controversial. This study aims to compare the impact of cervical plating on achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) up to 2 years following ACDF. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary, single-level ACDF procedures were grouped based on whether their procedure included application of an anterior cervical plate. Demographics, preoperative spinal diagnoses, operative characteristics, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared between plating groups. Achievement of an MCID was assessed using the following previously established thresholds: 12-item Short Form health survey physical component summary (SF-12 PCS) 8.1, visual analogue scale (VAS) neck 2.6, VAS arm 4.1, Neck Disability Index (NDI) 8.5. Rates of MCID achievement were compared between groups. RESULTS: The cohort included 192 patients of whom 102 received plating and 90 received no plating. Plating status was significantly associated with Charlson Comorbidity Index and insurance status. Operative duration and estimated blood loss were significantly greater for the plating group. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements at the majority of postoperative timepoints. Significant intergroup differences in PROM improvement were demonstrated for VAS neck and NDI at 6 weeks. Rates of MCID achievement differed significantly between groups for NDI at 6 weeks, and 12 weeks, and SF-12 PCS overall. CONCLUSION: Patients improved significantly in terms of pain, disability and physical function, regardless of plating status, and with the exception of early neck pain and disability, these improvements were similar between groups. Patients that underwent plating as part of their ACDF procedure achieved an MCID for physical function at lower rates overall.

Preoperative Duration of Symptoms Does Not Affect Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have examined the impact of preoperative duration of symptoms (DOS) on lumbar spinal surgery outcomes although this has not been explored for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of preoperative DOS on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of ALIF with posterior instrumentation. METHODS: A database was retrospectively reviewed for ALIFs with posterior instrumentation. PROMs recorded at preoperative, 6-wk, 12-wk, 6-mo, and 1-yr postoperative timepoints included Visual Analog Scale back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index, 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), and PROM Information System physical function. Achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was determined by comparing differences in postoperative PROMs from baseline to established values. Patients were grouped based on preoperative DOS into <1-yr and ≥1-yr groups. Differences in PROMs were compared using a t-test, whereas MCID achievement used a χ2 test. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included, with 20 in the <1-yr group and 33 in the ≥1-yr group. The most common diagnosis was isthmic spondylolisthesis. No significant preoperative differences were observed in any PROM. DOS groups demonstrated significantly different scores for SF-12 PCS at 6 wk (P = .049). No significant differences in MCID achievement were observed between groups for any PROM. CONCLUSION: ALIF patients demonstrated similar levels of pain, disability, and physical function regardless of preoperative DOS, except for back pain and physical function at intermittent timepoints. MCID achievement did not differ based on DOS for all outcome measures.

Influence of Preoperative 12-Item Short Form Mental Composite Score on Clinical Outcomes in an Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Population Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine preoperative 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Mental Component Summary (MCS) influence on minimally important clinical difference (MCID) and patient-reported outcome measures in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. METHODS: Patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis undergoing primary, single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1 were retrospectively identified and divided into preoperative SF-12 MCS <50 and SF-12 MCS ≥50 groups. Visual analog scale (VAS) back/leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-12 Physical Composite Score (PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF) were assessed. Improvements from preoperative score were analyzed via paired samples t test. Patient-reported outcome measures and MCID attainment between groups were evaluated using linear regression and χ2, respectively. RESULTS: SF-12 MCS <50 and SF-12 MCS ≥50 groups included 35 and 26 patients, respectively. SF-12 MCS < 50 group had inferior scores for all VAS back time points except 6 weeks, all VAS leg time points except 6 weeks/1 year, all ODI time points, SF-12 PCS at 6 months/2 years, and PROMIS-PF at preoperative/6 months (all P ≤ 0.049). SF-12 MCS <50 group improved for VAS back/leg to 1 year, ODI and SF-12 PCS from 12 weeks to 1 year, and PROMIS-PF at 1 year only (all P ≤ 0.047). SF-12 MCS ≥50 group improved for VAS back from 12 weeks to 1 year, SF-12 PCS 6 months to 2 years, and VAS leg, ODI, and PROMIS-PF 12 weeks to 2 years (all P ≤ 0.018). MCID attainment differed for ODI at 6 weeks and PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks only (both P ≤ 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SF-12 MCS <50 demonstrated fewer long-term improvements from preoperative to 2 years and inferior patient-reported outcome measures at most time points for pain and disability following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. MCID attainment largely did not differ by preoperative mental functioning.

The Effect of the Severity of Preoperative Disability on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), satisfaction, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion stratified by preoperative disability. METHODS: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions were grouped by preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score: ODI <41 or ODI ≥41. PROMs administered pre/postoperatively included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF), visual analog scale (VAS) back/leg, ODI, and 12-Item Short-Form Physical Composite Score (SF-12 PCS)/12-Item Short-Form Mental Composite Score (SF-12 MCS). Satisfaction scores were collected for VAS back/leg and ODI. Coarsened exact match controlled for differences between cohorts. T tests compared mean PROMs and postoperative improvement/satisfaction between cohorts. Simple logistic regression compared MCID achievement. RESULTS: After coarsened exact matching, there were 118 patients in the ODI ≤41 and 377 patients in the ODI >41 cohort. The ODI >41 cohort saw greater postoperative inpatient VAS pain score and narcotic consumption on days 0/1 (P < 0.018, all). PROMs differed between cohorts: PROMIS-PF, SF-12 PCS, ODI, VAS back/leg at all postoperative time points and SF-12 MCS at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/1 year (P < 0.045, all). Patients in the ODI >41 cohort demonstrated greater proportion achieving MCID for ODI at all postoperative time points and for SF-12 MCS 6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year (P < 0.040, all). The ODI ≤41 cohort demonstrated greater MCID achievement for overall PROMIS-PF and SF-12 PCS 6 months (P < 0.047, all). Postoperative satisfaction was greater in the ODI ≤41 cohort for VAS leg 6 weeks/12 weeks, VAS back 6 weeks/12 weeks, and ODI all postoperative time points (P < 0.048, all). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative disability associated with worse postoperative PROMs and patient satisfaction for disability, back/leg pain at multiple time points. MCID achievement rates across cohorts were similar for most PROMs at most postoperative time points. Patients with severe disability may have unrealistic expectations for surgical benefits, influencing corresponding postoperative satisfaction.

Single-level TLIF Versus LLIF at L4-5: A Comparison of Patient-reported Outcomes and Recovery Ratios.

INTRODUCTION: Both transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are suitable for achievement of lumbar arthrodesis. Comparative studies have observed complications and outcomes without stratification by lumbar level. This study aims to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and recovery in TLIF and LLIF at L4-5. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary, elective, single-level, TLIF or LLIF procedures at L4-5 were grouped. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative complication rates were collected. PROMs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function, visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index, and 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Summary, and Mental Component Summary and were collected at preoperative, 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. Delta values and recovery ratios (RRs) were calculated for all PROMs at all time points. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative complications were compared using chi-squared and Student t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Differences in mean PROMs, delta values, and RR at each time point were evaluated using unpaired Student's t-test. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty TLIF and 46 LLIF patients were included. Most (54.3%) were men, mean age 56.3 years, and mean body mass index 30.8 kg/m2. Body mass index and insurance significantly differed (P ≤ 0.045, all). TLIF showed significantly greater mean operative time, length of stay, and postoperative narcotic consumption (P < 0.033, all) and greater postoperative nausea/vomiting (P = 0.004). No preoperative PROMs significantly differed. TLIF cohort had significantly greater VAS back at 6 months and VAS leg at 12 weeks and 6 months (P < 0.034, all). No mean delta PROMs or RRs significantly differed. DISCUSSION: LLIF demonstrated significantly reduced length of stay, postoperative narcotic consumption, and postoperative nausea/vomiting and significantly improved VAS back at 6 months and VAS leg at 12 weeks and 6 months versus TLIF. Although 2-year PROMs and RRs did not significantly differ, our findings may suggest improved midterm follow-up pain scores for LLIF patients.

Impact of Surgeon Experience on Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between surgeon experience and cervical fusion outcomes has yet to be assessed. We investigate perioperative characteristics, patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) by the volume of cases done throughout an orthopaedic spine surgeon's career. METHODS: ACDF procedures between 2005 and 2020 were identified. Group I included the first half of ACDF cases (#1-#321). PROMs were introduced in the second half of the ACDF cases; thus, the next 322 cases were subdivided to compare PROM and MCID between subgroups (cases #322 to #483 = group II and #484 to #645 = group III). PROMs, including VAS back/leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-12 Physical Composite Score, and PROMIS-PF, were collected preoperatively/postoperatively. Demographics, perioperative variables, mean PROMs, and MCID achievement were compared between groups and subgroups using the Student t-test and chi-square. Logistic regression evaluated MCID achievement using the established threshold values. RESULTS: A total of 642 patients were included (320 in group I, 161 in group II, and 161 in group III). The latter cases had significantly decreased surgical time, blood loss, and postoperative length of stay in comparison of groups and subgroups (P ≤ 0.002, all). CT-confirmed 1-year arthrodesis rates were increased among the latter cases (P = 0.045). Group II had significantly higher arthrodesis rates than group III (P = 0.039). The postoperative complication rates were lower in the latter cases (P < 0.001, all), whereas subgroup analysis revealed lower incidence of urinary retention and other complications in group III (P ≤ 0.031, all). Mean PROMs were significantly inferior in group II versus group III for VAS neck at 6 months (P = 0.030), Neck Disability Index at 6 months preoperatively (P ≤ 0.022, both), Short Form-12 Physical Composite Score at 12 weeks/2 years (P ≤ 0.047, both), and PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks/6 months (P ≤ 0.036, both). The MCID attainment rates were higher among group III for VAS neck/Neck Disability Index at 2 years (P ≤ 0.005) and overall achievement across all PROMs (P ≤ 0.015, all). DISCUSSION: Increased ACDF case volume may lead to markedly decreased surgical time, blood loss, and length of postoperative stay as well as improved clinical outcomes in pain, disability, and physical function.

Multimodal analgesic protocol for cervical disc replacement in the ambulatory setting: Clinical case series.

Background: Effective pain management is paramount for outpatient surgical success. This study aims to report a case series of patients undergoing cervical disc replacement (CDR) in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) with the use of an enhanced multimodal analgesic (MMA) protocol. Methods: Primary, single-/2-level CDR procedures at an ASC with an enhanced MMA protocol were included. ASC patients were discharged day of surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were administered at preoperative/6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year/2-year timepoints and included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) neck, VAS arm, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), and 12-Item Short-Form Physical and Mental Composite Score (SF-12 PCS/SF-12 MCS). A t-test assessed postoperative PROM improvement from baseline. MCID achievement was determined by comparing ΔPROM scores to previously established thresholds. Results: 106 patients were included, 76 single-level and 30 2-level. Most single-levels occurred at C5-C6, most 2-levels at C5-C7. One 2-level patient developed a hematoma 5 days postoperatively and underwent revision for evacuation. Five patients reported postoperative dysphagia; all were quickly resolved. One patient had an episode of seizure secondary to serotonin syndrome from concealed drug use. Patient was reintubated, transferred, and treated for serotonin syndrome. Two patients experienced postoperative nausea/vomiting. Cohort significantly improved from baseline for all PROMS at all timepoints except SF-12 MCS at 1-year/2-years and SF-12 PCS at 2 years (p < 0.047, all). Overall MCID achievement rates were: VAS arm (48.7%), VAS neck (69.1%), NDI (98.9%), SF-12 MCS (50.0%), SF-12 PCS (54.6%), and PROMIS-PF (73.4%). Conclusion: Outpatient CDR, incorporating an enhanced MMA protocol, can be safely and effectively performed with proper patient selection and surgical technique. Patients saw timely discharge, well-controlled postoperative pain, and favorable long-term outcomes.

Level-specific Perioperative and Clinical Outcome Comparison: Cervical Disk Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion at C5-C6 in Patients With Myeloradiculopathy.

INTRODUCTION: This study compares perioperative and postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) at C5-C6 in patients with myeloradiculopathy. METHODS: Primary, elective, single-level CDR or ACDF procedures at C5-C6 for patients with myeloradiculopathy were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included visual analog scale (VAS) neck, VAS arm, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), and Short-Form 12-Item Physical Composite Score (SF-12 PCS) collected at preoperative/6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year time points. Surgical cohorts were assessed for differences in demographics/perioperative characteristics using the chi square test and unpaired Student t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was determined by comparing ΔPROMs with established thresholds. Outcome measures were compared at postoperative time points with the Student t-test, and improvement from preoperative baseline was assessed with a paired sample t-test. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were included, 43 CDR and 94 ACDF. CDR patients demonstrated significantly reduced surgical times (46.3 versus 55.1 minutes), estimated blood loss (24.4 versus 43.6 mL), revision surgery rates (0.0% versus 5.3%), postoperative length of stay (8.9 versus 23.0 hours), and postoperative narcotic consumption (P < 0.017, all). Complication rates and mean PROMs did not differ between cohorts. The CDR cohort markedly improved from baseline for all PROMs postoperatively except SF-12 PCS/PROMIS-PF at 6 weeks. The ACDF cohort markedly improved at each time point except VAS arm at 1 year, NDI at 6 weeks/1 year, and SF-12 PCS/PROMIS-PF at 6 weeks. A majority of both cohorts achieved overall MCID for VAS neck/NDI/PROMIS-PF. MCID achievement rates did not differ except NDI at 12 weeks/1 year and SF-12 PCS at 6 months, both favoring CDR. DISCUSSION: Both procedural cohorts demonstrated similar long-term clinical outcomes for arm/neck pain and physical function; however, patients undergoing CDR at C5-C6 demonstrated an improved ability to maintain 1-year postoperative progress for neck disability with improved 1-year NDI MCID achievement. The CDR cohort, in addition, demonstrated an improved perioperative profile and reduced rate of revision surgery.