Predictors of Subsidence and its Clinical Impact After Expandable Cage Insertion in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected multisurgeon data. OBJECTIVE: Examine the rate, clinical impact, and predictors of subsidence after expandable minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) cage. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Expandable cage technology has been adopted in MI-TLIF to reduce the risks and optimize outcomes. Although subsidence is of particular concern when using expandable technology as the force required to expand the cage can weaken the endplates, its rates, predictors, and outcomes lack evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level MI-TLIF using expandable cages for degenerative lumbar conditions and had a follow-up of >1 year were included. Preoperative and immediate, early, and late postoperative radiographs were reviewed. Subsidence was determined if the average anterior/posterior disc height decreased by >25% compared with the immediate postoperative value. Patient-reported outcomes were collected and analyzed for differences at the early (<6 mo) and late (>6 mo) time points. Fusion was assessed by 1-year postoperative computed tomography. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight patients were included (mean age, 61 yr, 86% 1-level, 14% 2-level). Twenty-two (14.9%) demonstrated subsidence. Although statistically not significant, patients with subsidence were older, had lower bone mineral density, and had higher body mass index and comorbidity burden. Operative time was significantly higher ( P = 0.02) and implant width was lower ( P < 0.01) for subsided patients. Visual analog scale-leg was significantly lower for subsided patients compared with nonsubsided patients at a >6 months time point. Long-term (>6 mo) patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rate was lower for subsided patients (53% vs . 77%), although statistically not significant ( P = 0.065). No differences existed in complication, reoperation, or fusion rates. CONCLUSIONS: Of the patients, 14.9% experienced subsidence predicted by narrower implants. Although subsidence did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported outcome measures and complication, reoperation, or fusion rates, patients had lower visual analog scale-leg and patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rates at the >6-month time point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Female Sex and Supine Proximal Lumbar Lordosis Are Associated With the Size of the LLIF "Safe Zone" at L4-L5.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. OBJECTIVE: Identify demographic and sagittal alignment parameters that are independently associated with femoral nerve position at the L4-L5 disk space. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Iatrogenic femoral nerve or lumbar plexus injury during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) can result in neurological complications. The LLIF "safe zone" is the anterior half to two third of the disk space. However, femoral nerve position varies and is inconsistently identifiable on magnetic resonance imaging. The safe zone is also narrowest at L4-L5. METHODS: An analysis of patients with symptomatic lumbar spine pathology and magnetic resonance imaging with a visibly identifiable femoral nerve evaluated at a single large academic spine center from January 1, 2017, to January 8, 2020, was performed. Exclusion criteria were transitional anatomy, severe hip osteoarthritis, coronal deformity with cobb >10 degrees, > grade 1 spondylolisthesis at L4-L5 and anterior migration of the psoas.Standing and supine lumbar lordosis (LL) and its proximal (L1-L4) and distal (L4-S1) components were measured. Femoral nerve position on sagittal imaging was then measured as a percentage of the L4 inferior endplate. A stepwise multivariate linear regression of sagittal alignment and LL parameters was then performed. Data are written as estimate, 95% CI. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 58.2±14.7 years, 25 (34.2%) were female and 26 (35.6%) had a grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Mean femoral nerve position was 26.6±10.3% from the posterior border of L4. Female sex (-6.6, -11.1 to -2.1) and supine proximal lumbar lordosis (0.4, 0.1-0.7) were independently associated with femoral nerve position. CONCLUSIONS: Patient sex and proximal LL can serve as early indicators of the size of the femoral nerve safe zone during a transpsoas LLIF approach at L4-L5.

Factors Causing Delay in Discharge in Patients Eligible for Ambulatory Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the postoperative factors that led delayed discharge in patients who would have been eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion (ALF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Assessing postoperative inefficiencies is vital to increase the feasibility of ALF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and would have met the eligibility criteria for ALF were included. Length of stay (LOS); time in postanesthesia recovery unit (PACU); alertness and neurological examination, and pain scores at three and six hours; type of analgesia; time to physical therapy (PT) visit; reasons for PT nonclearance; time to per-oral (PO) intake; time to voiding; time to readiness for discharge were assessed. Time taken to meet each discharge criterion was calculated. Multiple regression analyses were performed to study the effect of variables on postoperative parameters influencing discharge. RESULTS: Of 71 patients, 4% were discharged on the same day and 69% on postoperative day 1. PT clearance was the last-met discharge criterion in 93%. Sixty-six percent did not get PT evaluation on the day of surgery. Seventy-six percent required intravenous opioids and <60% had adequate pain control. Twenty-six percent had orthostatic intolerance. The median postoperative LOS was 26.9 hours, time in PACU was 4.2 hours, time to PO intake was 6.5 hours, time to first void was 6.3 hours, time to first PT visit was 17.7 hours, time to PT clearance was 21.8 hours, and time to discharge readiness was 21.9 hours. Regression analysis showed that time to PT clearance, time to PO intake, time to voiding, time in PACU, and pain score at three hours had a significant effect on LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Unavailability of PT, surgery after 1  pm , orthostatic intolerance, inadequate pain control, prolonged PACU stay, and long feeding and voiding times were identified as modifiable factors preventing same-day discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Association between muscle health and patient-reported outcomes after lumbar microdiscectomy: early results.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Poor muscle health has been implicated as a source of back pain among patients with lumbar spine pathology. Recently, a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based lumbar muscle health grade was shown to correlate with health-related quality of life scores. However, the impact of muscle health on postoperative functional outcomes following spine surgery remains to be investigated. PURPOSE: To determine whether muscle health grade measured by preoperative psoas and paralumbar muscle cross-sectional areas impact the achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following lumbar microdiscectomy. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Consecutive patients who underwent 1-level lumbar microdiscectomy in a single institution between 2017 and 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of MCID achievement, time to MCID achievement, PROMs including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale for back pain (VAS back), VAS leg, Short Form 12 Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Summary (SF-12 MCS), and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF). METHODS: Two previously validated methods for muscle health grading were applied. Axial T2 MRI were analyzed for muscle measurements. The psoas-based method utilized the normalized total psoas area (NTPA), which is the psoas cross-sectional area divided by the square of patient height (mm2/m2). Patients were divided into low and high NTPA groups based on sex-specific lowest quartile NTPA thresholds. The paralumbar-based method incorporated the paralumbar cross-sectional area normalized by body mass index (PL-CSA/BMI) and Goutallier classification. Score of 1 was added for either PL-CSA/BMI >130 or Goutallier class of ≤2. "Good" muscle health was defined as score of 2, and "poor" muscle health was defined as score of 0 to 1. Prospectively collected PROMs were analyzed at 2-week, 6-week, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative timepoints. The rate of and time to MCID achievement were compared among the cohorts. Bivariate analyses were performed to assess for correlations between psoas/paralumbar cross-sectional areas and change in PROM scores from baseline. RESULTS: The total cohort included 163 patients with minimum follow-up of 6 months and mean follow-up of 16.5 months. 40 patients (24.5%) were categorized into the low NTPA group, and 55 patients (33.7%) were categorized into the poor paralumbar muscle group. Low NTPA was associated with older age, lower BMI, and greater frequencies of Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥1. Poor paralumbar muscle health was associated with older age, female sex, higher BMI, and CCI ≥1. There were no differences in rates of MCID achievement for any PROMs between low versus high NTPA groups or between poor versus good paralumbar groups. Low NTPA was associated with longer time to MCID achievement for ODI, VAS back, VAS leg, and SF-12 MCS. Poor paralumbar muscle health was associated with longer time to MCID achievement for VAS back, VAS leg, and SF-12 PCS. NTPA negatively correlated with change in VAS back (6-week, 12-week) and VAS leg (6-month). PL-CSA/BMI positively correlated with change in PROMIS-PF at 3 months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy, patients with worse muscle health grades achieved MCID at similar rates but required longer time to achieve MCID. Lower NTPA was weakly correlated with larger improvements in pain scores. PL-CSA/BMI positively correlated with change in PROMIS-PF. Our findings suggest that with regards to functional outcomes, patients with worse muscle health may take longer to recuperate postoperatively compared to those with better muscle health.

Reoperations after primary and revision lumbar discectomy: study of a national-level cohort with eight years follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Published rates for disc reherniation following primary discectomy are around 6%, but the ultimate reoperation outcomes in patients after receiving revision discectomy are not well understood. Additionally, any disparity in the outcomes of subsequent revision discectomy (SRD) versus subsequent lumbar fusion (SLF) following primary/revision discectomy remains poorly studied. PURPOSE: To determine the 8-year SRD/SLF rates and time until SRD/SLF after primary/revision discectomy respectively. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary or revision discectomy, with records in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database from the years 2010 to 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subsequent surgery type and time to subsequent surgery. METHODS: Patients were grouped into primary or revision discectomy cohorts based off of the nature of "index" procedure (primary or revision discectomy) using ICD9/10 and CPT procedure codes from 2010 to 19 insurance data sets in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database. Preoperative demographic data was collected. Outcome measures such as subsequent surgery type (fusion or discectomy) and time to subsequent surgery were collected prospectively in PearlDiver Mariner database. Statistical analysis was performed using BellWeather statistical software. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of time to SLF/SRD was performed on each cohort, and log-rank test was used to compare the rates of SLF/SRD between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 20,147 patients were identified (17,849 primary discectomy, 2,298 revision discectomy). The 8-year rates of SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01) and SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) were higher after revision versus primary discectomy. Time to SLF was shorter after revision versus primary discectomy (709 vs. 886 days, p<.01). After both primary and revision discectomy, the 8-year rate of SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) is greater than SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to primary discectomy, revision discectomy has higher rates of SLF (10.4% vs. 6.2%), and faster time to SLF (2.4 vs. 1.9 years) at 8-year follow up.