Does physical therapy impact clinical outcomes after lumbar decompression surgery?

Objectives: The objectives of our study were to (1) determine if physical therapy (PT) impacts patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after lumbar decompression surgery and (2) determine if PT impacts postsurgical readmissions or reoperations after lumbar decompression surgery. Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary one- or two-level lumbar decompression at our institution were identified. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, surgical outcomes (all-cause 90 days readmissions and 90 days surgical readmissions), and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared between the groups. Multivariate linear regression was utilized to determine the individual predictors of 90 days readmissions and PROMs at the 1-year postoperative point. Alpha was set at P < 0.05. Results: Of the 1003 patients included, 421 attended PT postoperatively. On univariate analysis, PT attendance did not significantly impact 90-day surgical reoperations (P = 0.225). Although bivariate analysis suggests that attendance of PT is associated with worse improvement in physical function (P = 0.041), increased preoperative Visual Analogue Scale leg pain (0 = 0.004), and disability (P = 0.006), as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index, our multivariate analysis, which accounts for confounding variables found there was no difference in PROM improvement and PT was not an independent predictor of 90-day all-cause readmissions (P = 0.06). Instead, Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 0.025) and discharge to a skilled nursing facility (P = 0.013) independently predicted greater 90-day all-cause readmissions. Conclusions: Postoperative lumbar decompression PT attendance does not significantly affect clinical improvement, as measured by PROMs or surgical outcomes including all-cause 90 days readmissions and 90-day surgical readmissions.

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.

Patient Outcomes Following Short-segment Lumbar Fusion Are Not Affected by PI-LL Mismatch.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to further elucidate the relationship between pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing short segment lumbar fusions for degenerative lumbar disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are few studies examining the relationship between spinopelvic parameters and patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in short segment lumbar degenerative disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at single academic institution. Patients undergoing 1- or 2-level lumbar fusion were retrospectively identified and separated into 2 groups based on postoperative PI-LL mismatch ≤10 degrees (NM) or PI-LL mismatch >10 degrees (M). Outcomes including the Physical Component Score (PCS)-12, Mental Component Score (MCS)-12, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg scores were analyzed. Absolute PROM scores, the recovery ratio and the percentage of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference between groups were compared and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were included, with 59 patients in the NM group and 247 patients in the M group. Patients in the M group started with a higher degree of PI-LL mismatch compared with the NM group (22.2 vs. 7.6 degrees, P<0.001) and this difference increased postoperatively (24.7 vs. 2.5 degrees, P<0.001). There were no differences between the 2 groups in terms of baseline, postoperative, or Δ outcome scores (P>0.05). In addition, having a PI-LL mismatch was not found to be an independent predictor of any PROM on multivariate analysis (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings in this study show that even though patients in the M group had a higher degree of mismatch preoperatively and postoperatively, there was no difference in PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Fusion technique does not affect short-term patient-reported outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease.

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT: Degenerative lumbar disease can be addressed via an anterior or posterior approach, and with or without the use of an interbody cage. Although several studies have compared the type of approach and technique, there is a lack of literature assessing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic parameters between different fusion techniques. PURPOSE: To determine whether the surgical approach and fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disease had an effect on short-term PROMs and radiographic parameters. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective Cohort Study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred and ninety-one patients who underwent a 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion procedure at a high-volume academic center were retrospectively identified. Patients were divided into three groups based on the type of fusion they underwent: posterolateral fusion (PLF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMs: Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Score (VAS) Back, VAS Leg. Spinopelvic measurements: Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), Pelvic Incidence (PI), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Segmental Lordosis (SL), PI-LL mismatch. METHODS: Patients with less than 1-year follow-up were excluded from the cohort. Pre- and postoperative spinopelvic measurements were obtained for all patients. Univariate analysis (Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test or ANOVA test with post-hoc Bonferroni test) was used to compare among the three groups in the PROMs and radiographic spinopelvic parameters. Multiple linear regression was used to determine if fusion technique was an independent predictor of change in each patient outcome. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen patients were included in the PLF group, 33 patients in the ALIF group, and 142 patients in the TLIF group. The PLF group was significantly older at baseline (p<.001) and had lower preoperative diagnosis rates of degenerative scoliosis and disc herniations (p<.001), whereas the ALIF group underwent a higher proportion of three-level fusions (p<.001). There was no significant difference in spinopelvic parameters preoperatively, however the ALIF group showed significantly more improvement in SL postoperatively (p=.004) than the PLF and TLIF groups. Within each group, SL improved for the PLF and ALIF groups (p=.002 for both), but not for the TLIF group (p=.238). Comparing patient outcomes, the ALIF group reported lower preoperative VAS Leg scores (p=.031), however, this difference resolved postoperatively. Stratifying for preoperative diagnosis, there were no significant differences in outcomes, except for a greater improvement in VAS Leg scores for degenerative scoliosis patients undergoing ALIF. Using multivariate analysis, fusion technique was not found to be a significant predictor of change in any patient outcome or in odds of revision. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar degenerative disease can be treated with several different fusion techniques, however, the relationship between type of fusion and PROMs is not established. Based on the findings in this study, the ALIF group showed greater improvement in SL compared with the PLF and TLIF groups, however, there was no difference noted in overall LL, PI-LL mismatch or other spinopelvic parameters. Despite these radiographic findings, patient outcome measures remained similar between all three fusion types.