Postoperative Care Pathways Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Results of a Modified Delphi Approach.

STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Subject matter experts were invited to participate as the expert panel. Best practice statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark "agree" or "disagree" after a series of statements during several rounds until either consensus could be obtained or the practice method was deemed unable to achieve consensus. OBJECTIVE: Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is acknowledged as an alternative to spinal fusion in appropriately selected patients. There is a lack of unanimity on the appropriate postoperative patient protocols and rehabilitation expectations for the procedure. The long-term viability of Lumbar TDR, further adoption in the community setting and specific patient outcomes are contingent on the existence of appropriate postoperative recovery programs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Currently there are no established methods for postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Establishing a postoperative clinical pathway algorithm may improve patient outcomes with respect to lumbar TDR. METHOD: A lumbar TDR expert panel of 22 spine surgeons employed a modified Delphi method to drive consensus on postoperative care following single-level Lumbar TDR. The panel first reviewed literature and guidelines relevant to postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Panel members considered 21 survey questions intended to determine "standard-practice" postoperative care recommendations for patients who have undergone lumbar TDR for the initial recovery phase (0-4 wk) and rehabilitation (4-20 wk). Each panel member participated in a round of anonymous voting followed by a group discussion. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement or higher among the respondents. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved in 11 of the 21 survey questions. There was a high degree of consensus around the key goals for both the initial recovery and rehabilitation phases, ceased use of narcotics for pain management by 4 weeks postoperative, unrestricted walking immediately following surgery, timelines for physical therapy (within 2-4 wk) and return to work based on level of activity (as early as 1 wk postoperative). Lack of agreement included the use of back bracing and timing of postoperative visits. Generally, panel members felt that patient expectations regarding return to function were different following lumbar TDR versus fusion and warrant further study. CONCLUSION: Surgeon and patient alignment around postoperative expectations may significantly affect the long-term results of lumbar TDR. This surgeon consensus study found agreement for immediate postoperative ambulation, rapid reduction in opioids within the first month, and early return to work. When expectations are appropriately set with patients preoperatively, both provider and patient have shared goals in the return-to-function process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Autofusion in the immature spine treated with growing rods.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review of skeletally immature patients treated with growing rods. Patients received an average of 9.6 years follow-up care. OBJECTIVE: (1) to identify the rate of autofusion in the growing spine with the use of growing rods; (2) to quantify how much correction can be attained with definitive instrumented fusion after long-term treatment with growing rods; and (3) to describe the extent of Smith-Petersen osteotomies required to gain correction of an autofused spine following growing rod treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The safety and use of growing rods for curve correction and maintenance in the growing spine population has been established in published reports. While autofusion has been reported, the prevalence and sequelae are not known. METHODS: Nine skeletally immature children with scoliosis were identified who had been treated using growing rods. A retrospective review of the medical records and radiographs was conducted and the following data collected: complications, pre- and postoperative Cobb angles at time of initial surgery (growing rod placement), pre- and postoperative Cobb angles at time of final surgery (growing rod removal and definitive fusion), total spine length as measured from T1-S1, % correction since initiation of treatment and at definitive fusion, total number of surgeries, and number of patients found to have autofusion at the time of device removal. RESULTS: The rate of autofusion in children treated with growing rods was 89%. The average percent of the Cobb angle correction obtained at definitive fusion was 44%. On average, 7 osteotomies per patient were required at the time of definitive fusion due to autofusion. CONCLUSION: Although growing rods have efficacy in the control of deformity within the growing spine, they also have adverse effects on the spine. Immature spines treated with a growing rod have high rates of unintended autofusion which can possibly lead to difficult and only moderate correction at the time of definitive fusion.