Does Paraspinal Muscle Mass Predict Lumbar Lordosis before and after Decompression for Degenerative Spinal Stenosis?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if muscle mass and quality of the lumbar paraspinal muscles was associated with improvements in lumbar lordosis and other sagittal parameters after isolated posterior lumbar decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Over time, either due to degenerative changes or other spinal conditions, individuals may develop sagittal imbalance. In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, sagittal imbalance can further exacerbate symptoms of pain and radiculopathy. Sarcopenia of paraspinal muscles has been implicated in previous spine research as a variable with influence on surgical outcomes. METHODS: Sagittal parameters were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral lumbar radiographs and included lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Preoperative MRI images were evaluated at the base of the L4 vertebral body to assess muscles mass of the psoas muscle and paravertebral muscles (PVM) and Goutallier grade of the PVM. Patients were divided into 3 muscle size groups based on PVM normalized for body size (PVM/BMI): Group A (smallest), Group B, and Group C (largest). RESULTS: Patients in Group C had greater LL preoperatively (51.5° vs. 47.9° vs. 43.2, P=0.005) and postoperatively (52.2° vs. 48.9° vs. 45.7°, P=0.043). There was no significant difference in the ∆LL values between groups (P>0.05). Patients in Group C had larger SS preoperatively (35.2° vs. 32.1° vs. 30.0°, P=0.010) and postoperatively (36.1° vs. 33.0° vs. 31.7°, P=0.030). Regression analysis showed that PVM/BMI was a significant predictor of LL preoperatively (P=0.039) and postoperatively (P=0.031), as well as SS preoperatively (P=0.001) and postoperatively (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Muscle mass of the paravertebral muscles significantly impacts lumbar lordosis and sacral slope in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis before and after posterior lumbar decompression. These findings highlight a need to address risk factors for poor muscle quality in patients with sagittal imbalance.

Correction of Spinal Sagittal Alignment after Posterior Lumbar Decompression: Does Severity of Central Canal Stenosis Matter?

STUDY DESIGN: This study adopted a retrospective study design. PURPOSE: Our study aimed to investigate the impact of central canal stenosis severity on surgical outcomes and lumbar sagittal correction after lumbar decompression. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Studies have evaluated sagittal correction in patients with central canal stenosis after lumbar decompression and the association of stenosis severity with worse preoperative sagittal alignment. However, none have evaluated the impact of spinal stenosis severity on sagittal correction. METHODS: Patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression (PLD) of ≤4 levels were divided into severe and non-severe central canal stenosis groups based on the Lee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grading system. Patients without preoperative MRI or inadequate visualization on radiographs were excluded. Surgical characteristics, clinical outcomes, and sagittal measurements were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the predictors of pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL). RESULTS: Of the 142 patients included, 39 had severe stenosis, and 103 had non-severe stenosis. The mean follow-up duration for the cohort was 4.72 months. Patients with severe stenosis were older, had higher comorbidity indices and levels decompressed, and longer lengths of stay and operative times (p <0.001). Although those with severe stenosis had lower lordosis, lower SS, and higher PI-LL mismatch preoperatively, no differences in Delta LL, SS, PT, or PI-LL were observed between the two groups (p >0.05). On multivariate regression, severe stenosis was a significant predictor of a lower preoperative LL (estimate=-5.243, p =0.045) and a higher preoperative PI-LL mismatch (estimate=6.192, p =0.039). No differences in surgical or clinical outcomes were observed (p >0.05). CONCLUSION: Severe central lumbar stenosis was associated with greater spinopelvic mismatch preoperatively. Sagittal balance improved in both patients with severe and non-severe stenosis after PLD to a similar degree, with differences in sagittal parameters remaining after surgery. We also found no differences in postoperative outcomes associated with stenosis severity.

Does the Severity of Foraminal Stenosis Impact Outcomes of Lumbar Decompression Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: To establish the relationship between the magnitude of foraminal stenosis and 1) improvement in patient-reported outcomes, 2) improvement in motor function after lumbar decompression surgery, and 3) difference in surgical outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent one-level posterior lumbar decompression for radiculopathy were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics were collected through a query search and manual chart review of the electronic medical records. Foraminal stenosis was determined on magnetic resonance imaging and graded using Lee et al.'s validated methodology as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Surgical outcomes, motor function, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared based on the amount of stenosis (mild vs. moderate vs. severe). Bivariant and multivariant analyses were performed. RESULTS: Severe stenosis demonstrated more 90-day readmissions (0.00% vs. 0.00% vs. 8.57%, respectively, P = 0.019), though this effect did not remain significant on multivariate analysis (P = 0.068). There was no association between stenosis severity and the degree of functional impairment or PROMs preoperatively. Patients with moderate or severe preoperative foraminal stenosis showed improvement in all PROMs after surgery (P < 0.05) except the mental component of the Short Form 12 survey. Notably, central stenosis grade was insignificantly different between groups (P = 0.358). Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not identify any significant independent predictors of surgical outcomes or changes in PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that regardless of foraminal stenosis severity preoperatively, patients have a similar improvement in PROMs, surgical outcomes, and restoration of motor function after lumbar decompression surgery for radiculopathy.

The Impact of Physical Therapy After Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine if outcomes varied between patients based on physical therapy (PT) attendance after lumbar fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The literature has been mixed regarding the efficacy of postoperative PT to improve disability and back pain, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures. Given the prevalence of PT referrals and lack of high-quality evidence, there is a need for additional studies investigating the efficacy of PT after lumbar fusion surgery to aid in developing robust clinical guidelines. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients receiving lumbar fusion surgery by current procedural terminology codes and separated them into 2 groups based on whether PT was prescribed. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient and surgical characteristics, PT utilization, and surgical outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were identified and compared preoperatively, at 90 days postoperatively and one year postoperatively. RESULTS: The two groups had similar patient characteristics and comorbidities and demonstrated no significant differences between readmission, complication, and revision rates after surgery. Patients that attended PT had significantly more fused levels (1.41 ± 0.64 vs. 1.32 ± 0.54, P =0.027), longer operative durations (234 ± 96.4 vs. 215 ± 86.1 min, P =0.012), and longer postoperative hospital stays (3.35 ± 1.68 vs. 3.00 ± 1.49 days, P =0.004). All groups improved similarly by Oswestry Disability Index, short form-12 physical and mental health subsets, and back and leg pain by Visual Analog Scale at 90-day and 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that physical therapy does not significantly impact PROMs after lumbar fusion surgery. Given the lack of data suggesting clear benefit of PT after lumbar fusion, surgeons should consider more strict criteria when recommending physical therapy to their patients after lumbar fusion surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-Ⅲ.

The Implication of Preoperative Central Stenosis on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of central stenosis severity on patient-reported outcomes after lumbar decompression. METHODS: Patient diagnosis, demographics, and surgical characteristics were collected via query search and manual chart review of electronic medical records. The inclusion criteria were posterior lumbar decompressions from 2014-2020, with accessible magnetic resonance imaging reports. As previously validated by Lee et al., central stenosis was determined on magnetic resonance imaging and graded as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients were dichotomized into 2 groups to improve statistical power for comparisons: none or mild central stenosis and moderate or severe central stenosis. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared between cohorts at 1 year postoperatively. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: On bivariate analysis, no significant differences were noted between cohorts with regard to preoperative, 1-year postoperative, and delta PROMs. In addition, no significant difference in the number of patients attaining minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for each PROM was noted between cohorts. With the exception of mental score of the Short Form-12 survey, all intragroup preoperative to postoperative PROMs indicated significant improvement (all P < 0.05) after lumbar decompression surgery. Multivariate regression identified moderate or severe central canal stenosis as a significant independent predictor of improvement in visual analog scale back (estimate = -1.464, P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that patients with moderate or severe central spinal stenosis may have more improvement in back pain than those with mild or no central stenosis after lumbar spine decompression surgery.

Is Deep Vein Thrombosis Chemoprophylaxis Indicated After Spinal Irrigation and Débridement?

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for development of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in patients undergoing spinal irrigation and débridement for an infection with subsequent peripherally inserted central catheter placement and to determine if chemoprophylaxis mitigates the risk of developing DVT. METHODS: Patients with spinal infection and peripherally inserted central catheter placement at an academic medical center between 2009 and 2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients were grouped based on whether they had postoperative DVT. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared to determine their association with postoperative DVT. A multivariate logistic regression model was developed to measure the effect of postoperative DVT chemoprophylaxis on the likelihood of DVT development. RESULTS: Of 335 patients included in the analysis, 48 (14.3%) developed DVT, and 287 (85.7%) did not develop DVT. Patients who developed DVT had a greater number of irrigation and débridement procedures (1.90 ± 1.49 vs. 1.44 ± 0.86, P = 0.024). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified a history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-4.92; P = 0.045), DVT/pulmonary embolism (OR = 4.49; 95% CI, 1.93-10.34; P < 0.001), and number of irrigation and débridement procedures (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.06; P = 0.006) as significant positive predictors of postoperative DVT. Chemoprophylaxis (OR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.32-1.45; P = 0.324) was not a significant negative predictor of postoperative DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing spinal débridement with subsequent peripherally inserted central catheter placement are at high risk for postoperative DVT. Multiple spine débridement procedures, a history of diabetes, and previous DVT are risk factors for postoperative DVT. Chemoprophylaxis does not mitigate patients' risk for postoperative DVT.