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.

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.

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.

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).

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state.

PURPOSE: While patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) define value in spine surgery, several values such as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) help guide the interpretation of PROMs and identify thresholds of clinical significance. Significant variation exists in reported values and their calculation, so the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the spine surgery literature for metrics of clinical significance derived from PROMs. METHODS: We conducted a query of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to January 1, 2023, for studies that derived quantitative metrics (e.g., SCB, MCID, PASS) from PROMs in the setting of spine surgery with minimum 1-year follow-up. Details regarding the specific PROMs were collected including which PROM was measured, whether anchor- or distribution-based methods were utilized, the specific calculations, and the recommended value for a given PROM based on all evaluated calculations. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies of 21,780 patients were included. The most commonly evaluated PROM-derived value was the MCID (n = 28), followed by PASS (n = 6) and SCB (n = 4). Twenty-one studies only utilized anchor-based calculations, 15 utilized both anchor-based and distribution-based methods, and one only utilized distribution-based calculations. The most commonly evaluated legacy PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (N = 11, MCID range 4-20) and visual analog scale back pain (N = 5, MCID range 0.5-4.6). All 10 studies that derived SCB or PASS utilized the receiver operating characteristic methods. Among the six studies deriving a PASS value, four only evaluated ODI, identifying PASS ranging from 5 to 22. CONCLUSION: While calculated measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB exist, significant heterogeneity exists in the current literature. Current shortcomings include a wide variability of reported value thresholds across the literature, and limited applicability to more heterogenous patient populations than the targeted cohorts included in published investigations. Continued investigations that apply these methods to heterogenous, large-scale populations can help increase generalizability and validity of these measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Development and temporal validation of clinical prediction models for 1-year disability and pain after lumbar decompressive surgery. The Norwich Lumbar Surgery Predictor (development version).

PURPOSE: To identify clinical predictors and build prediction models for 1-year patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) after lumbar decompressive surgery for disc herniation or spinal stenosis. METHODS: The study included 1835 cases, with or without additional single-level fusion, from a single centre from 2008 through 2020. General linear models imputed with 37 clinical variables identified 18 significant 1-year PROM predictors for retention in development models. Interaction of surgical indication with each predictor was tested. Temporal validation was conducted at the same centre on cases through 2021. R2 was used to measure goodness-of-fit, and area under curve (AUC) used to measure classification to a satisfactory symptom state (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) ≤ 22; back or leg pain ≤ 30 out of 100). RESULTS: A total 1228 (67%) had complete data for inclusion in model development. Predictors of ODI were baseline PROMs (ODI, back pain, leg pain), work status, condition duration, previous lumbar operation, multiple-joint osteoarthritis, female, diabetes, current smoker, rheumatic disorder, lower limb arthroplasty, mobility aided, provider status, facet cyst, scoliosis, and age, with BMI significantly associated with stenosis. Temporal validation (n = 188) found the ODI model R2 was 0.29 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.18-0.40) and AUC was 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.81). Back and leg pain models had lower R2 (0.12-0.14) and AUC (0.68-0.69) values. CONCLUSION: Important PROM predictors are baseline PROMs, specific co-morbidities, work status, condition duration, previous lumbar operation, female, and smoking status. The ODI model predicted the likelihood of achieving a satisfactory state of both disability and pain.

Comparison of full-endoscopic foraminoplasty and lumbar discectomy (FEFLD), unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy, and microdiscectomy (MD) for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of full-endoscopic foraminoplasty and lumbar discectomy (FEFLD), unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy, and microdiscectomy (MD) in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: From January 2020 and May 2021, 128 patients with single-level LDH at L4-5 or L5-S1 received FEFLD, UBE discectomy or MD. Patients were divided into three groups according to surgical method: the FEFLD group (n = 43), the UBE group (n = 42), and the MD group (n = 43). Operative time, fluoroscopy frequency, in-bed time, length of hospital stays, total expenses, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0-100%) were assessed and compared among three groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in VAS or ODI scores at 12 months after surgery among three groups. In comparison with the MD group, the FEFLD and UBE group yield better VAS scores for back pain on the first day following surgery (P < 0.05). The FEFLD group was superior to the UBE group or MD group with less time in bed and shorter hospital stay (P < 0.05). The operation time and total expenses in the UBE group were significantly longer and higher than those in the FEFLD group or MD group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: FEFLD and UBE discectomy yield comparable results to conventional MD concerning pain relief and functional outcomes. In addition, FEFLD and UBE discectomy enable less back pain in the immediate postoperative period. FEFLD offers advantages in rapid recovery. Conventional MD is still an efficient and cost-effective surgical procedure.

Case-matched radiological and clinical outcome evaluation of interlaminar versus microsurgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic spine surgery is a globally expanding technique advocated as less invasive for spinal stenosis treatment compared to the microsurgical approach. However, evidence on the efficiency of interlaminar full-endoscopic decompression (FED) vs. conventional microsurgical decompression (MSD) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is still scarce. We conducted a case-matched comparison for treatment success with consideration of clinical, laboratory, and radiologic predictors. METHODS: We included 88 consecutive patients (FED: 36/88, 40.9%; MSD: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, length of stay (LOS), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count, side of approach (unilateral/bilateral), patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry disability index (ODI), numeric rating scale of pain (NRS; leg-, back pain), EuroQol questionnaire (eQ-5D), core outcome measures index (COMI)), and radiological (dural sack cross-sectional area, Schizas score (SC), left and right lateral recess heights, and facet angles, respectively) parameters were extracted at different time points up to 1-year follow-up. The relationship of PROMs was analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation. Surgery-related outcome parameters were correlated with patient-centered and radiological outcomes utilizing a regression model to determine predictors for propensity score matching. RESULTS: Complication (most often residual sensorimotor deficits and restenosis due to hematoma) rates were higher in the FED (33.3%) than MSD (13.5%) group (p < 0.05), while all complications in the FED group were observed within the first 20 FED patients. Operation time was higher in the FED, whereas LOS was higher in the MSD group. Age, SC, CRP revealed significant associations with PROMs. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic vs. microsurgical group in PROMs. The correlation between ODI and COMI was significantly high, and both were inversely correlated with eQ-5D, whereas the correlations of these PROMs with NRS findings were less pronounced. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach. Although FED was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience, the distribution of complications indicated surgical learning curves to be the main factor of these findings. Future long-term prospective studies considering the surgical learning curve are warranted for reliable comparisons of these techniques.

Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of functional outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent full-endoscopic decompression compared with tubular-based microscopic decompression. METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial included 60 patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis who required decompression surgery. The patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the full-endoscopic group (FE group) or the tubular-based microscopic group (TM group). Based on intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index score at 24 months postoperative. The secondary outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, walking time, and patient satisfaction rate according to the modified MacNab criteria. Surgery-related outcomes were also analyzed. RESULTS: Of the total patients, 92% (n = 55) completed a 24-month follow-up. The primary outcomes were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.748). However, the FE group showed a statistically significant improvement in the mean VAS score for back pain at day 1 and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the VAS score for leg pain, EQ-5D score, or walking time (p > 0.05). Regarding the modified MacNab criteria, 86.7% of patients in the FE group and 83.3% in the TM group had excellent or good results at 24 months after surgery (p = 0.261). Despite the similar results in surgery-related outcomes, including operative time, radiation exposure, revision rate, and complication rate, between the two groups (p > 0.05), less blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay were observed in the FE group (p ≤ 0.001 and 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that full-endoscopic decompression is an alternative treatment for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis because it provides non-inferior clinical efficacy and safety compared with tubular-based microscopic surgery. In addition, it offers advantages in terms of less invasive surgery. Trial registration number (TRN): TCTR20191217001.

Full-endoscopic trans-pars interarticularis approach for far lateral lumbar discectomy.

PURPOSE: Surgical management of far lateral disc herniations remains challenging. Current transforaminal full-endoscopic approaches require non-visualized docking in the Kambin's triangle and have been associated with significant risk of inadvertent nerve injury. We develop a full-endoscopic approach based on reliable bony landmarks allowing for visualization of the exiting nerve root prior to the far lateral discectomy. METHODS: The surgical details of a full-endoscopic trans-pars interarticularis approach for far lateral discectomy are described. These descriptions include high quality intraoperative images and important surgical pearls. A small patient cohort is presented to demonstrate feasibility and safety of the procedure. RESULTS: We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach in 14 patients with a mean age of 59.5 ± 14.7 years. At a mean follow up of 21.9 ± 6.8 months, improvement of the visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg pain was 4.3 ± 1.0 resulting in minimally clinically important difference in 78.6% of the patients. The mean improvement in VAS for the back pain was 2.6 ± 0.8 and for Oswestry disability index (ODI) was 20.6 ± 5.3. Nuances of the trans-pars surgical techniques are presented in a patient with a right-sided L4-5 far lateral disc herniation. Preoperative imaging studies, steps of the surgical progression, and intraoperative views are described in detail. CONCLUSION: Using the pars interarticularis as the bony target area allows for safe visualized access to the extraforaminal compartment of the exiting nerve root. This novel surgical technique has the potential benefit of decreasing inadvertent neural injury and subsequent postoperative dysesthesias.

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.

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis: 5-year follow-up from the prospective multicenter Quality Outcomes Database registry.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been used to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and is associated with expedited recovery, reduced operative blood loss, and shorter hospitalizations compared to those with traditional open TLIF. However, the impact of MI-TLIF on long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is less clear. Here, the authors compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF to those of traditional open TLIF for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 60 months postoperatively. METHODS: The authors utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who had undergone single-segment surgery via an MI or open TLIF method. PROs were compared 60 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes included the numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP), NRS for leg pain (NRS-LP), EQ-5D, North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction, and cumulative reoperation rate. Multivariable models were constructed to assess the impact of MI-TLIF on PROs, adjusting for variables reaching p < 0.20 on univariable analyses and respective baseline PRO values. RESULTS: The study included 297 patients, 72 (24.2%) of whom had undergone MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) of whom had undergone open TLIF. The 60-month follow-up rates were similar for the two cohorts (86.1% vs 75.6%, respectively; p = 0.06). Patients did not differ significantly at baseline for ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or EQ-5D (p > 0.05 for all). Perioperatively, MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 ml, p < 0.001) and longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 minutes, p < 0.001) but had similar lengths of hospitalizations (MI-TLIF 2.9 ± 1.8 vs open TLIF 3.3 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.08). Discharge disposition to home or home health was similar (MI-TLIF 93.1% vs open TLIF 91.1%, p = 0.60). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for the 60-month ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF, compared to open TLIF, was associated with similar 60-month ODI, ODI change, odds of reaching ODI minimum clinically important difference, NRS-BP, NRS-BP change, NRS-LP, NRS-LP change, EQ-5D, EQ-5D change, and NASS satisfaction (adjusted p > 0.05 for all). The 60-month reoperation rates did not differ significantly (MI-TLIF 5.6% vs open TLIF 11.6%, p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: For symptomatic, single-level grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with decreased blood loss perioperatively, but there was no difference in 60-month outcomes for disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, or satisfaction between MI and open TLIF. There was no difference in cumulative reoperation rates between the two procedures. These results suggest that in appropriately selected patients, either procedure may be employed depending on patient and surgeon preferences.

Effect of baseline veterans RAND-12 physical composite score on postoperative patient-reported outcome measures following lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

PURPOSE: To determine the prognostic value of preoperative Veterans RAND-12 (VR-12) Physical Composite Score (PCS) scores on postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). METHODS: LLIF patients were separated into 2 cohorts based on preoperative VR-12 PCS scores: VR-12 PCS < 30 (lesser physical function) and VR-12 PCS ≥ 30 (greater physical function). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of VR-12 PCS, VR-12 Mental Composite Score (MCS), Short Form-12 (SF-12) PCS, SF-12 MCS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back Pain (VAS-BP), VAS Leg Pain (VAS-LP), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and up to 2-year postoperative time points. Mean postoperative follow-up time was 16.69 ± 8.53 months. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was determined by comparing ∆PROM to previously established thresholds. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included, with 38 patients with lesser preoperative physical function scores. Patients with lesser physical function reported significantly inferior preoperative PROM scores in all domains, except for SF-12 MCS and VAS-LP. At the 6-week postoperative time point, patients with lesser physical function reported significantly inferior VR-12 PCS, VR-12 MCS, SF-12 PCS, PROMIS-PF, and PHQ-9. At the final postoperative time point, patients with lesser physical function reported significantly inferior VR-12 PCS, VR-12 MCS, PROMIS-PF, PHQ-9, and ODI. Magnitude of 6-week postoperative improvement was significantly higher in the lesser physical function cohort for VR-12 PCS. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing LLIF with worse baseline VR-12 PCS scores reported inferior postoperative physical function, mental health, and disability outcomes. At the final postoperative follow-up, magnitude of postoperative improvement and MCID achievement did not significantly differ. Baseline VR-12 PCS scores may indicate inferior postoperative clinical outcomes in physical function, mental health, and disability in patients undergoing LLIF; however, baseline VR-12 PCS does not limit the magnitude of postoperative improvement.

Impact of preoperative symptom duration in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the influence of preoperative symptom duration on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for degenerative conditions. METHODS: Patients undergoing LLIF presenting with radiculopathy and/or neurogenic claudication were separated into two groups: preoperative symptom duration < 1-year (shorter duration) versus duration ≥ 1-year (longer duration). Patients undergoing surgery for trauma/malignancy/infection were excluded. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short Form Physical/Mental Component Score (SF-12 PCS/MCS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), visual analog scale (VAS) back/leg, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and postoperative time points. RESULTS: Eighty-two total patients, with 34 shorter-duration patients, were identified after propensity score matching for demographics. Longer-duration patients had higher estimated blood loss. All patients reported significant improvement in physical function, mental function, pain, and disability in at least one postoperative time point, except for SF-12 MCS in the shorter duration cohort. The longer duration cohort had higher MCID achievement in 12-week VAS back. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing LLIF demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in physical function, mental function, pain, and disability outcomes independent of preoperative symptom duration. Both cohorts, when compared by preoperative symptom duration, demonstrated similar postoperative PROM scores. Patients with longer preoperative symptom duration had higher 12-week leg pain MCID achievement. These findings suggest that delayed time to surgery may not lead to inferior clinical outcomes in patients undergoing LLIF for degenerative conditions.

Back pain and radicular pain after lumbar microdiscectomy.

PURPOSE: It is generally expected that lumbar microdiscectomy affects radicular leg pain, but not so much local back pain. The primary objective was to evaluate if the trajectories of changes in pain severity follow similar patterns for back and radicular leg pain after lumbar microdiscectomy. The secondary objective was to investigate the associations between some preoperative parameters and the patterns of these trajectories. METHODS: Register-based retrospective study of 353 patients undergoing microdiscectomy in the lumbar spine. Linear mixed modelling was applied. RESULTS: The average age of the participants was 46 years and 44% were women. The developmental trajectories were similar for both back and leg pain. Pain level decrease during the first year after the surgery, slightly worsening later. No statistically significant interactions were detected of preoperative pain duration or severity, sex or age on the shapes of the trajectories. For every analyzed grouping factor, the 95% confidence intervals overlapped at every postoperative time point with one exception - worse preoperative back pain was statistically significantly associated with worse pain at three months and at the end of the two-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: After microsurgical discectomy, developmental curves for both back and radicular leg pain demonstrated similar patterns. Pain intensity decreased during the first year after the surgery. and slightly increased after that remaining, however, below the preoperative level. Age, sex, preoperative pain duration or preoperative intensity of leg pain were not associated with significant differences in the trajectories of pain severity after the surgery. In this study, severe preoperative back pain was the only factor, which was significantly associated with worse postoperative trajectory of pain intensity.

How Back Pain Affects Patient Satisfaction After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although back pain (BP) has been shown to be a predictor of dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in some reports, these studies did not use a scale to quantify the degree of pain. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of BP intensity on patient satisfaction reported at 1 year after TKA. METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort was taken in which 9,057 patients undergoing primary unilateral TKA were enrolled in FORCE-TJR and demographic and clinical data were collected. Back pain (BP) intensity was assessed using the Oswestry back disability index (ODI) pain intensity questionnaire. Patients were classified into 4 categories based on the severity of BP. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected preoperatively and postoperatively after 1 year including the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (total score, pain, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and Quality of Life (QOL), Short-Form health survey 36-item (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS), and Mental Component Score (MCS)). We used a validated 5-point Likert satisfaction scale. Univariate analyses of the difference between the satisfied and dissatisfied patients' groups was performed. Multivariate logistic regression models with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to quantify the effect of BP intensity on patient dissatisfaction at 1 year. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed with measurement of area under curve (AUC). RESULTS: At 1 year, a total of 1,657 TKA patients (18.3%) were dissatisfied. A total of 4,765 patients (52.6%) reported back pain at the time of surgery, including mild BP in 2,264 patients (24.9%), moderate BP in 1,844 patients (20.3%), and severe BP in 657 patients (7.2%). Severe back pain was significantly associated with patient dissatisfaction at 1 year after TKA (P = .0006). The multivariate regressions showed that patients who had severe BP were 1.6 times more likely to be dissatisfied when compared to patients who had no BP [odds ratio (OR) 1.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.23-2.16), P = .0006]. While patients who had mild BP [OR 0.98; 95% CI (0.82-1.17), P = .87] or moderate BP [OR 0.97; 95% CI (0.80-1.18), P = .78] were not associated with an increased likelihood of dissatisfaction. Other predictive variables for dissatisfaction, include age [OR for younger patients <65 years versus older patients ≥65 years, 0.74; 95% CI (0.59-0.92)], educational level [OR for post high school versus less, 0.83; 95% CI (0.71, 0.97)], smoking [OR for nonsmoker versus current smoker, 0.63; 95% CI (0.45, 0.87)], and Charlson comorbidity index [OR for CCI ≥2 versus 0, 1.25; 95% CI (1.05, 1.49)]. CONCLUSION: Increased BP intensity was associated with increased risk of dissatisfaction 1 year after TKA. Only patients who had severe BP were 1.6 times more likely to be dissatisfied. The data presented here can help to improve shared decision-making and patient counseling before surgery. Surgeons should consider a spine evaluation in patients who have severe BP prior to TKA.

Patient perception of leg length after total hip arthroplasty does not correlate with sagittal lumbar spine stiffness, history of spinal pathology or fusion.

PURPOSE: Although spinal pathology or fusion can change patients' posture and pelvic orientation, their correlation with perception of limb length discrepancy (LLD) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is not well understood. We hypothesised that LLD perception after THA would not correlate with a history of spinal pathology, fusion or sagittal lumbar spine stiffness among patients who underwent THA. METHODS: Four hundred consecutive patients who underwent THA and had a complete set of anteroposterior and lateral EOS® imaging in standing and sitting positions were included in this retrospective case-control study. All patients underwent THA between 2011 and 2020. Sagittal lumbar spine stiffness was measured by changes in lumbar lordosis and sacral slope from the standing to the sitting position (lumbar spine stiffness: standing sacral slope-sitting sacral slope < 10°). Anatomical and functional lower extremity length, change in the centre of hip rotation, coronal and sagittal knee alignment, and hindfoot height were measured. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate the correlation between patient perceptions of LLD, and the variables found to be significant in the univariate analysis. RESULTS: There was a substantial difference between the patients with and without LLD perceptions regarding axial pelvic rotation (p = 0.001), knee flexum-recurvatum (p = 0.007) and hindfoot height (p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between patients with and without LLD perceptions regarding differences in femoral length (p = 0.06), history of spine pathology or fusion (p = 0.128) and lumbar spine stiffness (p = 0.955). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no significant correlation between perceptions of LLD after THA and spinal fusion or lumbar spine stiffness. Changes in the position of the centre of hip rotation can affect the functional leg length. Surgeons should consult patients regarding other factors, such as knee alignment or hind-/midfoot pathologies, as well as compensatory mechanisms, such as axial pelvic rotation, that could affect perceptions of LLD.

Can we predict favourable quality of life after surgically treated vertebral osteomyelitis? Analysis of a prospective study.

PURPOSE: Vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) is a severe clinical entity associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several studies have showed that successful treatment of VO patients leads to significantly improved quality of life (QoL). Nevertheless, QoL levels of these patients remained below those of the general population. There are rarely studies focusing on predicting factors for favourable QoL after surgically treated VO. The aim of this study was to identify factors influencing positively the QoL of patients undergoing surgery for VO. METHODS: We conducted a prospective monocentric study including surgically treated VO patients from 2008 to 2016. Data were collected before (T0) and 1 year (T1) after surgery. Primary outcome was favourable QoL defined as back pain with disability restricting normal life activity with a cutoff value ≥ 12 on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). ETHICS: Ethical approval was given by the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Cologne (09-182). RESULTS: A total of 119 patients surviving 1 year after surgically treated VO were analysed. Favourable QoL was achieved in 35/119 patients. On multivariate analysis, younger age (hazard ratio = HR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.91-0.99; p = 0.022), lower albumin (HR: 0.9; 0.83-0.98; p = 0.019) an ASA score ≤ 2 (HR:4.24; 95%CI 1.42-12.68; p = 0.010), and a lower preoperative leg pain on the VAS (HR: 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.97; p = 0.018) were identified as independent risk factors for favourable QoL. Interestingly, the absence of neurological deficits was not predictive for a favourable outcome by means of QoL. CONCLUSION: One-third of surgically treated VO patients (29%) in our cohort achieved favourable QoL by means of ODI. Our findings can facilitate an estimation of the prognosis when informing the patient before surgery, and underscore that spine disability questionnaires, such as ODI, measuring QoL, are mandatory to evaluate comprehensively the outcome of this entity.

Percutaneous hydrodiscectomy surgery effectiveness in chronic back pain (hydrodiscectomy in chronic back pain).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the pre-operative and post-operative characteristics of patients suffering from chronic back and radicular pain who had percutaneous hydrodiscectomy. Hydrodiscectomy is an advanced percutaneous discectomy technique that utilizes a concentrated, high flow water current for the cutting and simultaneous tissue aspiration of the intervertebral disc. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study at a single center. We assessed the eligibility of all patients who had undergone hydrodiscectomy in the orthopedic department of our institution for four years period. Out of 40 eligible patients, a total of 22 patients consented to participate in the study. Study period from March 2017 to February 2022. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were males (68.2%), seven were females (31.8%). Mean age was 45.46 years. Patients had symptoms for a mean of 46.36 months prior to the procedure, and the mean extent of disc bulge was 5.2 mm. 68.2% of the patients reported a reduction in or complete elimination of the back pain and the radicular lower limbs pain following hydrodiscectomy. 95.5% of the patients experienced no pre-, intra-, or post-operative complications. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate that percutaneous hydrodiscectomy is safe and effective in patients with chronic back and radicular pain due to disc herniation.

FUSE-ML: development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for mid-term outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease.

BACKGROUND: Indications and outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease are notoriously heterogenous. Selected subsets of patients show remarkable benefit. However, their objective identification is often difficult. Decision-making may be improved with reliable prediction of long-term outcomes for each individual patient, improving patient selection and avoiding ineffective procedures. METHODS: Clinical prediction models for long-term functional impairment [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)], back pain, and leg pain after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease were developed. Achievement of the minimum clinically important difference at 12 months postoperatively was defined as a reduction from baseline of at least 15 points for ODI, 2.2 points for COMI, or 2 points for pain severity. RESULTS: Models were developed and integrated into a web-app ( https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/fuseml/ ) based on a multinational cohort [N = 817; 42.7% male; mean (SD) age: 61.19 (12.36) years]. At external validation [N = 298; 35.6% male; mean (SD) age: 59.73 (12.64) years], areas under the curves for functional impairment [0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-0.74], back pain (0.72, 95%CI: 0.64-0.79), and leg pain (0.64, 95%CI: 0.54-0.73) demonstrated moderate ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from surgery. Models demonstrated fair calibration of the predicted probabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease remain difficult to predict. Although assistive clinical prediction models can help in quantifying potential benefits of surgery and the externally validated FUSE-ML tool may aid in individualized risk-benefit estimation, truly impacting clinical practice in the era of "personalized medicine" necessitates more robust tools in this patient population.