Relative benefit of TLIF versus PSF stratified by diagnostic indication.

STUDY DESIGN: Case-matched retrospective. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to compare 2-year health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes of patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level posterolateral spine fusion (PSF) versus transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis, disk pathology, and postdecompression instability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal surgical technique for patients with spondylolisthesis or other degenerative conditions has not been defined. Historically, PSF was the most common procedure, whereas in recent years TLIF has gained popularity. Although theoretical advantages for TLIF have been outlined, evidence for improved outcomes with the addition of interbody support is limited. METHODS: Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, with disk pathology and or postdecompression instability who underwent 1-level or 2-level TLIF and completed 2 years postoperative HRQOL measures were identified from a prospective database. These patients were then propensity-matched to a cohort of PSF patients based on age, number of surgical levels, body mass index, sex, smoking status, workers' compensation status, and preoperative outcome measures including the Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36 Physical Component Summary score, SF-36 Mental Composite Summary score, and back and leg pain scores. This produced 63 matched pairs with degenerative spondylolisthesis, 46 with disk pathology and 32 with postdecompression instability. RESULTS: All patients in both groups for each cohort reported statistically significant improvement in HRQOL scores at 2 years postoperatively compared with baseline. Improvements in the Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36 Physical Component Summary score, and back and leg pain scores within the spondylolisthesis and disk pathology subgroups were similar between patients who had a TLIF compared with those who had a PSF. The postdecompression instability subgroup was the only subgroup in which TLIF outperformed PSF for every outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcome was not significantly altered with TLIF as compared with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis or disk pathology. However, TLIF resulted in better outcomes at 2 years postoperatively in patients with postdecompression instability.

Predictive factors for the use of autologous cell saver transfusion in lumbar spinal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for cell saver transfusion in lumbar spinal surgery and determine if cell saver transfusions affected intraoperative or postoperative transfusion rates. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cell saver has been used to minimize allogeneic blood transfusion in lumbar spinal surgery. Conflicting reports exist, which call into question the efficacy of cell saver use. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of randomly selected patients who underwent posterolateral fusion with or without transforaminal interbody fusion from July 2010 to June 2011. Transfusion rates and transfusion-related complications were determined. Binary logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for use of autologous cell saver transfusion. RESULTS: There were 178 females and 107 males, with a mean age of 57.2 years. Of the 285 cases, 39 had no cell saver available, 147 had cell saver available but no autologous blood was recovered or transfused and 99 had an autologous cell saver transfusion. Patients who had cell saver transfusion had a higher rate of intraoperative allogeneic blood transfusion (52%) compared with those who did not (22%). There was no significant difference in the rate of postoperative transfusions or transfusion-related reactions between patients who did and did not have cell saver transfusion. Patient's age, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, use of anticoagulants preoperatively, primary or revision surgery, iliac crest bone graft harvest, anesthesiologist, or surgeon had no significant effect on cell saver infusion. Body mass index (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06), number of posterolateral fusion levels fused (OR = 2.50), and number of transforaminal interbody fusions performed (OR = 2.41) were independent risk factors for the use of autologous cell saver transfusion. CONCLUSION: Body mass index, multi-level fusion and transforaminal interbody fusion result in increased use of autologous cell saver transfusion in lumbar spinal surgery. Use of autologous cell saver transfusion did not reduce the requirement for intraoperative or postoperative allogeneic blood transfusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Blood salvage produces higher total blood product costs in single-level lumbar spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of cell saver for single-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Intraoperative cell salvage is used during surgery to reduce the need for perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion. Although the use of cell saver may be beneficial in certain circumstances, its utility has not been clearly established for the common procedure of an adult single-level PLDF. METHODS: Randomly selected adult patients treated with a single-level PLDF between July 2010 and June 2011 at a single institution were identified. Patients who had a combined anterior and posterior approach were excluded. The final study sample for analysis consisted of 180 patients. Hospital records were reviewed to determine whether: (1) cell saver was available during surgery, (2) recovered autologous blood was infused, and (3) the patient received intra- or postoperative allogeneic transfusions. Estimated blood loss, levels fused, volume(s) transfused, and all related complications were recorded. Costs included the cost of allogeneic blood transfusion, setting up the cell saver recovery system, and infusing autologous blood from cell saver, whereas effectiveness measures were allogeneic blood transfusions averted and quality adjusted life years. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $55,538 per allogeneic transfusion averted, with a decrease in the transfusion rate from 40.0% to 38.7% associated with the cell saver approach. This translated into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5,555,380 per quality adjusted life years gained, which is well above the threshold for an intervention to be considered cost-effective ($100,000 per quality adjusted life years gained). CONCLUSION: The use of cell saver during a single-level PLDF does not significantly reduce the need for allogeneic blood transfusion and is not cost-effective. The high cost of cell saver in combination with the low complication rate of allogeneic blood transfusion, suggest that cell saver should not be used for single-level PLDF. Further studies are needed to evaluate the necessity for cell saver among other types of spinal surgery.