Mental state as a predictor of outcome in spinal stenosis surgery: Four quadrants model integrating patient satisfaction and functional outcome.

Introduction: Mental status, characterised by anxiety and depression, significantly influences physical well-being, particularly in patients with spinal stenosis symptoms. Research question: The prevalence of depression and anxiety in our cohort. The correlation between psychological distress and physical outcome after surgery, including postoperative recovery and satisfaction. Materials and methods: Questionnaires evaluating anxiety and depression (HADS), functionality (ODI), quality of life (EQ-5D), and perceived recovery (Likert-scale) were sent to a randomly selected cohort of 450 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, with or without spondylolisthesis, who underwent surgery between 2007 and 2013. Results are presented, dichotomised by HADS score (score ≥8 indicating psychologically impaired) and in a Four Quadrants Model integrating functional outcomes and perceived recovery separately for psychologically impaired and non-impaired cases. Results: Among the 147 included patients, 32 (22%) exhibited anxiety and/or depression (impaired cases). Satisfactory outcome (perceived recovery) was reported in 29.0% of the impaired cases and 78.3% of the non-impaired cases (p < 0.001). The mean postoperative functionality score of the impaired cases was 42.46 ± 16.24, in contrast to 18.48 ± 18.25 for the non-impaired cases (p < 0.001). In the impaired group, only 12.5% achieved both a good functional outcome (ODI ≤24) and satisfactory perceived recovery, compared with 58.4% in the non-impaired group. Discussion and conclusion: Patients reporting anxiety and/or depression demonstrate an inferior long-term outcome after spinal stenosis surgery compared to non-impaired patients. This clinically relevant difference underscores the importance of addressing depression and anxiety in preoperative counselling to optimize patient satisfaction and functional outcomes.

The disaggregation of the oswestry disability index in patients undergoing lumbar surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessing functional status in individuals with lumbar spine pathology. The ODI is used by surgeons to determine the initial status and monitor progress after surgery. Compiled ODI data enables comparisons between different surgical techniques. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) often causes symptoms such as back pain and neurogenic claudication affecting quality of life and activities of daily living captured by the ODI. Despite extensive studies on ODI changes after spinal surgery, little is known about the characteristics and changes in the different ODI subsections. PURPOSE: To analyze the baseline characteristics and changes in total ODI and ODI subsections 2 years after elective lumbar surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on patients prospectively enrolled who underwent spinal surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis from 2016 to 2018. The ODI was assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 265 patients were included in the study, 60% were female. The mean age of the patients was 67±8 years, and the mean BMI was 30±6 kg/m2. OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis considered the differences in ODI scores before and after surgery, as well as the changes in all ODI subsections 2 years after elective lumbar surgery for DLS. METHODS: The analysis evaluated differences in ODI scores and variations in different subsections. Patients without an ODI follow-up at 2 years were excluded from the study. The study utilized the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for all prepost paired samples. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for sex and procedure comparisons for overall ODI and ODI subsection analysis. Univariate linear regression was applied for overall and subsection specific ODI outcomes with age and BMI as independent variables, respectively. The statistical significance level was set at p<.05. RESULTS: Improvement in ODI was observed in 242 patients (91%). The highest baseline disability values were found for the questions regarding pain intensity (3.4±1.3), lifting (3.2±1.9), and standing (3.4±1.3). The lowest preoperative functional limitations were observed in sleeping (1.6±1.3), personal care (1.6±1.4), traveling (1.6±1.2) and sitting (1.5±1.4). At the 2-year follow-up, there was significant improvement in all questions and the overall ODI (all p<.001). The ODI subsections that showed the greatest absolute improvements were changing degree of pain (-2.6), with 89% of patients experiencing improvement, standing (-2.4) with 87% of patients experiencing improvement, and pain intensity (-2.1) with 81% of patients experiencing improvement. The subsections with the least improvement were personal care (-0.6), sitting (-0.7), and sleeping (-0.9). The study found that female patients had a significantly higher preoperative disability in various subsections but showed greater improvement in total ODI compared to male patients (p=.001). Additionally, improvement in sitting (p<.001), traveling (p<.001), social life (p<.001) and sleeping (p=.018) were significantly higher in female patients. Older patients showed significantly less improvement in sitting (p=.005) and sleeping (p=.002). A higher BMI was significantly associated with less improvement in changing degree of pain (p=.025) and higher baseline disability in various subsections. Patients who underwent decompression and fusion had significantly higher baseline disability in several subsections compared to those who underwent decompression alone. There was no significant difference between decompression alone and decompression with fusion in terms of overall improvement in the ODI and improvement in the subsections. CONCLUSION: These results offer a more comprehensive understanding of ODI and its changes across different subsections. This insight is invaluable for improving preoperative education and effectively managing patient expectations regarding potential postsurgery disability in specific areas.

Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis.

PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review and metaanalysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid Medline databases was conducted to find randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that compared decompression alone and decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. Operation time; reoperation; postoperative complications; postoperative Oswestry disability index(ODI) scores and scores related to back and leg pain were collected from eligible studies for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies with 6182 patients. The decompression alone group showed less operative time(P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss(p = 0.000), and no significant difference in postoperative complications was observed in randomized controlled trials(p = 0.428) or cohort studies(p = 0.731). There was no significant difference between the other two groups in reoperation(P = 0.071), postoperative ODI scores and scores related to back and leg pain. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that the decompression alone group performed better in terms of operation time and intraoperative blood loss, and there was no significant difference between the two surgical methods in rate of reoperation and postoperative complications, ODI, low back pain and leg pain. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that decompression alone is not inferior to decompression and fusion in patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

Fusion versus decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis: a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking.

PURPOSE: The value of adding fusion to decompression surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis remains debated. Therefore, the comparative effectiveness and selected healthcare resource utilization of patients undergoing decompression with or without fusion surgery at 3 years follow-up was assessed. METHODS: Using observational data from the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study and a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking approach, our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of the two main surgical interventions for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis-fusion and decompression alone in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis. The primary outcome-measure was change in health-related quality of life (EuroQol Health Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire [EQ-5D-3L]); secondary outcome measures were change in back/leg pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), change in satisfaction (Spinal Stenosis Measure satisfaction subscale), physical therapy and oral analgesic use (healthcare utilization). RESULTS: 153 patients underwent decompression alone and 62 had decompression plus fusion. After inverse probability weighting, 137 patients were included in the decompression alone group (mean age, 73.9 [7.5] years; 77 female [56%]) and 36 in the decompression plus fusion group (mean age, 70.1 [6.7] years; 18 female [50%]). Our findings were compatible with no standardized mean differences in EQ-5D-3L summary index change score at 3 years (EQ-5D-3L German: 0.07 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.25 to 0.39]; EQ-5D-3L French: 0.18 [95% CI, - 0.14 to 0.50]). No between-group differences in change in back/leg pain intensity or satisfaction were found. Decompression plus fusion was associated with greater physical therapy utilization at 3 years follow-up. CONCLUSION: Decompression alone should be considered the primary option for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis.

Strategic Surgical Intervention in a Rare Presentation of Hip-Spine Syndrome With Lumbosacral Malunion: A Case Report.

The hip and lumbar spine are closely related and can create similar patterns of pain and dysfunction. Furthermore, diagnosing and treating hip and spine conditions can be challenging due to the overlap of symptoms. This report describes the successful treatment of a 54-year-old male with hip-spine syndrome following multiple surgeries for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. The patient presented with low back pain (LBP) and bilateral hip pain, with radiological findings indicating spinal deformity and hip joint synovitis. Two years after two-stage corrective surgery, including pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), the hip synovitis resolved and the symptoms improved. This case emphasizes the need to consider hip-spine syndrome as a possible complication of lumbosacral spine fusion surgery and demonstrates the efficacy of two-stage corrective surgery with pedicle subtraction osteotomy in treating this condition.

Segmental vertebral three-dimensional motion in patients with L4 isthmic spondylolisthesis under weight-bearing conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate in vivo 6-degree-of-freedom (DOF) vertebral motion in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) during various functional weight-bearing activities. METHODS: Fifteen asymptomatic volunteers (mean age 54.8 years) and fourteen patients with IS at L4-5 (mean age 53.4 years) were recruited. The positions of the vertebrae (L4-L5) in the supine, standing, flexion-extension, left-right twisting and left-right bending positions were determined using previously described CT-based models and dual fluoroscopic imaging techniques. Local coordinate systems were established at the center of the anterior vertebra of L4 isthmic spondylolisthesis (AIS), the posterior lamina of L4 isthmic spondylolisthesis (PIS) and the center of the L5 vertebra to obtain the 6DOF range of motion (ROM) at L4-L5 and the range of motion (ROM) between the AIS and the PIS. RESULTS: The translation along the anteroposterior axis at L4-L5 during flexion-extension, left-right bending and left-right twisting was significantly greater than that of the healthy participants. However, the translation along the mediolateral axis at L4-L5 presented paradoxical motion under different positions: the ROM increased in the supine-standing and flexion-extension positions but decreased in the left-right bending and left-right twisting positions. The separation along the anteroposterior axis during flexion was significantly greater than that during standing, on average, reaching more than 1 mm. The separation along the mediolateral axis during standing, flexion and extension was significantly greater than that in the supine position. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed the occurrence of displacement between the AIS and PIS, primarily in the form of separation during flexion. Symptomatic patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis exhibit intervertebral instability, which might be underestimated by flexion-extension radiographs.

Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.

DATA BACKGROUND: Because the traditional open-TLIF approach has several drawbacks, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches for TLIF (MISTLIF) have been developed to speed up recovery after surgery and minimize pressure on the para-spinal muscles, necessitating a cost-utility analysis for comparison in healthcare reforms. OBJECTIVES AND AIM OF THE WORK: This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical parameters between mini-open TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery in patients with single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. HYPOTHESIS: This study hypothesizes that both minimally invasive and mini-open methods using sublaminar trimming laminoplasty (SLTL) (while preserving midline structures) and interbody cages have comparable mid- and long-term clinical and radiological outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed on 120 patients who underwent single-level TLIF procedures with a minimum of two years of follow-up utilizing either the mini-open (n = 60) or MIS (n = 60) technique. Records of the operation's time frame, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, duration of bed rest, and complications were recorded. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for both groups were utilized to assess improvements in clinical scores, and t tests were employed to statistically compare the outcomes. For comparison, radiological parameters, including lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence (PI), and localized lordosis at the index level, were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. To assess postoperative interbody fusion, the Bridwell grading system was used. RESULTS: In the Mini-open TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 24.91 ± 5.7 months, while in the MIS-TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 25.15 ± 4.2 months. In the MIS-TLIF group, the mean operation and radiological time were longer. However, compared to the Mini-open TLIF group, the MISTLIF group experienced less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The MIS-TLIF group outperformed the Open-TLIF group in terms of the VAS score for back pain and the ODI at less than 6 months following surgery, and the differences were statistically significant. However, at the final follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in the VAS score for the back between the two groups, but the ODI score was significantly greater in the MIS-TLIF group. Both groups' lumbar lordosis and focal lordosis significantly improved at the index level, with the Mini-open-TLIF group showing more focal lordosis. The interbody fusion rate did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: MIS-TLIF and mini-open-TLIF can be surgically effective in treating single-level degenerative lumbar spine spondylolisthesis.

Early postoperative efficacy of a fully automated orthopedic robotic system-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis.

To assess the feasibility of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation assisted by a fully automated orthopedic robotic system for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis and evaluate its early postoperative outcome. Totally 20 patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent surgical procedure by the same medical group from March 2020 to March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed, including 10 patients in the robot-assisted group (RA group) and the other 10 patients in the conventional free-hand technique group (FH group). Accuracy of screw insertion was determined using the Gertzbein-Robbins Scale. The accuracy of the novel robotic system was evaluated by comparing the screw position in the preoperative planning and measuring the entry point deviation distance and the trajectory rotation. The differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, radiographic fluoroscopy time and fluoroscopic dosage, and length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups. The lumbar visual analog scale scores before and 7 days after operation were analyzed to evaluate the improvement of low back pain as the early postoperative outcome. A total of 84 pedicle screws were placed. In the RA group, 97.5% of screws were Grade A, and 2.5% were Grade B. In the FH group, 88.6% of screws were Grade A, 9.1% were Grade B, and 2.3% were Grade C. No statistical difference was found in the operation time between two groups. The RA group showed a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss, radiographic fluoroscopy time and fluoroscopic dosage, and length of hospital stay compared to the FH group. The low back pain in both groups was significantly improved after the operation. The novel orthopedic robotic system-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw fixation, with accurate intraoperative screw placement, less surgical damage, less fluoroscopy and shorter length of hospital stay, can be safe and effective for the surgical treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Do obese patients undergoing surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis have worse outcomes at 5 years' follow-up? A QOD study.

OBJECTIVE: The long-term effects of increased body mass index (BMI) on surgical outcomes are unknown for patients who undergo surgery for low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. The goal of this study was to assess long-term outcomes in obese versus nonobese patients after surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the Quality Outcomes Database's 12 highest enrolling sites (SpineCORe group) were identified. Long-term (5-year) outcomes were compared for patients with BMI ≥ 35 versus BMI < 35. RESULTS: In total, 608 patients (57.6% female) were included. Follow-up was 81% (excluding patients who had died) at 5 years. The BMI ≥ 35 cohort (130 patients, 21.4%) was compared to the BMI < 35 cohort (478 patients, 78.6%). At baseline, patients with BMI ≥ 35 were more likely to be younger (58.5 ± 11.4 vs 63.2 ± 12.0 years old, p < 0.001), to present with both back and leg pain (53.8% vs 37.0%, p = 0.002), and to require ambulation assistance (20.8% vs 9.2%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the cohort with BMI ≥ 35 had worse baseline patient-reported outcomes including visual analog scale (VAS) back (7.6 ± 2.3 vs 6.5 ± 2.8, p < 0.001) and leg (7.1 ± 2.6 vs 6.4 ± 2.9, p = 0.031) pain, disability measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (53.7 ± 15.7 vs 44.8 ± 17.0, p < 0.001), and quality of life on EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire (0.47 ± 0.22 vs 0.56 ± 0.22, p < 0.001). Patients with BMI ≥ 35 were more likely to undergo fusion (85.4% vs 74.7%, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in 30- and 90-day readmission rates (p > 0.05). Five years postoperatively, there were no differences in reoperation rates or the development of adjacent-segment disease for patients in either BMI < 35 or ≥ 35 cohorts who underwent fusion (p > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, BMI ≥ 35 was a significant risk factor for not achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for VAS leg pain (OR 0.429, 95% CI 0.209-0.876, p = 0.020), but BMI ≥ 35 was not a predictor for achieving MCID for VAS back pain, ODI, or EQ-5D at 5 years postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Both obese and nonobese patients benefit from surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis. At the 5-year time point, patients with BMI ≥ 35 have similarly low reoperation rates and achieve rates of satisfaction and MCID for back pain (but not leg pain), disability (ODI), and quality of life (EQ-5D) that are similar to those in patients with a BMI < 35.

Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative spondylolisthesis is an important cause of chronic low-back and radiculopathy in the adult US population. Open decompression with or without fusion is considered the standard for management, yet optimal treatment remains controversial. Full endoscopic spine surgery offers an alternative surgical approach with possible advantages. There is a paucity of data on the use of FESS in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Therefore, we present the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 73 patients with low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis with severe stenosis, who underwent lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression. METHODS: Patients with low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent a lumbar endoscopic ULBD at six spine centers in North America were included in this study. Patients were followed up at 3, 9, and 12 months. Static and dynamic imaging was performed and evaluated routinely before surgery to identify the pathology and grade of spondylolisthesis. Patient reported outcomes were prospectively collected. RESULTS: This study included 73 patients from six spine centers. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with grade 1 spondylolisthesis while 11 were diagnosed with grade 2 spondylolisthesis. Postoperatively 70 patients reported improved symptoms and pain resolution while three patients reported worse pain. Mean VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI scores showed a statistically significant improvement at 3, 9, and 12-months when compared to the preoperative period. Radiographically, no patient in our study had progression of grade of spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSION: Patients with low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis causing severe stenosis can safely be treated with lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression. Head-to-head trial should be undertaken to provide higher level of clinical evidence.