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.

Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: Degenerative spondylolisthesis is an important cause of chronic low back pain and radiculopathy in the adult U.S. 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 full endoscopic spinal surgery 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 6 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 6 spine centers. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with grade I spondylolisthesis, whereas 11 were diagnosed with grade II spondylolisthesis. Postoperatively, 70 patients reported improved symptoms and pain resolution, whereas 3 patients reported worse pain. Mean visual analog scale back and visual analog scale leg scores and Oswestry Disability Index showed a statistically significant improvement at 3, 9, and 12 months compared with the preoperative period. Radiographically, no patient in our study had progression of the grade of spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis causing severe stenosis can safely be treated with lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression. A head-to-head trial should be undertaken to provide a higher level of clinical evidence.

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.

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.

Patient-reported outcome of lumbar decompression with instrumented fusion for low-grade spondylolisthesis: influence of pathology and baseline symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Low-grade isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) of the lumbar spine are distinct pathologies but both can be treated with lumbar decompression with fusion. In a very large cohort, we compared patient-reported outcome in relation to the pathology and chief complaint at baseline. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using the EUROSPINE Spine Tango Registry. We included 582 patients (age 60 ± 15 years; 65% female), divided into four groups based on two variables: type of spondylolisthesis and chief pain complaint (leg pain (LP) versus back pain). Patients completed the COMI preoperatively and up to 5 years follow-up (FU), and rated global treatment outcome (GTO). Regression models were used to predict COMI-scores at FU. Pain scores and satisfaction ratings were analysed. RESULTS: All patients experienced pronounced reductions in COMI scores. Relative to the other groups, the DS-LP group showed between 5% and 11% greater COMI score reduction (p < 0.01 up to 2 years' FU). This group also performed best with respect to pain outcomes and satisfaction. Long-term GTO was 93% at the 5 year FU, compared with between 82% and 86% in the other groups. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the type of spondylolisthesis, all groups experienced an improvement in COMI score after surgery. Patients with DS and LP as their chief complaint appear to benefit more than other patients. These results are the first to show that the type of the spondylolisthesis and its chief complaint have an impact on surgical outcome. They will be informative for the consent process prior to surgery and can be used to build predictive models for individual outcome.

Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation of surgically treated patients from the NORDSTEN study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the responsiveness of the original low back pain specific Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the spinal stenosis specific Zürich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and to investigate cut-off values for clinical "success" for ODI and ZCQ in surgically treated patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: We included 601 LSS patients (218 with, 383 without degenerative spondylolisthesis) from the NORDSTEN trials. Outcome measures included ODI and ZCQ (symptom severity and physical function scales) with three alternative response parameters: scores at follow-up, absolute and relative changes from baseline to two-year follow-up. Effect size and standardised response mean evaluated internal responsiveness. External responsiveness was assessed by the Spearman rank correlation between patient-reported global perceived effect scale (GPE) and ODI and ZCQ, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC). We evaluated which cut-off values could maximise the percentage of correctly classified patients according to the GPE-anchor "completely recovered" / "much improved" for each parameter. RESULTS: Internal and external responsiveness were high for all three indices with effect sizes, standardized response means, ROC and corresponding area under the curve > 0.8. Correlations with GPE responses were moderate (> 0.50) for absolute change and strong (> 0.67) for relative change and follow-up scores. The 30% ODI relative change cut-off correctly classified 81% of patients to "success", within a range of accurate cut-offs according to the GPE-anchor. CONCLUSION: ODI and ZCQ demonstrate comparable responsiveness in evaluating outcomes for surgically treated LSS patients. The 30% ODI threshold was consistent with treatment "success" in NORDSTEN trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02007083 10/12/2013, NCT02051374 31/01/2014 and NCT03562936 20/06/2018.

Factors that influence the results of indirect decompression employing oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Indirect decompression is one of the potential benefits of anterior reconstruction in patients with spinal stenosis. On the other hand, the reported rate of revision surgery after indirect decompression highlights the necessity of working out prediction models for the radiographic results of indirect decompression with assessing their clinical relevance. AIM: To assess factors that influence radiographic and clinical results of the indirect decompression in patients with stenosis of the lumbar spine. METHODS: This study is a single-center cross-sectional evaluation of 80 consecutive patients (17 males and 63 females) with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with the instability of the lumbar spinal segment. Patients underwent single level or bisegmental spinal instrumentation employing oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. Radiographic results of the indirect decompression were assessed using computerized tomography, while MacNab scale was used to assess clinical results. RESULTS: After indirect decompression employing anterior reconstruction using OLIF, the statistically significant increase in the disc space height, vertebral canal square, right and left lateral canal depth were detected (Р < 0.0001). The median (M) relative vertebral canal square increase came to М = 24.5% with 25%-75% quartile border (16.3%; 33.3%) if indirect decompression was achieved by restoration of the segment height. In patients with the reduction of the upper vertebrae slip, the median of the relative increase in vertebral canal square accounted for 49.5% with 25%-75% quartile border (2.35; 99.75). Six out of 80 patients (7.5%) presented with unsatisfactory results because of residual nerve root compression. The critical values for lateral recess depth and vertebral canal square that were associated with indirect decompression failure were 3 mm and 80 mm2 respectively. CONCLUSION: Indirect decompression employing anterior reconstruction is achieved by the increase in disc height along the posterior boarder and reduction of the slipped vertebrae in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Vertebral canal square below 80 mm2 and lateral recess depth less than 3 mm are associated with indirect decompression failures that require direct microsurgical decompression.

Influence of facetectomy, cross-link augmentation, and interbody procedure on progression of bone fusion in single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion using the long cortical bone trajectory technique.

OBJECTIVE: When using the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technique, two technical countermeasures are recommended to promote bone fusion: taking a long CBT screw path directed more anteriorly and improving the stability of the spinal construct by facet joint preservation, cross-link augmentation, and rigid anterior interbody reconstruction. However, there has been no report on how these surgical procedures, which are heavily dependent on the surgeon's preference, contribute to successful bone fusion. The aim of the present study was to investigate the progression of lumbar spinal fusion using the long CBT technique and identify factors contributing to the time taken to achieve bone fusion, with a particular focus on the involvement of surgical procedures. METHODS: A total of 167 consecutive patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5 using the long CBT technique were included (mean follow-up 42.8 months). Bone fusion was assessed to identify factors contributing to the time to achieve bone fusion. Investigated factors were 1) age, 2) sex, 3) BMI, 4) bone mineral density, 5) intervertebral mobility, 6) screw depth in the vertebra, 7) extent of facetectomy, 8) cross-link augmentation, 9) cage material, 10) cage design, 11) number of cages, and 12) contact area of cages with the vertebral endplate. RESULTS: The bone fusion rate was 89.2% at 2 years postoperatively and 95.8% at the last follow-up, with a mean period to bone fusion of 16.6 ± 9.6 months. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that age (standardized regression coefficient [ß] = 0.25, p = 0.002), female sex (ß = -0.22, p = 0.004), and BMI (ß = 0.15, p = 0.045) were significant independent factors affecting the time to achieve bone fusion. There was no significant effect of surgical procedures (p ≥ 0.364). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to investigate the progression of lumbar spinal fusion using the long CBT technique and identify factors contributing to the time taken to achieve bone fusion. Patient factors such as age, sex, and BMI affected the progression of bone fusion, and surgical factors had only weak effects.

Impact of preoperative age-adjusted sagittal imbalance on radiographic and clinical outcomes following 1-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies investigating the use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions and concomitant sagittal deformity have not stratified patients by preoperative pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, which is the earliest parameter to deteriorate in mild sagittal deformity. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the impact of preoperative PI-LL mismatch on clinical outcomes and sagittal balance restoration among patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing primary 1-level MI-TLIF between April 2017 and April 2022 for DS with ≥ 6 months radiographic follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System at preoperative, early postoperative (< 6 months), and late postoperative (≥ 6 months) time points. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMs was also evaluated. Radiographic parameters included PI, LL, pelvic tilt (PT), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Patients were categorized into balanced and unbalanced groups based on preoperative PI-LL mismatch according to age-adjusted alignment goals. Changes in radiographic parameters and PROMs were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included (L4-5 82.5%, grade I spondylolisthesis 82.5%, unbalanced 58.8%). Mean clinical and radiographic follow-up were 17.0 and 8.3 months, respectively. The average preoperative PI-LL was 18.8° in the unbalanced group and -3.3° in the balanced group. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch had significantly worse preoperative PT (26.2° vs 16.4°, p < 0.001) and SVA (53.2 vs 9.0 mm, p = 0.001) compared with balanced patients. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch also showed significantly worse PI-LL (16.0° vs 0.54°, p < 0.001), PT (25.9° vs 18.7°, p < 0.001), and SVA (49.4 vs 22.8 mm, p = 0.013) at long-term follow-up. No significant radiographic improvement was observed among unbalanced patients. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05) except for SF-12 mental component score. Achievement of MCID for VAS back score was significantly greater among patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch (85.7% vs 65.5%, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Although 1-level MI-TLIF did not restore sagittal alignment in patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch, patients presenting with DS can expect significant improvement in PROMs following 1-level MI-TLIF regardless of preoperative alignment or extent of correction. Thus, attaining good clinical outcomes in patients with mild sagittal imbalance may not require addressing imbalance directly.

Comparing opioid utilization and costs for surgical management of single-level spondylolisthesis: A national claims database analysis.

Introduction: The rise in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) cases has led to a significant increase in fusion surgeries, which incur substantial hospitalization costs and often necessitate chronic opioid use for pain management. Recent evidence suggests that single-level low-grade DLS outcomes are comparable whether a fusion procedure or decompression alone is performed, sparking debate over the cost-effectiveness of these procedures, particularly with the advent of minimally invasive techniques reducing the morbidity of fusion. This study aims to compare chronic opioid utilization and associated costs between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Material and methods: Using data from the PearlDiver database, a retrospective database analysis was conducted. We analyzed records of Medicare and Medicaid patients undergoing lumbar fusion or decompression from 2010 to 2022. Patient cohorts were divided into decompression alone (DA) and decompression with instrumented fusion (DIF). Chronic opioid use, pain clinic visits, and total costs were compared between the two groups at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years post-surgery. Theory: Does DIF offer a more cost-effective approach to managing DLS in terms of chronic opioid use in single-level DLS patients. Results: The study revealed comparable chronic opioid use and pain clinic visits between DA and DIF groups at 90 days and 1 year. However, total costs associated with opioid prescriptions as well as surgical aftercare were significantly higher in the DIF group at 90 days (p < 0.05), 1 year (p < 0.05), and 2 years (p < 0.05) post-surgery compared to the DA group. Conclusions: This study highlights the higher costs associated with DIF up to 2 years post-surgery despite comparable symptom improvement when compared to DA and DIF at the 1-year interval. DA emerges as a more financially favorable option, challenging the notion of fusion's cost-offsetting benefits. While further investigation is needed to understand underlying cost drivers and optimize outcomes, our findings emphasize the necessity of integrating clinical and economic factors in the management of single-level DLS.

Impact of age on comparative outcomes of decompression alone versus fusion for L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts. RESULTS: 233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion.

What are the differences in paraspinal muscle morphometry among degenerative spondylolisthesis patients, isthmic spondylolisthesis patients, and healthy individuals? A propensity score matching analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the morphometry of paraspinal muscles in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS), and healthy individuals. METHODS: Thirty-seven pairs of DS patients were selected using propensity score matching with IS patients, while 37 healthy individuals matched for age, sex, and BMI were selected as controls. The relative cross-sectional area (rCSA), and relative functional cross-sectional area (rfCSA) of paraspinal muscles were measured, and the degree of fatty infiltration (FI) was calculated. Based on occupational differences, the patients were also divided into worker and farmer groups, and the same measurements were taken on them. RESULTS: At the L3/L4 level, the multifidus (MF) FI was greater in the DS and IS groups than in the control group, the erector spinae (ES) rfCSA was higher in the IS group than in the DS and control groups. At the L4/L5 level, MF rfCSA was smaller in the DS and IS groups than in the control group; ES rfCSA was higher in the IS group than in the DS and control groups. At the L5/S1 level, MF rfCSA was smaller in the DS and IS groups than in the control group; ES rfCSA was higher in the IS group than in the DS group. At the L3/L4, L4/L5 level, MF rfCSA were higher in the worker group than in the farmer group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The morphological changes in paraspinal muscles in patients with DS were dominated by selective atrophy of the MF, while in patients with IS, the morphological changes in paraspinal muscle showed selective atrophy of the MF accompanied by compensatory hypertrophy of the ES. The surgeon should consider the morphological differences in paraspinal muscle between different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis when establishing the appropriate surgical program.

Long-term efficacy of microendoscopic laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in advanced degenerative spondylolisthesis with or without dynamic spinal instability: a propensity score-matching analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors aimed to determine the mid- to long-term outcomes of microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and identify preoperative predictors of poor mid- to long-term outcomes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 274 patients who underwent spinal MEL for symptomatic LSS. The minimum postoperative follow-up duration was 5 years. Patients were classified into two groups according to DS: those with DS (the DS+ group) and those without DS (the DS- group). The patients were subjected to propensity score matching based on sex, age, BMI, surgical segments, and preoperative leg pain visual analog scale scores. Clinical outcomes were evaluated 1 year and > 5 years after surgery. RESULTS: Surgical outcomes of MEL for LSS were not significantly different between the DS+ and DS- groups at the final follow-up (mean 7.8 years) in terms of Oswestry Disability Index (p = 0.498), satisfaction (p = 0.913), and reoperation rate (p = 0.154). In the multivariate analysis, female sex (standard ß -0.260), patients with slip angle > 5° in the forward bending position (standard ß -0.313), and those with dynamic progression of Meyerding grade (standard ß -0.325) were at a high risk of poor long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MEL may have good long-term results in patients with DS without dynamic instability. Women with dynamic instability may require additional fusion surgery in approximately 25% of cases for a period of ≥ 5 years.

Radiographic and surgery-related predictive factors for increased segmental lumbar lordosis following lumbar fusion surgery in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate preoperative (pre-op) radiographic characteristics and specific surgical interventions in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) who underwent lumbar fusion surgery (LFS), with a focus on analyzing predictors of postoperative restoration of segmental lumbar lordosis (SLL). METHODS: A retrospective review at a single center identified consecutive single-level DLS patients who underwent LFS between 2016 and 2022. Radiographic measures included disc angle (DA), SLL, lumbar lordosis (LL), anterior/posterior disc height (ADH/PDH), spondylolisthesis percentage (SP), intervertebral disc degeneration, and paraspinal muscle quality. Surgery-related measures included cage position, screw insertion depth, spondylolisthesis reduction rate, and disc height restoration rate. A change in SLL ≥ 4° indicated increased segmental lumbar lordosis (ISLL), and unincreased segmental lumbar lordosis (UISLL) < 4°. Propensity score matching was employed for a 1:1 match between ISLL and UISLL patients based on age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, and osteoporosis condition. RESULTS: A total of 192 patients with an average follow-up of 20.9 months were enrolled. Compared to UISLL patients, ISLL patients had significantly lower pre-op DA (6.78° vs. 11.84°), SLL (10.73° vs. 18.24°), LL (42.59° vs. 45.75°), and ADH (10.09 mm vs. 12.21 mm) (all, P < 0.05). ISLL patients were predisposed to more severe intervertebral disc degeneration (P = 0.047) and higher SP (21.30% vs. 19.39%, P = 0.019). The cage was positioned more anteriorly in ISLL patients (67.00% vs. 60.08%, P = 0.000), with more extensive reduction of spondylolisthesis (- 73.70% vs. - 56.16%, P = 0.000) and higher restoration of ADH (33.34% vs. 8.11%, P = 0.000). Multivariate regression showed that lower pre-op SLL (OR 0.750, P = 0.000), more anterior cage position (OR 1.269, P = 0.000), and a greater spondylolisthesis reduction rate (OR 0.965, P = 0.000) significantly impacted SLL restoration. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-op SLL, cage position, and spondylolisthesis reduction rate were identified as significant predictors of SLL restoration after LFS for DLS. Surgeons are advised to meticulously select patients based on pre-op SLL and strive to position the cage more anteriorly while minimizing spondylolisthesis to maximize SLL restoration.

Postoperative Adjacent Segment Disease in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Adjacent Laminectomy for Grade I-II Spondylolisthesis and Adjacent Spinal Stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies have demonstrated increased risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after open fusion with adjacent-level laminectomy, with rates ranging from 16%-47%, potentially related to disruption of the posterior ligamentous complex. Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches may offer a more durable result. We report institutional outcomes of simultaneous MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MISTLIF) and adjacent-level laminectomy for patients with low grade spondylolisthesis and ASD. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent MISTLIF with adjacent level laminectomy to treat grade I-II spondylolisthesis with adjacent stenosis at a single institution from 2007-2022. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients met criteria, with mean follow-up of 23.1 months. In total, 37 levels were fused and 45 laminectomies performed. In this group, 21 patients received a single level laminectomy and single-level MISTLIF, 10 patients received a 2-level laminectomy and single-level MISTLIF, 2 patients received a single-level laminectomy and 2-level MISTLIF, and 1 patient received a 2-level laminectomy and 2-level MISTLIF. Three (8.8%) patients experienced clinically significant postoperative ASD requiring reoperation. Three other patients required reoperation for other reasons. Multiple logistic regression did not reveal any association between development of ASD and surgical covariates. CONCLUSION: MISTLIF with adjacent-level laminectomy demonstrated a favorable safety profile with rates of postoperative ASD lower than published rates after open fusion and on par with the published rates of ASD from MISTLIF alone. Future prospective studies may better elucidate the durability of adjacent-level laminectomies when performed alongside MISTLIF, but retrospective data suggests it is safe and durable.

Effects of Cage Implantation Depth on Sagittal Parameters and Functional Outcomes in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of L4-L5 Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: In the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) with Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery, interbody fusion implants play a key role in supporting the vertebral body and facilitating fusion. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of implantation depth on sagittal parameters and functional outcomes in patients undergoing PLIF surgery. METHODS: This study reviewed 128 patients with L4-L5 LDS between January 2016 and August 2019. All patients underwent an open PLIF surgery that included intravertebral decompression, implantation of pedicle screws and cage. We grouped according to the position of the center of the cage relative to the L5 vertebral endplate. Patients with the center of the cage located at the anterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Anterior group, and located at the posterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Posterior group. The lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT) and slope degree (SD) was measured for radiographic outcomes. We used the visual analog scale (VAS) and the oswestry disability index (ODI) score to assess functional outcomes. Paired t-test was used to compare imaging and bedside data before and after surgery between the two groups, and independent sample t-test, χ2 test and Fisher exact test were used to compare the data between the two groups. RESULT: The mean follow-up of Anterior group was 44.13 ± 9.23 months, and Posterior group was 45.62 ± 10.29 months (P > 0.05). The LL, SL, PT, SS, SD and PI-LL after operation showed great improvements, relative to the corresponding preoperative values in both groups (P < 0.05). Compared to Posterior group, Anterior group exhibited far enhanced SL (15.49 ± 3.28 vs. 13.67 ± 2.53, P < 0.05), LL (53.47 ± 3.21 vs. 52.08 ± 3.15, P < 0.05) outcomes and showed depressed PI-LL (8.87 ± 5.05 vs. 10.73 ± 5.39, P < 0.05) outcomes at the final follow-up. Meanwhile, the SL in Anterior group (16.18 ± 3.99) 1 months after operation were also higher than in Posterior group (14.12 ± 3.57) (P < 0.05). We found that VAS and ODI at the final follow-up in Anterior group (3.62 ± 0.96, 25.19 ± 5.25) were significantly lower than those in Posterior group (4.12 ± 0.98, 27.68 ± 5.13) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LDS, the anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of SL after PLIF surgery. Meanwhile, the anteriorly placed cage may achieve better sagittal parameters of LL and PI-LL and functional outcomes at the final follow-up.

ChatGPT versus NASS clinical guidelines for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Clinical guidelines, developed in concordance with the literature, are often used to guide surgeons' clinical decision making. Recent advancements of large language models and artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical field come with exciting potential. OpenAI's generative AI model, known as ChatGPT, can quickly synthesize information and generate responses grounded in medical literature, which may prove to be a useful tool in clinical decision-making for spine care. The current literature has yet to investigate the ability of ChatGPT to assist clinical decision making with regard to degenerative spondylolisthesis. PURPOSE: The study aimed to compare ChatGPT's concordance with the recommendations set forth by The North American Spine Society (NASS) Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and assess ChatGPT's accuracy within the context of the most recent literature. METHODS: ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 was prompted with questions from the NASS Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and graded its recommendations as "concordant" or "nonconcordant" relative to those put forth by NASS. A response was considered "concordant" when ChatGPT generated a recommendation that accurately reproduced all major points made in the NASS recommendation. Any responses with a grading of "nonconcordant" were further stratified into two subcategories: "Insufficient" or "Over-conclusive," to provide further insight into grading rationale. Responses between GPT-3.5 and 4.0 were compared using Chi-squared tests. RESULTS: ChatGPT-3.5 answered 13 of NASS's 28 total clinical questions in concordance with NASS's guidelines (46.4%). Categorical breakdown is as follows: Definitions and Natural History (1/1, 100%), Diagnosis and Imaging (1/4, 25%), Outcome Measures for Medical Intervention and Surgical Treatment (0/1, 0%), Medical and Interventional Treatment (4/6, 66.7%), Surgical Treatment (7/14, 50%), and Value of Spine Care (0/2, 0%). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-3.5 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). However, ChatGPT-3.5's concordance dropped to 36.8% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (7/19). A further breakdown of ChatGPT-3.5's nonconcordance with the guidelines revealed that a vast majority of its inaccurate recommendations were due to them being "over-conclusive" (12/15, 80%), rather than "insufficient" (3/15, 20%). ChatGPT-4.0 answered 19 (67.9%) of the 28 total questions in concordance with NASS guidelines (P = 0.177). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-4.0 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). ChatGPT-4.0's concordance held up at 68.4% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (13/19, P = 0.104). CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on the duality of LLM applications within clinical settings: one of accuracy and utility in some contexts versus inaccuracy and risk in others. ChatGPT was concordant for most clinical questions NASS offered recommendations for. However, for questions NASS did not offer best practices, ChatGPT generated answers that were either too general or inconsistent with the literature, and even fabricated data/citations. Thus, clinicians should exercise extreme caution when attempting to consult ChatGPT for clinical recommendations, taking care to ensure its reliability within the context of recent literature.

Outcomes in Lumbar Fusion Patients Stratified by the Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) Classification System.

Background and objective The Meyerding classification system remains the most common classification system for spondylolisthesis based on the percentages of vertebral translation. However, the majority of patients with degenerative disease fall into Grade 1, limiting its utility in this subset of patients. The Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system provides a simple radiographic framework for classifying degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients by incorporating disc height, kyphosis, and anterior translation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes vary across different CARDS groups in patients undergoing one- or two-level lumbar fusion for DLS. Methods The patients were classified into one of the following four CARDS groups - Type A: advanced disc space collapse with no evidence of kyphosis; Type B: partially preserved disc space with less than 5.0 mm of translation; Type C: partially preserved disc space with greater than 5.0 mm of translation; and Type D: kyphotic alignment. Univariate analyses were performed to compare demographics, symptoms, clinical outcomes, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical (PH) and mental health (MH) scores across groups. Results Ninety-one patients were included in the study. Based on the CARDS classification, there were three (3%) Type A patients, 25 (28%) Type B, 58 (64%) Type C, and five (5%) Type D. No significant differences in baseline demographics, symptom duration, or PROMIS scores were observed across groups. Interbody utilization varied, ranging from 19% in CARDS C (n=11) to 60% in CARDS B (n=15) and D (n=3) patients (p=0.005). Thirty-day clinical outcomes were similar across groups. At an average follow-up of 8.9 months, improvements in PROMIS PH and MH scores and rates of clinically significant improvement were similar across groups. Conclusions Based on our findings, patients undergoing lumbar fusion for DLS present with similar demographic and clinical characteristics and experience similar clinical and patient-reported outcomes when stratified using the CARDS classification system. Posterolateral fusion (PLF) can be effective for various radiographic presentations of DLS. Further research is warranted to assess the utility of CARDS in preoperative planning.

[Spondylolisthesis]. / Spondylolisthese.

Spondylolisthesis is a frequent disease that is found in 20% of the adult population and is particularly accompanied by lumbar back pain. Degenerative spondylolisthesis develops in adulthood and is most often found in the L4/5 segment, in contrast to nondegenerative spondylolisthesis which is most often situated in the L5/S1 segment. Prior to every treatment the heterogeneous disease pattern has to be classified according to the severity grade of the olisthesis and to the Spinal Deformity Study Group (SDSG) classification. High-grade spondylolisthesis should preferably be surgically treated and low-grade spondylolisthesis should preferably be treated conservatively. In approximately 50% of all recently acquired spondylolistheses healing of the lysis can be achieved by a consequently carried out conservative treatment.

Evaluation of "appropriate use criteria" for surgical decision-making in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. A controlled, multicentre, prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) for surgery is difficult. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to clarify the indications for LDS surgery but have not been evaluated in controlled studies. METHODS: This prospective, controlled, multicentre study involved 908 patients (561 surgical and 347 non-surgical controls; 69.5 ± 9.7y; 69% female), treated as per normal clinical practice. Their appropriateness for surgery was afterwards determined using the AUC. They completed the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) at baseline and 12 months' follow-up. Multiple regression adjusting for confounders evaluated the influence of appropriateness designation and treatment received on the 12-month COMI and achievement of MCIC (≥ 2.2-point-reduction). RESULTS: As per convention, appropriate (A) and uncertain (U) groups were combined for comparison with the inappropriate (I) group. For the adjusted 12-month COMI, the benefit of surgery relative to non-surgical care was not significantly greater for the A/U than the I group (p = 0.189). There was, however, a greater treatment effect of surgery for those with higher baseline COMI (p = 0.035). The groups' adjusted probabilities of achieving MCIC were: 83% (A/U, receiving surgery), 71% (I, receiving surgery), 50% (A/U, receiving non-surgical care), and 32% (I, receiving non-surgical care). CONCLUSIONS: A/U patients receiving surgery had the highest chances of achieving MCIC, but the AUC were not able to identify which patients had a greater treatment effect of surgery relative to non-surgical care. The identification of other characteristics that predict a greater treatment effect of surgery, in addition to baseline COMI, is required to improve decision-making.