Role of unilateral partial facet joint preservation in postero-lateral approach lumbar interbody fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis presenting bilateral lower limb symptoms: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Posterolateral decompression and fusion with internal fixation is a commonly used surgical approach for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). This study aims to evaluate the impact of preserving a portion of the unilateral facet joint during decompression on surgical outcomes and long-term recovery in patients. METHODS: This study analyzed 73 patients with DLSS accompanied by bilateral lower limb neurological symptoms who underwent single-level L4/5 posterolateral decompression and fusion surgery from January 2022 to March 2023. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of surgery received: Group A comprised 31 patients who underwent neural decompression without facet joint preservation, while Group B consisted of 42 patients who underwent neural decompression with preservation of partial facet joints on one side. Regular follow-up evaluations were conducted, including clinical and radiological assessments immediately postoperatively, and at 3 and 12 months thereafter. Key patient information was documented through retrospective chart reviews. RESULTS: Most patients in both groups experienced favorable surgical outcomes. However, four cases encountered complications. Notably, during follow-up, Group B demonstrated superior 1-year postoperative interbody fusion outcomes (P < 0.05), along with a trend towards less interbody cage subsidence and slower postoperative intervertebral disc height loss. Additionally, Group B showed significantly reduced postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Under strict adherence to surgical indications, the posterior lateral lumbar fusion surgery, which preserves partial facet joint unilaterally during neural decompression, can offer greater benefits to patients.

One year patient reported outcomes after single-level lumbar fusion at orthopedic specialty hospital compared to tertiary referral center.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar spinal fusion is an increasingly common operation to treat symptoms related to degenerative disorders of the spine including radiculopathy and pain. As the volume of spine surgeries grows, it is becoming increasingly common for procedures to take place in nontertiary care centers, including orthopaedic specialty hospitals (OSH). While previous research demonstrates that surgical outcomes at an OSH are noninferior to those at a tertiary referral center (TRC), the implications of this difference on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not been sufficiently assessed. PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were (1) to determine if changes in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elective lumbar spinal fusion surgery differ between patients who undergo surgery at an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) and those who undergo surgery at a tertiary referral center (TRC) and (2) to characterize differences in short-term outcomes between hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent primary, elective single-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion between January 2014 and December 2021 at a tertiary referral center or an orthopaedic specialty hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMs: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-form 12 (SF12) Mental Component Summary (MCS); SF12 Physical Component Summary (PCS); Visual Analogue Back and Leg (VAS Back/Leg) METHODS: PROMs were collected preoperatively, 6 months after surgery, and 1 year after surgery. Six-month and 1-year delta PROM values were calculated by subtracting the preoperative PROM score from the 6-month or 1-year score, respectively. Multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the independent effect of hospital location on postoperative PROM scores. RESULTS: A total of 288 patients were identified as part of the study cohort including 205 patients who underwent surgery at the tertiary hospital and 83 patients who underwent surgery at the OSH. OSH patients had shorter length of stay (1.57±0.72 vs. 3.28±1.32, p<.001), however there was no difference in discharge disposition or 90-day readmission rates between hospitals (p>.05). At 6 months, having surgery at the specialty hospital was associated with higher PCS (estimate=2.96, confidence interval: 0.21-5.71, p=.035). At 1-year postoperatively, the location of surgery no longer demonstrated significant associations with PROM scores. Preoperative PROM scores demonstrated significant associations with 6-month and 1-year scores for each PROM (p<.05) except VAS leg at 6 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies investigating PROMs at OSH versus TRCs for single-level lumbar fusions. We demonstrated that at 1-year follow-up, there is not a significant difference in PROM improvement between patients who undergo surgery at a TRC and patients who do so at an OSH.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes in obese and non-obese patients subjected to open lumbar spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity is a global epidemic affecting developing countries. The relationship between obesity and perioperative outcomes during elective lumbar spine surgery remains controversial, especially in those without morbid disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively revised the medical records of patients with lumbar spine degeneration subjected to elective surgery. The data retrieved included demographic and clinical characteristics, body mass index (BMI), obesity status (BMI ≥ 30), surgical interventions, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of stay (LOS), and post-operative complications. Perioperative outcomes were compared between Grade I-II obese and non-obese individuals. RESULTS: We enrolled 53 patients, 18 with Grade I-II obesity. Their median age was 51, with no differences in gender, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, and surgical procedures received between groups. No clinically relevant differences were found between grade I-II obese and non-obese participants in EBL (300 mL vs. 250 mL, p = 0.069), operative time (3.2 h vs. 3.0 h, p = 0.037), and LOS (6 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.3). Furthermore, BMI was not associated with the incidence of significant bleeding and long stay but showed a modest correlation with operative time. CONCLUSION: Grade I-II obesity does not increase surgical complexity nor perioperative complications during open lumbar spine surgery.

OBJETIVO: La obesidad es una epidemia mundial que afecta a países subdesarrollados. Su relación con los resultados de la cirugía de columna lumbar electiva sigue siendo controvertida, especialmente en obesos sin enfermedad mórbida. MÉTODOS: Se revisaron los expedientes de pacientes con degeneración de la columna lumbar sometidos a cirugía. Los datos recuperados incluyeron características demográficas y clínicas, índice de masa corporal (IMC), estado de obesidad (IMC > 30), intervenciones quirúrgicas, sangrado estimado, tiempo operatorio, tiempo de estancia y complicaciones. Los resultados se compararon entre individuos obesos grado I-II y controles. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 53 pacientes, 18 con obesidad de grado I-II. La edad media fue de 51 años, sin diferencias en el sexo, las comorbilidades, los parámetros de laboratorio y los procedimientos quirúrgicos recibidos entre grupos. No se encontraron diferencias relevantes entre los participantes obesos y los no obesos en sangrado (300 vs. 250 mL, p = 0.069), tiempo operatorio (3.2 vs. 3.0 horas, p = 0.037) y estancia (6 vs. 5 días, p = 0.3). El IMC no se asoció con hemorragia y larga estancia, pero mostró una correlación modesta con el tiempo operatorio. CONCLUSIONES: La obesidad grado I-II no predispone a complicaciones durante la cirugía de columna lumbar.

Decompression with or without Fusion for Lumbar Synovial Cysts-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The management of symptomatic lumbar synovial cysts (LSC) is still a matter of debate. Previous systematic reviews did not stratify data according to different treatment techniques or incompletely reported comparative data on patients treated with lumbar posterior decompression (LPD) and lumbar decompression and fusion (LDF). The aim of our study was to compare LPD and LDF via a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature. The design of this study was in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review questions were as follows: among patients suffering from symptomatic lumbar synovial cysts (population) and treated with either posterior lumbar decompression or posterior decompression with fusion (intervention), who gets the best results (outcome), in terms of cyst recurrence, reoperation rates, and improvement of postoperative symptoms (comparison)? The search of the literature yielded a total of 1218 results. Duplicate records were then removed (n = 589). A total of 598 articles were screened, and 587 records were excluded via title and abstract screening; 11 studies were found to be relevant to our research question and were assessed for eligibility. Upon full-text review, 5 were excluded because they failed to report any parameter separately for both LPD and LDF. Finally, 6 studies for a total of 657 patients meeting the criteria stated above were included in the present investigation. Our analysis showed that LDF is associated with better results in terms of lower postoperative back pain and cyst recurrence compared with LPD. No differences were found in reoperation rates and complication rates between the two techniques. The impact of minimally invasive decompression techniques on the different outcomes in LSC should be assessed in the future and compared with instrumentation techniques.

Comparing Posterior Lumbar Decompression and Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis as Assessed by the CARDS Classification System.

OBJECTIVE: In a retrospective cohort study, we compared the outcomes among clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis (CARDS) subtypes for patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and evaluated the CARDS system as a tool to guide clinical decisions regarding the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). METHODS: Patients undergoing PLDF or TLIF for DS from 2010 to 2020 were identified. The patients were grouped by the preoperative CARDS classification. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the effects of the treatment approach on the 1-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 90-day surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1056 patients were included: 148 patients with type A DS, 323 with type B, 525 with type C, and 60 with type D. Patients with CARDS types A and C who underwent PLDF experienced a longer length of stay and were less likely to be discharged home. No differences were found in the incidence of revisions, complications, or readmissions between the surgical approaches. Patients with CARDS type A undergoing PLDF were less likely to achieve a minimal clinically important difference for back pain (36.8% vs. 76.7%; P = 0.013). No other significant differences were found in the PROMs among the CARDS subtypes. TLIF independently predicted for better leg pain improvement using the visual analog scale at 1 year of follow-up (ß = -2.92; P = 0.017) for patients with CARDS type A. Multivariable analysis demonstrated no significant differences in PROMs by surgical approach among the other CARDS subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with disc space collapse and endplate apposition (CARDS type A) appear to benefit from TLIF. However, patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis without disc space collapse or kyphotic angulation (CARDS types B and C) showed no benefit from additional interbody placement.

[Learning curve analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion].

Objective: To analyze the learning curve of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF). Methods: Fifty-five patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease treated with UBE-LIF between December 2020 and February 2022 were selected as the research subjects. The patients were grouped according to the operation sequence, the first 27 cases were in the early group, and the last 28 cases were in the late group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, disease type, and surgical segment distribution ( P>0.05). The operation time, the amount of hemoglobin loss (the difference between 1 day before operation and 3 days after operation), the hospital stay after operation, and the incidence of perioperative complications were recorded; the learning curve of UBE-LIF was analyzed by log-curve regression analysis. Results: All the operations were successfully completed without changing to other operations. The operation time, the amount of hemoglobin loss, and hospital stay in the early group were significantly more than those in the late group ( P<0.05). Complications occurred in 2 cases (7.4%) in the early group, including 1 case of dural tear during operation and 1 case of epidural hematoma after operation, and 1 case (3.6%) with transient radiculitis in the late group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups ( P=0.518) . The log-curve regression analysis showed that the operation time decreased significantly with the increase of the number of patients ( P<0.05). The operation time tended to be stable after the surgeon completed 17 cases. Conclusion: For single-level lumbar degenerative disease, the operation time of UBE-LIF can decrease gradually with the increase of the number of patients, and tend to be stable after 17 cases.

Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A2/B1 as a novel biomarker in elderly patients for the prediction of postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction: A prospective nested case-control study.

Background and objective: Postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PND) occurs in up to 54% of older patients, giving rise to the heavy psychological and economic burdens to patients and society. To date, the development of PND biomarkers remains a challenge. Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A2/B1 (hnRNPA2/B1) is an RNA-binding protein whose prion-like structure is prone to mutation and hence leads to neurodegenerative diseases, but its expression changes in PND remains unclear. Here, we detect the preoperative hnRNPA2/B1 level in patients with PND, and to explore its value in the prediction and diagnosis of PND. Methods: The study included 161 elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression and fusion in Nankai University Affinity the Third Central Hospital from September 2021 to July 2022. Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluations were performed before surgery, 1 week and 3 months after surgery to diagnose the occurrence of PND, then the peripheral blood was collected from patients before induction of anesthesia. The concentration in plasma of hnRNPA2/B1 and amyloid-ß 42 were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The median fluorescence intensity and mRNA levels of hnRNPA2/B1 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was detected by indirect intracellular staining flow cytometry and quantitative real-time PCR, respectively. Results: The preoperative hnRNPA2/B1 level in patients with PND was higher both in short-time and long-time follow-up. We found significantly higher concentrations of hnRNPA2/B1 in PND at 7 days after surgery (median, 72.26 pg/mL vs. 54.95 pg/mL, p = 0.022) compared with patients without PND, and so as 3 months after surgery (median, 102.93 pg/mL vs. 56.38 pg/mL, p = 0.012). The area under the curve (AUC) was predicted to be 0.686 at 7 days after surgery and 0.735 at 3 months. In addition, when combining several clinical information, the diagnostic efficiency of hnRNPA2/B1 for PND could further increase (AUC, 0.707 at 7 days, 0.808 at 3 months). Conclusion: Based on the findings reported here, hnRNPA2/B1 may serve as a new and powerful predictive biomarker to identify elderly patients with PND.

[Research of learning curves for unilateral biportal endoscopy technique and associated postoperative adverse events].

Objective: To summarize the characteristics of the learning curve and the occurrence of postoperative adverse events during the development of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique by comparing the clinical data of early and late patients treated with UBE technique. Methods: All patients who underwent single-level UBE technique between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 were selected as the research subjects. According to the surgical options, all patients were allocated into 3 groups: unilateral decompression and discectomy (UDD) group, unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) group, and lumbar intervertebral fusion (LIF) group. The first 60 cases from each group were extracted and ranked orderly. The endoscopic operation time, the times of fluoroscopy during non-internal fixation implantation, the postoperative hospital stay, the drainage volume, the decrease of hemoglobin, the decrease of hematocrit, and the adverse events were collected. In each group, the patients were allocated into early and late cases according to the operation sequence. The first 30 cases of each group were classified as early cases, and the last 30 cases as late cases. Statistical analysis was performed on the above observation indicators between the early and late cases, and a scatter plot of relevant data changes was drawn to observe the change trend. Results: Compared with the early cases, the endoscopic operation time and the times of fluoroscopy during non-internal fixation implantation of late cases in each group were significantly lower ( P<0.05); the postoperative hospital stay of late cases in LIF group was significantly shorter ( P<0.05); the decreased values of hemoglobin and hematokrit of late cases in ULBD group and LIF group were significantly lower ( P<0.05); the postoperative drainage volume of late cases in ULBD group significantly decreased ( P<0.05). The endoscopic operation time and the times of fluoroscopy during non-internal fixation implantation of 3 groups showed a significant downward trend. The adverse events occurred in 3 early cases and 1 late case of the UDD group, in 6 and 3 cases of the UBLD group, and 8 and 3 cases of the LIF group, respectively. The difference was not significant between the early and late cases ( P>0.05). Conclusion: In the early practice of UBE technique, there is a high incidence of complication, and the surgical trauma is relatively large, which is related to the lack of understanding of the UBE technique characteristics and insufficient surgical experience. With the proficiency of surgical techniques and accumulation of experience, the operation time and the incidence of postoperative adverse events were significantly reduced.

Liposomal bupivacaine in posterior spine surgery: A piece of the puzzle for postoperative pain.

Background: Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a local analgesic that may be used at the time of surgery to limit postoperative pain around the surgical site. Its efficacy in decreasing pain, decreasing narcotic consumption, decreasing length of stay, and improving mobility is an area of intense research. The purpose of this study was to determine whether LB use was associated with improved patient-reported pain scores in the first 72 h following posterior spinal surgery, decreased postoperative narcotic need, and decreased length of stay. Methods: One hundred and five patients undergoing elective posterior cervical or lumbar surgery were included in retrospective analysis. Forty-eight patients who received LB intraoperatively were compared with a historical cohort of 56 patients who underwent similar procedures and did not receive postsurgical infiltration with local analgesia. The same pain medication protocol was utilized postoperatively. Results: Demographics, clinical characteristics, and total morphine milligram equivalents did not differ significantly between the groups. The treatment group averaged a decreased length of stay (1.85 days treatment, 2.68 days control, p = 0.057). Treatment with LB was associated with lower pain levels at 24 h (5.2 treatment, 6.4 control, p = 0.04) and 48-72 h (4.9 treatment, 6.6 control, p = 0.007) after surgery. Conclusions: LB improved patient perception of pain in the acute postoperative time period.Intraoperative LB injection, coupled with focused early mobilization efforts and multimodal pain control, may lead to improved patient-reported outcomes, shorter length of stay, and decreased risk of perioperative complications.

A comparison of successful versus failed nonoperative treatment approaches in patients with degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine.

Identifying an optimal composition of nonoperative therapies to trial in patients suffering from degenerative lumbar spine conditions prior to surgical management remains challenging. Contrasting successful versus failed nonoperative treatment approaches may provide clinicians with valuable insight. The purpose of this study was to compare the nonoperative therapy regimens in degenerative lumbar spine disorder patients successfully managed conservatively versus patients who failed primary treatment and opted for lumbar fusion surgery. Clinical records from patients diagnosed with lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis from 2007 to 2017 were gathered from a comprehensive insurance database. Patients were separated into two cohorts: patients managed successfully with nonoperative therapies and patients who failed conservative therapy and underwent lumbar fusion surgery. Nonoperative therapy utilization by the two cohortswere collected across a 2-year surveillance window. A total of 531,980 adult patients with lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis comprised the base population. There were 523,031 patients (98.3%) successfully treated with conservative management alone, while 8,949 patients (1.7%) ultimately failed nonoperative management and opted for lumbar fusion.Conservative therapy failure rates were especially high in patients with a smoking history (2.1%) and those utilizing lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESIs) (3.7%). A greater percentage of patients who failed conservative management utilized opioid medications (p < 0.0001), muscle relaxants (p < 0.0001), and LESIs (p < 0.0001). Patients who failed nonoperative management spent more than double than the successfully treated cohort (failed cohort: $1806.49 per patient; successful cohort: $768.50 per patient). In a multivariate logistic regression model, smoking, obesity and prolonged opioid use were independently associated with failure of nonoperative treatment.