Methylprednisolone Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: A Large Prospective Single-Institution Study.

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized. OBJECTIVE: Intraoperative methylprednisolone is a common adjunct following microscopic laminectomy/microdiscectomy. The goal of epidural instillation is a rapid symptomatic reduction in irritation of neural elements. There is inconsistent data supporting its use intraoperatively. To understand whether this maneuver results in any clinical effect, we performed a multiyear prospective study. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Previous work has demonstrated equivocal effects on pain with a suggestion of an increased risk of complication. These studies tend to suffer from small sample sizes and short follow-ups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study obtained IRB approval. During the study period from 2013 to 2019, nearly equivalent numbers of patients who had received steroids during MIS decompressions were followed. Primary outcomes included pain (visual analog scale) and disability [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] at 2 weeks and 4 months. Secondary outcomes included complications, readmissions, and reoperation rates during the study period. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-six patients were followed for a mean follow-up of 5.17 years. The index case was more likely to be a revision surgery in the steroid group. Across all patients, there was no difference in pain at 2 weeks or 4 months. Disability was reduced at 2 weeks in the steroid group (ODI 16.71 vs . 21.02, P = 0.04) but not at 4 months. By subgroup analysis, this is largely explained by ODI reduction in patients with high preoperative ODI (13.00 vs . 43.43, P = 0.03). Patients in the steroid cohort were more likely to undergo subsequent spinal surgery during the study period. CONCLUSION: Methylprednisolone instillation is associated with a large, transient reduction in ODI for patients with high preoperative ODI; there is no measurable effect on pain. There is equivocal effect on risk of subsequent reoperation. This issue was clarified in peer review but changes did not make it to the abstract. Therefore, the technique is likely best reserved for patients with significant preoperative disability.