Lumbar Decompression Research Articles

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

Prospective randomized. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

ObjectiveIn 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). MethodsPatients 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. ResultsA 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 (β = −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. ConclusionsPatients 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.

Effect of Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Classification on Patient-reported Outcomes and Spinopelvic Parameters for Patients With Single-level L4-L5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis After Lumbar Fusion.

Retrospective cohort study. To determine whether preoperative clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification is associated with differences in patient-reported outcomes and spinopelvic parameters after posterior decompression and fusion for L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The CARDS classification for lumbar DS, an alternative to the Meyerding system, considers additional radiographic findings such as disc space collapse and segmental kyphosis and stratifies DS into 4 radiographically distinct classes. Although CARDS has been shown to be a reliable and reproducible method for classifying DS, very few studies have assessed whether the CARDS types represent distinct clinical entities. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients with L4-L5 DS who underwent posterior lumbar decompression and fusion. Changes in spinopelvic alignment and patient-reported outcomes measures, including recovery ratios and percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference, were compared among patients in each CARDS classification 1-year postoperatively using analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis H with Dunn post hoc analysis. Multiple linear regression determined whether CARDS groups significantly predicted patient-reported outcomes measures, lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) while controlling for demographic and surgical characteristics. Preoperative type B spondylolisthesis predicted decreased improvement in "physical component and mental component score of the short form-12" compared with type A spondylolisthesis (β-coefficient = -5.96, P = 0.031) at 1 year. Significant differences were found between CARDS groups with regards to ΔLL (A: -1.63 degrees vs B: -1.17 degrees vs C: 2.88 degrees vs D: 3.19 degrees, P = 0.010) and ΔPI-LL (A: 1.02 degrees vs B: 2.09 degrees vs C: -2.59 degrees vs D: -3.70 degrees, P = 0.012). Preoperative type C spondylolisthesis was found to predict increased LL (β-coefficient = 4.46, P = 0.0054) and decreased PI-LL (β-coefficient = -3.49, P = 0.025) at 1 year compared with type A spondylolisthesis. Clinical and radiographic outcomes differed significantly by preoperative CARDS classification type for patients undergoing posterior decompression and fusion for L4-L5 DS. Level III.

MANAGEMENT OF DURAL TEARS IN ENDOSCOPIC LUMBAR SPINE SURGERY – A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW STUDY

Lumbar degenerative disorders are the most common cause of low back pain with or without radicular pain(1) .Lumbar decompression and discectomy are two major and commonly performed surgeries for patients not responding to conservative management. Microscopic lumbar discectomy and decompression are gold standard to treat these diseases(2). Endoscopic lumbar spine surgeries are being done at more and more centers since last decade(3). Dural tears are common but troublesome complication of Endoscopic Spine surgeries. Management of the same is well dened in Microscopic lumbar discectomy but not clearly dened for tears during endoscopic surgeries. Therefore, this study is an attempt to establish management principles after extensive reviewing of studies on management principles of iatrogenic dural tears during endoscopic spine surgeries till date. PRISMA (Preferred Methodology: reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guideline was used. A search of articles in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase published between were included in the screening process. For identication of studies included detailed computerized literature search strategies were carried out in these databases. Total of 1569 studies on 'Dural tear Study selection: s ' were identied from electronic database from year 1947 to 2023 searching. Out of those 1569 studies, 180 studies were regarding Dural tears in endoscopic spine surgeries. After exclusion, 7 studies qualied the inclusion criteria and were included as per eligibility criteria for further analysis. Objective of this study is to do a systematic review on present guid Objective: elines for management of dural tears in endoscopic spine surgery

The Utilization of Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring for Lumbar Decompression and Fusion Surgery in New York State.

Retrospective database analysis. To elucidate trends in the utilization of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) during elective lumbar surgery procedures and to investigate the association between the use of IONM and surgical outcomes. The routine use of IONM in elective lumbar spine procedures has recently been called into question due to longer operative time, higher cost, and other substitute advanced technologies. The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was accessed to perform this retrospective study. The trends of IONM use for lumbar decompression and fusion procedures were investigated from 2007 to 2018. The association between IONM use and surgical outcomes was investigated from 2017 to 2018. Multivariable logistic regression analyses, as well as propensity score matching (PS-matching), were conducted to assess IONM association in neurological deficits reduction. The utilization of IONM showed an increase in a linear fashion from 79 cases in 2007 to 6201 cases in 2018. A total of 34,592 (12,419 monitored and 22,173 unmonitored) patients were extracted, and 210 patients (0.6%) were reported for postoperative neurological deficits. Unadjusted comparisons demonstrated that the IONM group was associated with significantly fewer neurological complications. However, the multivariable analysis indicated that IONM was not a significant predictor of neurological injuries. After the PS-matching of 23,642 patients, the incidence of neurological deficits was not significantly different between IONM and non-IONM patients. The utilization of IONM for elective lumbar surgeries continues to gain popularity. Our results indicated that IONM use was not associated with a reduction in neurological deficits and will not support the routine use of IONM for all elective lumbar surgery.

The Impact of Preoperative Sagittal Imbalance on Long-term Postoperative Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Laminectomy.

Background: Postoperative sagittal alignment has been shown to be associated with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following open lumbar decompression procedures, although it is unknown whether preoperative sagittal imbalance affects clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) decompression only surgery. Purpose: We sought to evaluate the impact of preoperative pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) imbalance on PROMs after MIS laminectomy for the treatment of neurogenic claudication symptoms. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing MIS laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between April 2017 and April 2021 at a single institution. Of the 52 patients included (mean follow-up, 17 months) radiographs were taken prior to surgery and assessed for sagittal alignment parameters. Patients were grouped based on the preoperative PI-LL (balanced vs unbalanced). Changes in PROMs were compared between unbalanced PI-LL and balanced PI-LL groups. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was also assessed. Results: Of the 52 patients, 17 (32.7%) had unbalanced age-adjusted preoperative PI-LL. There was no significant difference found in PROMs between unbalanced and balanced PI-LL groups preoperatively or at final follow-up. Compared with those with unbalanced PI-LL, patients with balanced PI-LL were shown to have no added benefit in achieving MCID for ODI at long-term follow-up and no added benefit in the time to achieving MCID. Conclusion: These retrospective findings suggest that patients with unbalanced preoperative PI-LL may experience significant benefit in long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy, similarly to those with balanced PI-LL at baseline. The findings also suggest that the presence of sagittal imbalance preoperatively may not appreciably influence the long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy. Prospective study involving a larger population is warranted.

10-year Longitudinal MRI Study of Intervertebral Disk Degeneration in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis After Posterior Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

A prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study. The objective of this study was to describe the progression of intervertebral disk (IVD) degeneration in patients who underwent posterior decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSS). IVD degeneration contributes to the pathogenesis of LSS; however, the long-term consequences of degenerative changes after decompression surgery remain unknown. Of 258 consecutive patients who underwent posterior lumbar decompression surgery for LSS, 62 who underwent MRI at their 10-year follow-up were included; 17 age-matched asymptomatic volunteers were analyzed as controls. Three MRI findings representing IVD degeneration were graded on their severity: decrease in signal intensity, posterior disk protrusion (PDP), and disk space narrowing (DSN). Clinical outcome was assessed using the low back pain (LBP) score from the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system. We examined the association between the progression of degenerative changes on MRI and LBP/associated factors using logistic regression adjusting for age at baseline and sex. The severity of IVD degeneration tended to be higher in patients with LSS than asymptomatic volunteers at both baseline and follow-up. IVD degeneration progressed in all patients during the 10-year follow-up period. Progression of decrease in signal intensity and PDP was observed at L1/2 in 73% and at L2/3 in 34%, respectively (the highest frequencies in the lumbar spine). Progression of DSN was highest at L4/5 in 42%. The rates of PDP and DSN progression during the 10-year follow-up period tended to be greater in patients with LSS than in asymptomatic volunteers. No significant difference in the proportion of LBP deterioration was evident for individuals with and without MRI findings of progression. Our study reveals a natural history of the long-term postoperative course of IVD degeneration after posterior decompression surgery for LSS. Compared with healthy controls, patients with LSS seemed to be predisposed to IVD degeneration. Lumbar decompression surgery may promote the progression of DSN; however, progression of IVD degeneration after lumbar decompression surgery was not associated with worsening LBP scores.

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.

Lumbar scoliosis and stenosis: What outcomes for which treatment? Analysis of three surgical techniques in 154 patients with minimum two-year follow-up

Study designProspective multicentric study. ObjectiveThis study goal was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of lumbar stenosis and scoliosis (LSS) patients, treated with lumbar decompression (LD), short fusion and decompression (SF) or long fusion with deformity correction (LF). HypothesisProcedures without correction lead to poorer long-term outcomes. MethodsConsecutive patients with two-year minimum follow-up, older than 50, with lumbar scoliosis (Cobb angle>15°), and symptomatic lumbar stenosis were included. Age, gender, Lumbar and Radicular Visual Analog Scale, ODI, SF12 and SRS30 were collected. Main and adjacent curves Cobb angles, C7 coronal tilt (C7CT), spinopelvic parameters, and spino-sacral angle (SSA) were measured preoperatively, at one and two years. Patients were sorted into surgery type groups. ResultsIn total, 154 patients were included, with respectively 18, 58 and 78 patients in LD, SF and LF groups. Mean age was 69, 85% were women. Clinical scores improved in each group at one year, but only LF group exhibited persistent improvement at 2years. A significant fractional Cobb angle increase was noted in the SF group at 2years (from 12±11° to 18±14°). C7CT significantly increased in the LD group at 2years (from 2.5±1.3° to 5.1±3.5°). LF group presented the highest complication rate (45%, 19% for SF and 0% for LD). The overall revision rate was 14% in SF group and 30% in LF group. ConclusionLSS is a complex pathology requiring custom-made surgical treatment. LD, SF and LF allow satisfactory clinical outcome, with a better and more sustained clinical improvement for LF despite higher complication and revision rates. Level of evidenceIV.

Spine

The April 2023 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy; Spine surgical site infections: a single debridement is not enough; Lenke type 5, anterior, or posterior: systematic review and meta-analysis; Epidural steroid injections and postoperative infection in lumbar decompression or fusion; Noninferiority of posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy; Identifying delays to surgical treatment for metastatic disease; Cervical disc replacement and adjacent segment disease: the NECK trial; Predicting complication in adult spine deformity surgery.

Impact of Sleep Disturbance on Clinical Outcomes in Lumbar Decompression.

To examine the impact of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sleep Disturbance (PROMIS-SD) on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar decompression. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with preoperative PROMIS-SD scores were retrospectively included. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts: none to slight sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD <55) and mild to severe sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD ≥55). Patient-reported outcome measures including PROMIS Physical Function, PROMIS Anxiety, PROMIS Pain Interference, PROMIS SD, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, visual analog scale back/leg, and Oswestry Disability Index were collected preoperatively and up to 1 year postoperatively. Of 87 patients identified, 48 patients had PROMIS-SD scores ≥55. Regardless of preoperative PROMIS-SD score, patients reported significant improvement in physical function, anxiety, pain interference, depression, pain, and disability outcomes in at least 1 time point. Patients in the PROMIS-SD ≥55 cohort reported postoperative improvement in sleep disturbance. Patients in the PROMIS-SD <55 cohort reported superior preoperative patient-reported outcome measures in all domains and superior postoperative improvement in pain interference and sleep disturbance. Minimum clinically important difference attainment rates were higher in the PROMIS-SD ≥55 cohort in physical function, anxiety, pain interference, sleep disturbance, and pain. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in most clinical outcomes regardless of preoperative sleep disturbance. Patients with mild to severe sleep disturbance had higher minimum clinically important difference attainment rates for physical function, mental function, and pain. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with greater preoperative sleep disturbance may experience more clinically noticeable improvement.

499 Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Multicenter Study of Posterior Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Spondylolisthesis

INTRODUCTION: Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Multicenter Study of Posterior Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Spondylolisthesis. METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomized, controlled Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial evaluating the investigational TOPS device to the control, transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and pedicle screw fixation. Follow-up duration was a minimum twenty-four months. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were evaluated comparing the investigational TOPS group (n = 170) to the control TLIF group (n = 79. There were no statistically significant differences between implanted levels (L4-5 TOPS 95%; L4-5 TLIF 95%) or blood loss. The overall composite measure for clinical success was statistically significantly higher in the TOPS group, 85%, compared to the fusion group, 64% (p = 0.0138). The percentage of subjects reporting minimum 15-point improvement in ODI showed a statistically significant difference (p-value = 0.037) favoring TOPS (94.0%) over TLIF (79.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that posterior lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device is safe and efficacious in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Additionally, decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device maintains segmental motion.

661 Six-Month Spinal Surgery Outcomes in Marijuana and Opiate Users as Determined by Preoperative Urine Toxicology

INTRODUCTION: Despite their limited utility, diagnostic codes for substance use disorders and self-reported patient histories are often used to assess the impact of marijuana and opiate use on spinal surgery outcomes in the pre-operative setting. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing elective spinal surgery between August 2020 and May 2022 with a single neurosurgical provider were offered enrollment into the study. Participants completed urine toxicology screenings at preoperative baseline visits and reported Oswetry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at baseline and postoperative follow-up visits over a six-month period. Outcome measures for the marijuana and opiate use groups were analyzed using group-wise linear regression analyses (P&lt;0.05). RESULTS: 67 participants (mean age 59 years, 66% female, 96% white) were included in this study. Participants commonly underwent lumbar decompression with laminectomy (47%), lumbar fusion (24%), and cervical fusion (12%). Preoperative urine toxicology screenings demonstrated that marijuana (28%) and opiate (19%) use were variably consistent with patient-reported frequencies (18% and 19%, respectively). Regression analyses revealed a statistically significant increase in NDI (P = 0.042) and VAS (P = 0.034) among marijuana users relative to non-users over a six-month period after spinal surgery. However, no significant changes were observed in ODI (P = 0.065) among marijuana users or ODI (P = 0.105), NDI (P = 0.241), and VAS (P = 0.125) among opiate users over the same time period. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative marijuana use, as determined by urine toxicology, was associated with poorer postoperative neck disability and subjective pain outcomes, potentially due to decreased pain tolerance. The same effect was not seen with preoperative opiate use. Future analyses will evaluate marijuana and other substance use within a larger cohort.

Nonsurgical Interventional Spine Pain Procedures

Nonsurgical interventional spine pain procedures provide an additional treatment option for lower back pain at the traditional bifurcation of conversative vs. operative management. Transforaminal epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablations, intrathecal drug delivery, and spinal cord stimulation were found to be effective and safe techniques when applied to their specific indication. Thermal annuloplasty and minimally invasive lumbar decompression showed mixed support. Discography, sacroiliac joint injections, and spinous process spacers lacked sufficient evidence to support efficacy. Medial branch blocks and facet joint injections were found to be useful diagnostic tools.

182 Comparison of Post-operative Functional Recovery Following Awake Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Lumbar Laminectomy Under General Anesthesia

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive techniques and awake surgery have changed the nature of fusion surgery, though these effects are not yet fully characterized due to the subjective nature of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Physical activity data measured from smartphone accelerometers offer the ability to objectively quantify the benefits of surgical intervention and time to functional recovery. METHODS: Patients undergoing single-level open lumbar decompression and awake, endoscopic lumbar fusion under an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol over a 5-year period were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective multi-institution study. Included patients were required to own an Apple iPhone (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA) and have at least eight months of continuous pre-operative smartphone accelerometer data. Pre-operative demographics and changes in peri-operative activity levels were compared between the two patient groups. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 17 underwent awake, endoscopic fusion and 16 underwent open lumbar laminectomy. Fifteen of the 17 patients (88.2%) receiving endoscopic fusion achieved functional recovery within 1 year of surgery. The average length of time to reach functional recovery was 113.8 ± 28.8 days. In comparison, 13 of 16 patients (81.3%) receiving lumbar laminectomy without fusion achieved functional recovery, requiring 105 ± 18.2 days on average. There was no statistical difference in time-to-recovery between groups (p = 0.798). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive fusion surgery in the setting of awake spinal anesthesia and peri-operative ERAS protocols allow for a recovery time that is statistically equivalent to post-operative recovery periods of less anatomically invasive decompression surgeries. These findings warrant further investigation and comparison of the functional outcomes of ultra-minimally invasive surgical procedures to traditional standard of care treatments.

SPinal coRd stimulatiOn coMpared with lumbar InStrumEntation for low back pain after previous lumbar decompression (PROMISE): a prospective multicentre RCT

IntroductionPersistent spine pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS2) represents a significant burden to the individual and society. Treatment options include revision surgery, stabilisation surgery of the spine, neuromodulation, analgesics and cognitive...

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Decompression or Sequestrectomy in Patients Over 75 Years.

Decompression or sequestrectomy in the lumbar spine can be performed under general (GA) or regional anesthesia. In elderly patients, it is still not clear, which procedure should be chosen. To demonstrate that spinal anesthesia (SA) is a safe choice for lumbar decompression or sequestrectomy in elderly patients. Retrospective clinical single-center study. We included 154 patients with ages over 75 years after lumbar decompression or sequestrectomy. The mean age of the patients was 81 years. Perioperative data (blood loss, dural tear, operative and perioperative time, delirium, urinary retention, and hospital stay) and the postoperative 1-year follow-up (visual analog scale and complication rate). Data were retrospectively collected from patients that underwent lumbar decompression or sequestrectomy between January 2019 and December 2020. The data from the GA and SA groups were compared. SA was performed in 56 patients whereas 98 patients received a GA. There was no clinically relevant difference between both groups with comparable complication rates. The time of surgery, blood loss, perioperative time, and hospital stay time were significantly less in the SA group. SA and GA are both safe and reliable procedures for lumbar decompression or sequestrectomy in elderly patients with no clinically relevant difference.

Endoscopic and Nonendoscopic Approaches to Single-Level Lumbar Spine Decompression: Propensity Score-Matched Comparative Analysis and Frailty-Driven Predictive Model.

The endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) approach is associated with high levels of patient satisfaction, shorter recovery time, and reduced complications. The present study reports multicenter, international data, comparing ESS and non-ESS approaches for singlelevel lumbar decompression, and proposes a frailty-driven predictive model for nonhome discharge (NHD) disposition. Cases of ESS and non-ESS lumbar spine decompression were queried from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2017-2020). Propensity score matching was performed on baseline characteristics frailty score (measured by risk analysis index [RAI] and modified frailty index-5 [mFI-5]). The primary outcome of interest was NHD disposition. A predictive model was built using logistic regression with RAI as the primary driver. Single-level nonfusion spine lumbar decompression surgery was performed in 38,686 patients. Frailty, as measured by RAI, was a reliable predictor of NHD with excellent discriminatory accuracy in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis: C-statistic: 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.94) in ESS cohort, C-statistic: 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) overall cohort. After propensity score matching, there was a reduction in total operative time (89 minutes vs. 103 minutes, p = 0.049) and hospital length of stay (LOS) (0.82 days vs. 1.37 days, p < 0.001) in patients treated endoscopically. In ROC curve analysis, the frailty-driven predictive model performed with excellent diagnostic accuracy for the primary outcome of NHD (C-statistic: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88). After frailty-based propensity matching, ESS is associated with reduced operative time, shorter hospital LOS, and decreased NHD. The RAI frailty-driven model predicts NHD with excellent diagnostic accuracy and may be applied to preoperative decisionmaking with a user-friendly calculator: nsgyfrailtyoutcomeslab.shinyapps.io/lumbar_decompression_dischargedispo.

Determination of Work Related to Endoscopic Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Background: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (wRVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. A physician's payment needs to be updated to commensurate with the work involved in the modern version of the lumbar endoscopic decompression procedure with and without the use of any implants to stabilize the spine. In the United States, the American Medical Association (AMA) and its Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) proposes to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) what wRVUs to assign for any endoscopic lumbar surgery codes. Methods: The authors conducted an independent survey between May and June 2022 which reached 210 spine surgeons using the TypeForm survey platform. The survey link was sent to them via email and social media. Surgeons were asked to assess the endoscopic procedure's technical and physical effort, risk, and overall intensity without focusing just on the time required to perform the surgery. Respondents were asked to compare the work involved in modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care with other commonly performed lumbar surgeries. For this purpose, respondents were provided with the verbatim descriptions of 12 other existing comparator CPT® codes and associated wRVUs of common spine surgeries, as well as a typical patient vignette describing an endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery scenario. Respondents were then asked to select the comparator CPT® code most reflective of the technical and physical effort, risk, intensity, and time spent on patient care during the pre-operative, peri- and intra-operative, and post-operative periods of a lumbar endoscopic surgery. Results: Of the 30 spine surgeons who completed the survey, 85.8%, 46.6%, and 14.3% valued the appropriate wRVU for the lumbar endoscopic decompression to be over 13, over 15, and over 20, respectively. Most surgeons (78.5%; <50th percentile) did not think they were adequately compensated. Regarding facility reimbursement, 77.3% of surgeons reported that their healthcare facility struggled to cover the cost with the received compensation. The majority (46.5%) said their facility received less than USD 2000, while another 10.7% reported less than USD 1500 and 17.9% reported less than USD 1000. The professional fee received by surgeons was <USD 1000 for 21.4%, <USD 2000 for 17.9%, and <USD 1500 for 10.7%, resulting in a fee less than USD 2000 for 50% of responding surgeons. Most responding surgeons (92.6%) recommended an endoscopic instrumentation carveout to pay for the added cost of the innovation. Discussion and Conclusions: The survey results indicate that most surgeons associate CPT® 62380 with the complexity and intensity of a laminectomy and interbody fusion preparation, considering the work in the epidural space using the contemporary outside-in and interlaminar technique and the work inside the interspace using the inside-out technique. Modern endoscopic spine surgery goes beyond the scope of a simple soft-tissue discectomy. The current iterations of the procedure must be considered to avoid undervaluing its complexity and intensity. Additional undervalued payment scenarios could be created if technological advances continue to replace traditional lumbar spinal fusion protocols with less burdensome, yet no less complex, endoscopic surgeries that necessitate a high surgeon effort in terms of time required to perform the operation and its intensity. These undervalued payment scenarios of physician practices, as well as the facility and malpractice expenses, should be further discussed to arrive at updated CPT® codes reflective of modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care.

Patient-specific Risk Factors Increase Episode of Care Costs After Lumbar Decompression.

Retrospective cohort analysis. To determine, which patient-specific risk factors increase total episode of care (EOC) costs in a population of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries undergoing lumbar decompression. Lumbar decompression is an effective option for the treatment of central canal stenosis or radiculopathy in patients unresponsive to nonoperative management. Given that elderly Americans are more likely to have one or more chronic medical conditions, there is a need to determine, which, if any, patient-specific risk factors increase health care costs after lumbar decompression. Care episodes limited to lumbar decompression surgeries were retrospectively reviewed on a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service reimbursement database at our academic institution between 2014 and 2019. The 90-day total EOC reimbursement payments were collected. Patient electronic medical records were then matched to the selected care episodes for the collection of patient demographics, medical comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and clinical outcomes. A stepwise multivariate linear regression model was developed to predict patient-specific risk factors that increased total EOC costs after lumbar decompression. Significance was set at P <0.05. A total of 226 patients were included for analysis. Risk factors associated with increased total EOC cost included increased age (per year) (β = $324.70, P < 0.001), comorbid depression (β = $4368.30, P = 0.037), revision procedures (β = $6538.43, P =0.012), increased hospital length of stay (per day) (β = $2995.43, P < 0.001), discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (β = $14,417.42, P = 0.001), incidence of a complication (β = $8178.07, P < 0.001), and readmission (β = $18,734.24, P < 0.001) within 90 days. Increased age, comorbid depression, revision decompression procedures, increased hospital length of stay, discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility, and incidence of a complication and readmission within 90 days were all associated with increased total episodes of care costs.