Does surgical site infection affect patient-reported outcomes after spinal surgery? A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections are common in spinal surgeries. It is uncertain whether outcomes in spine surgery patients with vs. without surgical site infection are equivalent. Therefore, we assessed the effects of surgical site infection on postoperative patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: We enrolled patients who underwent elective spine surgery at 12 hospitals between April 2017 and February 2020. We collected data regarding the patients' backgrounds, operative factors, and incidence of surgical site infection. Data for patient-reported outcomes, namely numerical rating scale, Neck Disability Index/Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol Five-Dimensional questionnaire, and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores, were obtained preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. We divided the patients into with and without surgical site infection groups. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for surgical site infection. Using propensity score matching, we obtained matched surgical site infection-negative and -positive groups. Student's t-test was used for comparisons of continuous variables, and Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables between the two matched groups and two unmatched groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 8861 patients in this study; 74 (0.8 %) developed surgical site infections. Cervical spine surgery and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification ≥3 were identified as risk factors; microendoscopy was identified as a protective factor. Using propensity score matching, we compared surgical site infection-positive and -negative groups (74 in each group). No significant difference was found in postoperative pain or dysesthesia of the lower back, buttock, leg, and plantar area between the groups. When comparing preoperative with postoperative pain and dysesthesia, statistically significant improvement was observed for both variables in both groups (p < 0.01 for all variables). No significant differences were observed in postoperative outcomes between the matched surgical site infection-positive and -negative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with surgical site infections had comparable postoperative outcomes to those without surgical site infections.

Surgical outcomes between posterior decompression alone and posterior decompression with fusion surgery among patients with Meyerding grade 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Whether lumbar decompression with fusion surgery is effective against Meyerding grade 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is unknown. Therefore, the current study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes between posterior decompression alone and posterior decompression with fusion surgery among patients with grade 2 DS with central canal stenosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included prospectively registered patients (n = 3863) who underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis at nine high-volume spine centers from April 2017 to July 2019. Patients with grade 2 DS and central canal stenosis were included in the analysis. Patients with radiculopathy, including foraminal stenosis, degenerative scoliosis, and concomitant anterior spinal fusion, and those with a previous history of lumbar surgery were excluded. The participants were divided into the decompression alone group (group D) and decompression with fusion surgery group (group F). Data about patient-reported outcomes, including Numeric Rating Scale (low back pain, leg pain, leg numbness, and foot numbness), Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol Five-Dimensional questionnaire, and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores, were obtained preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: In total, 2354 (61%) patients, including 42 (1.8%) with grade 2 DS (n = 18 in group D and n = 24 in group F), completed the 2-year follow-up. Group D had a higher proportion of female patients than group F. However, the two groups did not significantly differ in terms of other baseline demographic characteristics. Group D had a significantly shorter surgical time and lower volume of intraoperative blood loss than group F. Postoperative patient-reported outcomes did not significantly differ between the two groups, although the preoperative degree of low back pain was higher in group F than in group D. The slip degree of group D did not worsen during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: The surgical outcomes were similar regardless of the addition of fusion surgery among patients with grade 2 DS. Decompression alone was superior to decompression with fusion surgery as it was associated with a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss and shorter surgical time.

Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method.

Treatment of restenosis after lumbar decompression surgery: decompression versus decompression and fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare perioperative complications and postoperative outcomes between patients with lumbar recurrent stenosis without lumbar instability and radiculopathy who underwent decompression surgery and those who underwent decompression with fusion surgery. METHODS: For this retrospective study, the authors identified 2606 consecutive patients who underwent posterior surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis at eight affiliated hospitals between April 2017 and June 2019. Among these patients, those with a history of prior decompression surgery and central canal restenosis with cauda equina syndrome were included in the study. Those patients with instability or radiculopathy were excluded. The patients were divided between the decompression group and decompression with fusion group. The demographic characteristics, numerical rating scale score for low-back pain, incidence rates of lower-extremity pain and lower-extremity numbness, Oswestry Disability Index score, 3-level EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction rate were compared between the two groups using the Fisher's exact probability test for nominal variables and the Student t-test for continuous variables, with p < 0.05 as the level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria (35 males and 11 females; 19 patients underwent decompression and 27 decompression and fusion; mean ± SD age 72.5 ± 8.8 years; mean ± SD follow-up 18.8 ± 6.0 months). Demographic data and perioperative complication rates were similar. The percentages of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important differences for patient-reported outcomes or satisfaction rate at 1 year were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with central canal stenosis who underwent revision, the short-term outcomes of the patients who underwent decompression were comparable to those of the patients who underwent decompression and fusion. Decompression surgery may be effective for patients without instability or radiculopathy.