Post-operative shift in pain profile following fusion surgery for adult spinal deformity: a cluster analysis.

PURPOSE: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is associated with a combination of back and leg pain of various intensities. The objective of the present study was to investigate the diverse reaction of pain profiles following ASD surgery as well as post-operative patient satisfaction. METHODS: Multicenter surveillance collected data for patients ≥ 19 years old who underwent primary thoracolumbar fusion surgery at > 5 spinal levels for ASD. Two-step cluster analysis was performed utilizing pre-operative numeric rating scale (NRS) for back and leg pain. Radiologic parameters and patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were also obtained. One-year post-operative outcomes and satisfaction rates were compared among clusters, and influencing factors were analyzed. RESULTS: Based on cluster analysis, 191 ASD patients were categorized into three groups: ClusterNP, mild pain only (n = 55); ClusterBP, back pain only (n = 68); and ClusterBLP, significant back and leg pain (n = 68). ClusterBLP (mean NRSback 7.6, mean NRSleg 6.9) was the oldest 73.4 years (p < 0.001) and underwent interbody fusion (88%, p < 0.001) and sacral/pelvic fixation (69%, p = 0.001) more commonly than the other groups, for the worst pelvis incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (mean 43.7°, p = 0.03) and the greatest sagittal vertical axis (mean 123 mm, p = 0.002). While NRSback, NRSleg and PRO scores were all improved postoperatively in ClustersBP and BLP, ClusterBLP showed the lowest satisfaction rate (80% vs. 80% vs. 63%, p = 0.11), which correlated with post-operative NRSback (rho = -0.357). CONCLUSIONS: Cluster analysis revealed three clusters of ASD patients, and the cluster with the worst pain back and leg pain had the most advanced disease and showed the lowest satisfaction rate, affected by postoperative back pain.

Surgical management of a multilevel thoracolumbar aneurysmal bone cyst.

Aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) are primary bone tumours that rarely occur in the spine and generally affect one vertebral level in adolescents. Here, we present an unusual case of a multilevel thoracolumbar ABC, which presented a unique surgical challenge due to its infiltrative and destructive nature. A teenage male presented with back pain, paresthesias and a mildly spastic gait. MRI of the thoracolumbar spine revealed an expansive, multicystic mass extending from the left T12-L1 vertebral bodies into adjacent musculature. The patient underwent a two-stage surgical approach with decompression of the spinal cord and instrumentation to stabilise the vertebral column. The first stage involved posterior decompression, laminectomy and facetectomies, followed by pedicle-based instrumentation from T10 to L3. This was followed by a vertebrectomy and anterior stabilisation with an expansile cage from T11 to L2. A gross total resection was achieved with the patient maintaining full neurological function.

Recovery of the Japanese orthopedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire score and walking ability following lumbar spinal stenosis surgery.

PURPOSE: We investigated the recovery of the Japanese orthopedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ) scores and 6 min walk distance (6MWD) in patients after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and identified the items among 25 questions of JOABPEQ that showed recovery. METHODS: A total of 227 patients (average age 71.5 years; SD: 7.5; 121 men) were included from a single center. The outcome measures were JOABPEQ, visual analog scale (VAS), and 6MWD and obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Mixed-model repeated measures were used to compare the variables at each time point between the surgery groups. RESULTS: The JOABPEQ, VAS, and 6MWD scores generally improved at 1 month postoperatively compared with those obtained preoperatively, and some parameters further improved at 3 months. However, improvement in the lumbar spine dysfunction item of JOABPEQ was delayed, showing improvement at 3 months postoperatively for decompression surgery (average score: pre, 64.6; 3 months, 78.5) and 6 months postoperatively for fusion surgery (average score: Pre, 64.3; 6 months, 77.1). Responses to the individual JOABPEQ questions generally improved after surgery. No significant changes in lumbar spine dysfunction occurred in the fusion group. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated the early postoperative recovery course of JOABPEQ and 6MWD. In the fusion group, significant changes in lumbar spine dysfunction started at 6 months postoperatively. These findings could help medical staff explain postoperative recovery to patients after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery and in their decision making regarding surgery.

Recovery pattern after decompression of central lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Detailed preoperative information is associated with superior outcomes. We aimed to describe the recovery pattern after decompression of central lumbar spinal stenosis (CLSS). METHODS: 50 patients aged 51-85 years who underwent decompression without fusion due to CLSS were followed from before to after surgery (post-op day 1, 7, and 14). Back and leg pain were evaluated using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS; 0 = no pain 0, 10 = worst pain) and quality of life using the EuroQol-5D index (0 = death, 1 = best), and EQ-5D-visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 = worst, 100 = best). RESULTS: NRS leg pain was reduced from preoperative to first postoperative day by 5.2 (6.1, 4.3) (mean (95%CI)], and NRS back pain from postoperative day 1-7 by 0.6 (1.2, 0.03) and from day 7 to 14 by 0.7 (1.3, 0.2)]. In contrast, EQ-5D index increased from preoperative to first postoperative day by 0.09 (0.06, 0.13) and from day 1 to 7 by 0.05 (0.02,0.08), and EQ-5D VAS from preoperative to first postoperative day by 13.7 (9.1, 18.3) and from day 1 to 7 by 6.0 (2.0, 10.0). After two weeks, 51% of the patients had improved above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in back pain and 71% in leg pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients scheduled for decompression due to CLSS should be informed that improvement in leg pain and quality of life in general can be expected within one day of surgery, that quality of life improves a little further in the first postoperative week, and that back pain improves in the first 2 postoperative weeks. In most patients, decompression without fusion due to CLSS seems to achieve clinically relevant improvement within 2 weeks.

Does type of bone graft matter? A retrospective review of the use of biological bone grafts in patients undergoing elective 1-3 level spinal interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of strong evidence for use of expensive bone substitutes. This study compares perioperative data and patient reported quality-of-life outcomes across the varied types of bone graft extenders. The study analyzes the existing Quality and Outcomes Database and evaluates patient reported outcomes for 1-3 level lumbar fusion procedures comparing across different types of biologics bone graft. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected data registry. Bone graft implant data were collected and grouped into the following categories: (1) Autograft with basic allograft (2) Enhanced, synthetic, or cellular allograft (3) Use of BMP. Preoperative and 1 year patient reported outcomes and perioperative data from the prospective collected registry were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 384 patients included in this study. There were 168 (43.8%) patients in group 1, 133 (34.6%) patients in group 2, and 83 (21.6%) in group 3. There were no group differences in baseline or 1 year back pain, leg pain, ODI, or EQ-5D. The GLM Repeated Measures results indicate a significant difference within each of the three groups between the preoperative and postoperative measures for back pain, leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D. The change over time was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bone graft extenders are a significant contributor to the cost of lumbar fusion. This study demonstrates no difference in preoperative, and 1 year patient reported outcomes between the three groups. There was no significant difference in rate of reoperations across the three groups.

Sagittal imbalance syndrome, a new concept, helps determining a long fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and severe global sagittal imbalance.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively investigate the postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes in elderly patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and severe global sagittal imbalance who underwent different fusion levels. METHODS: A total of 214 patients with DLSS and severe global sagittal imbalance were included. Sagittal imbalance syndrome was defined as the severe decompensated radiographic global sagittal imbalance accompanied with the following symptoms: severe back pain in naturel posture that disappears or significantly relieves in support position, living disability with ODI score > 40% and dynamic sagittal imbalance. Thereinto, 54 patients were found with sagittal imbalance syndrome and were performed the lumbar decompression with a long thoracolumbar fusion (Group A) or a short lumbar fusion (Group B). Thirty patients without sagittal imbalance syndrome who underwent short lumbar decompression and fusion were selected as the control (Group C). RESULTS: Patients with sagittal imbalance syndrome were detected to have more paraspinal muscle degeneration and less compensatory potentials for sagittal imbalance (smaller thoracic kyphosis and larger pelvic tilt) than those without this diagnosis. Postoperative comparisons revealed significant restoration of global sagittal alignment and balance and improvement of living quality in Groups A and C at the final follow-up. Six patients in Group B and one in Group A were found to have proximal junctional complication during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that DLSS patients with sagittal imbalance syndrome had inferior surgical outcomes in terms of living quality and proximal junctional complication after lumbar decompression with a short fusion.

Lumbar decompression and fusion for symptomatic spinal stenosis in a patient with chronic thoracic sensory level from prior transverse myelitis: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with transverse myelitis suffer from sensory loss below the spinal level of the lesion. This is commonly associated with chronic neuropathic pain. However, the presence of somatic pain below a complete thoracic sensory level after transverse myelitis is exceptionally rare, and it is unclear if surgical decompression is an effective form of treatment for these patients. CASE PRESENTATION: In this report, we describe a 22-year-old Caucasian female who suffered from chronic lumbar back pain despite a complete thoracic sensory level secondary to prior transverse myelitis. Imaging demonstrated multilevel central stenosis below the sensory level, and her pain improved after surgical decompression. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of symptomatic lumbar stenosis below a sensory level after transverse myelitis successfully treated with surgical decompression. CONCLUSION: This is the first reported case of a patient with symptomatic lumbar stenosis after transverse myelitis whose lower back pain and quality of life improved following surgical decompression and fusion. This case provides evidence that typical lumbago is possible in patients with sensory loss from transverse myelitis, and standard lumbar decompression may provide benefit for these patients.

Perceptions in orthopedic surgery on the use of cannabis in treating pain: a survey of patients with spine pain (POSIT Spine).

BACKGROUND: Back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Despite guidelines discouraging opioids as first-line treatment, opioids remain the most prescribed drugs for back pain. There is renewed interest in exploring the potential medical applications of cannabis, and with the recent changes in national legislation there is a unique opportunity to investigate the analgesic properties of cannabis. METHODS: This was a multi-center survey-based study examining patient perceptions regarding cannabis for spine pain. We included patients presenting with back or neck pain to one of three Orthopedic clinics in Ontario. Our primary outcome was perceived effect of cannabis on back pain, while secondary outcomes were perceptions regarding potential applications and barriers to cannabis use. RESULTS: 259 patients participated in this study, 35.3% (90/255) stating they used cannabis medically. Average pain severity was 6.5/10 ± 0.3 (95% CI 6.2-6.8). Nearly three-quarters were prescribed opioids (73.6%, 148/201), with oxycodone/oxycontin (45.9% 68/148) being the most common, and almost half of (49.3%, 73/148) had used an opioid in the last week. Patients estimated cannabis could treat 54.3% ± 4.0 (95% CI 50.3-58.3%) of their spine pain and replace 46.2% ± 6. 6 (95% CI 39.6-52.8%) of their current analgesics. Age (ß = - 0.3, CI - 0.6-0.0), higher pain severity (ß = 0.4, CI 0.1-0.6) and previous cannabis use (ß = 14.7, CI 5.1-24.4) were associated with a higher perceived effect of cannabis. Patients thought cannabis would be beneficial to treat pain (129/146, 88.4%), and reduce (116/146, 79.5%) or eliminate opioids (102/146, 69.9%). Not considering using cannabis for medical purposes (65/150, 43.3%) was the number one reported barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Patients estimated medical cannabis could treat more than half of their spine pain, with one in three patients already using medical cannabis. 79% of patients also believe cannabis could reduce opioid usage. This data will help support more research into cannabis for musculoskeletal pain.

Does Preoperative Back Pain Impact Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: To determine postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS). BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the postoperative clinical trajectory in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF specifically for IS. METHODS: Patients were separated into two cohorts based on the previously defined Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back pain (BP) for severe pain: VAS-BP <7 and VAS-BP ≥7. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-physical function (PF), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) Physical/Mental Component Score, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, VAS-BP, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index were collected preoperatively and up to 2-year postoperatively. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated through previously defined thresholds. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were recorded, with 58 patients in the VAS-BP <7 cohort. The VAS-BP <7 cohort demonstrated significant improvement in all PROMs at one or more postoperative time points. The VAS-BP ≥7 demonstrated significant improvement at 3 or more postoperative time points in all PROMs except for SF-12 Mental Component Score. The VAS-BP <7 cohort reported significantly superior preoperative and postoperative PROMs in all domains, except for SF-12 Physical Component Score. The VAS-BP ≥7 cohort had higher MCID achievement rates at one or more time points in multiple PROMs. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing MIS-TLIF for IS demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in PF, mental function, pain, and disability outcomes independent of preoperative severity of BP. Patients with lower preoperative BP demonstrated superior outcomes in PF, mental function, pain, and disability. However, patients with greater preoperative BP achieved higher rates of MCID in mental function, BP, and disability outcomes. Patients with greater severity of preoperative BP undergoing MIS-TLIF for IS may experience greater rates of clinically relevant improvement in mental function, BP, and disability outcomes.

Performance of the streamlined quality outcomes database web-based calculator: internal and external validation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: With an increasing number of web-based calculators designed to provide the probabilities of an individual achieving improvement after lumbar spine surgery, there is a need to determine the accuracy of these models. PURPOSE: To perform an internal and external validation study of the reduced Quality Outcomes Database web-based Calculator (QOD-Calc). STUDY DESIGN: Observational longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients enrolled study-wide in Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) and patients enrolled in DaneSpine at a single institution who had elective lumbar spine surgery with baseline data to complete QOD-Calc and 12-month postoperative data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for back and leg pain, EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D). METHODS: Baseline data elements were entered into QOD-Calc to determine the probability for each patient having Any Improvement and 30% Improvement in NRS leg pain, back pain, EQ-5D and ODI. These probabilities were compared with the actual 12-month postop data for each of the QOD and DaneSpine cases. Receiver-operating characteristics analyses were performed and calibration plots created to assess model performance. RESULTS: 24,755 QOD cases and 8,105 DaneSpine lumbar cases were included in the analysis. QOD-Calc had acceptable to outstanding ability (AUC: 0.694-0.874) to predict Any Improvement in the QOD cohort and moderate to acceptable ability (AUC: 0.658-0.747) to predict 30% Improvement. QOD-Calc had acceptable to exceptional ability (AUC: 0.669-0.734) to predict Any improvement and moderate to exceptional ability (AUC: 0.619-0.862) to predict 30% Improvement in the DaneSpine cohort. AUCs for the DaneSpine cohort was consistently lower that the AUCs for the QOD validation cohort. CONCLUSION: QOD-Calc performs well in predicting outcomes in a patient population that is similar to the patients that was used to develop it. Although still acceptable, model performance was slightly worse in a distinct population, despite the fact that the sample was more homogenous. Model performance may also be attributed to the low discrimination threshold, with close to 90% of cases reporting Any Improvement in outcome. Prediction models may need to be developed that are highly specific to the characteristics of the population.

Clinical Characteristics and Surgical Outcomes of 2542 Patients with Spinal Schwannomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to systematically analyze the data on the clinical features, surgical treatment, and outcomes of spinal schwannomas. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search of bibliographic databases from January 1, 2001, to May 31, 2021, yielded 4489 studies. Twenty-six articles were included in our final qualitative systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of 2542 adult patients' data from 26 included studies showed that 53.5% were male, and the mean age ranged from 35.8 to 57.1 years. The most common tumor location was the cervical spine (34.2%), followed by the thoracic spine (26.2%) and the lumbar spine (18.5%). Symptom severity was the most common indicator for surgical treatment, with the most common symptoms being segmental back pain, sensory/motor deficits, and urinary dysfunction. Among all patients analyzed, 93.8% were treated with gross total resection, which was associated with better prognosis and less chance of recurrence than subtotal resection. The posterior approach was the most common (87.4% of patients). The average operative time was 4.53 hours (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.18-6.48); the average intraoperative blood loss was 451.88 mL (95% CI, 169.60-1203.95). The pooled follow-up duration was 40.6 months (95% CI, 31.04-53.07). The schwannoma recurrence rate was 5.3%. Complications were particularly low and included cerebrospinal fluid leakage, wound infection, and the sensory-motor deficits. Most of the patients experienced complete recovery or significant improvement of preoperative neurological deficits and pain symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that segmental back pain, sensory/motor deficits, and urinary dysfunction are the most common symptoms of spinal schwannomas. Surgical resection is the treatment of choice with overall good reported outcomes and particularly low complication rates. gross total resection offers the best prognosis with the slightest chance of tumor recurrence and minimal risk of complications.

Does diabetes affect outcome or reoperation rate after lumbar decompression or arthrodesis? A matched analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database data set.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a known risk factor for postsurgical and systemic complications after lumbar spinal surgery. Smaller studies have also demonstrated diminished improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), with increased reoperation and readmission rates after lumbar surgery in patients with DM. The authors aimed to examine longer-term PROs in patients with DM undergoing lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. Patients were grouped into DM and non-DM groups and optimally matched in a 1:1 ratio on 31 baseline variables, including the number of operated levels. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 and 90 days after surgery in addition to improvements in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain scores and quality-adjusted life-years at 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: The matched decompression cohort comprised 7836 patients (3236 [41.3] females) with a mean age of 63.5 ± 12.6 years, and the matched arthrodesis cohort comprised 7336 patients (3907 [53.3%] females) with a mean age of 64.8 ± 10.3 years. In patients undergoing lumbar decompression, no significant differences in nonroutine discharge, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, reoperations, and PROs were observed. In patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, nonroutine discharge (15.7% vs 13.4%, p < 0.01), LOS (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.0 ± 3.5 days, p < 0.01), 30-day (6.5% vs 4.4%, p < 0.01) and 90-day (9.1% vs 7.0%, p < 0.01) readmission rates, and the 90-day reoperation rate (4.3% vs 3.2%, p = 0.01) were all significantly higher in the DM group. For DM patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly higher risk of poor surgical outcomes with the open approach. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with and without DM undergoing lumbar spinal decompression alone have comparable readmission and reoperation rates, while those undergoing arthrodesis procedures have a higher risk of poor surgical outcomes up to 90 days after surgery. Surgeons should target optimal DM control preoperatively, particularly for patients undergoing elective lumbar arthrodesis.

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

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

The impact of being overweight or obese on 12 month clinical recovery in patients following lumbar microdiscectomy for radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The proportion of patients who undergo lumbar microdiscectomy due to lumbar radiculopathy who are also overweight or obese is high. However, whether high body mass index (BMI) affects clinical outcomes is not well-studied. PURPOSE: To investigate the difference in the clinical course between normal weight, overweight, and obese patients with radiculopathy who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy followed by physical therapy and to evaluate whether high BMI is associated with poor recovery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A prospective cohort study with a 12-month follow-up was conducted in a multidisciplinary clinic. PATIENT SAMPLE: We included 583 patients (median [IQR] age: 45 [35-52] years; 41% female) with clinical signs and symptoms of lumbar radiculopathy, consistent with magnetic resonance imaging findings, who underwent microdiscectomy followed by postoperative physical therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were leg pain and back pain intensity measured with a visual analogue scale, disability measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at 3 and 12-month follow-ups, and complications. METHODS: Patients were classified as being normal weight (46.9%), overweight (38.4%), or obese (14.7%). A linear mixed-effects model was used to assess the difference in the clinical course of pain and disability between the three BMI categories. The association between BMI and outcomes was evaluated using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: All three patient groups experienced a significant improvement in leg pain, back pain, and disability over 3 and 12-month follow-up. Patients who were overweight, obese, or normal weight experienced comparable leg pain (p=.14) and disability (p=.06) over the clinical course (p=.14); however, obese patients experienced higher back pain (MD=-6.81 [95%CI: -13.50 to -0.14]; p=.03). The difference in back pain scores was not clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: In the first year following lumbar microdiscectomy, patients demonstrated clinical improvements and complications that were unrelated to their preoperative BMI.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes, Complications, Readmissions, and Revisions in Posterior Lumbar Fusion With, Versus Without, an Interbody Device.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare posterior lumbar fusions with versus without an interbody in: (1) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 1 year and (2) postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Elective lumbar fusion is commonly used to treat various lumbar pathologies. Two common approaches for open posterior lumbar fusion include posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody and with an interbody through techniques, like transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Whether fusion with or without an interbody leads to better outcomes remains an area of active research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Lumbar Module of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for adults undergoing elective primary posterior lumbar fusion with or without an interbody. Covariates included demographic variables, comorbidities, primary spine diagnosis, operative variables, and baseline PROs, including Oswestry Disability Index, North American Spine Society satisfaction index, numeric rating scale-back/leg pain, and Euroqol 5-dimension. Outcomes included complications, reoperations, readmissions, return to work/activities, and PROs. Propensity score matching and linear regression modeling were used to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated to assess the impact of interbody use on patient outcomes. RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1044 patients with interbody and 215 patients undergoing PLF. The average treatment effect on the treated analysis showed that having an interbody or not had no significant impact on any outcome of interest, including 30-day complications and reoperations, 3-month readmissions, 12-month return to work, and 12-month PROs. CONCLUSION: There were no discernible differences in outcomes between patients undergoing PLF alone versus with an interbody in elective posterior lumbar fusion. These results add to the growing body of evidence that posterior lumbar fusions with and without an interbody seem to have similar outcomes up to 1 year postoperatively when treating degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

How to Screen for Lumbar Spine Stiffness in Patients Awaiting Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to (1) define the prevalence of spinopelvic abnormalities among patients who have hip osteoarthritis (OA) and controls (asymptomatic volunteers) and (2) identify factors that reliably predict the presence of lumbar spine stiffness. METHODS: This is a prospective, cross-sectional, case-cohort study of patients who have end-stage primary hip OA, who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients were compared with a cohort of asymptomatic volunteers, matched for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI), serving as a control group. Spinopelvic pathologies were defined as: lumbar spine flatback deformity (difference of 10 or more degrees for pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis angle), a standing sagittal pelvic tilt of 19° or more and lumbar spine stiffness (lumbar flexion of less than 20° between both postures). RESULTS: The prevalence of spinopelvic pathologies was similar between patients and controls (flatback deformity: 16% versus 10%, P = .209; standing pelvic tilt >19°: 17% versus 24%, P = .218; lumbar spine stiffness: 6% versus 5%, P = .827). Age over 65 years-old and standing lumbar lordosis angle less than 45° were associated with high sensitivity and specificity for identifying lumbar spine stiffness (age >65 years: 82% and 66%; standing lumbar lordosis angle <45°: 85% and 73%). CONCLUSION: The presence of end-stage hip osteoarthritis was not associated with increased prevalence of adverse spinopelvic characteristics compared to matched, asymptomatic volunteers. Age and LLstanding are the strongest predictors of lumbar spine flexion and can guide clinical practice on when to obtain additional radiographs for patients who have hip OA before arthroplasty to identify at-risk patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II (prospective, cohort study).

Optimizing Preoperative Chronic Pain Management in Elective Spine Surgery Patients: A Narrative Review of Outcomes with Opioid and Adjuvant Pain Therapies.

¼ Chronic preoperative opioid use negatively affects outcomes after spine surgery, with increased complications and reoperations, longer hospital stays, decreased return-to-work rates, worse patient-reported outcomes, and a higher risk of continued opioid use postoperatively.¼ The definition of chronic opioid use is not consistent across studies, and a more specific and consistent definition will aid in stratifying patients and understanding their risk of inferior outcomes.¼ Preoperative weaning periods and maximum dose thresholds are being established, which may increase the likelihood of achieving a meaningful improvement after surgery, although higher level evidence studies are needed.¼ Spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal drug delivery devices are increasingly used to manage chronic back pain and are equivalent or perhaps even superior to opioid treatment, although few studies exist examining how patients with these devices do after subsequent spine surgery.¼ Further investigation is needed to determine whether a true mechanistic explanation exists for spine-related analgesia related to spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal drug delivery devices.

Ten-step minimally invasive slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a MIS surgical technique that offers safe and effective decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with a long-term resolution of symptoms. Advantages over conventional open laminectomy include reduced expected blood loss, muscle damage, mechanical instability, and less postoperative pain. The slalom technique combined with navigation is used in multi-segmental LSS to improve the workflow and effectiveness of the procedure. METHODS: We outline ten technical steps to achieve a slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation. In a retrospective case series, we included patients with multi-segmental LSS operated in our institution using the sULBD between 2020 and 2022. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: In our case series (N = 7), all patients reported resolution of initial symptoms on an average follow-up of 20.71 ± 9 months. The average operative time and length of hospital stay were 196.14 min and 1.67 days, respectively. On average, VAS (back pain) was 4.71 pre-operatively and 1.50 on long-term follow-up of an average of 19.05 months. VAS (leg pain) decreased from 4.33 to 1.21. ODI was reported as 33% pre-operatively and 12% on long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: The sULBD with navigation is a safe and effective MIS surgical procedure and achieves the resolution of symptoms in patients presenting with multi-segmental LSS. Herein, we demonstrate the ten key steps required to perform the sULBD technique. Compared to the standard sULBD technique, the incorporation of navigation provides anatomic localization without exposure to radiation to staff for a higher safety profile along with a fast and efficient workflow.