Lumbar Spine Decompression Surgery Research Articles

Same-day discharge following lumbar spine neural decompression

IntroductionThe concept of same-day discharge following lumbar spine surgery for neural elements decompression, introduced in the 1980 s, represents a significant paradigm shift in postoperative care, offering potential benefits in terms of efficiency, convenience, and cost-effectiveness. However, concerns regarding patient safety and complications have persisted. This study aims to assess same-day discharge rates following lumbar spine decompression surgery, identify preoperative predictors, and compare outcomes between same-day discharge and hospitalization. MethodsA retrospective comparative analysis was conducted using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use File spanning 2016 to 2021. A total of 58,430 patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression procedures were included. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software, with significance determined at p < 0.05. ResultsSignificant differences were observed in preoperative factors, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes between patients discharged on the same day and those hospitalized. Preoperative comorbidities, operative time, length of stay, utilization of minimally invasive approaches, and 30-day mortality rates differed significantly between the two groups. Notably, same-day discharge demonstrated superior outcomes, with lower rates of unplanned intubation, readmission, and reoperation compared to hospitalization. ConclusionIn conclusion, same-day discharge following lumbar spine decompression procedures holds promise as a safe and effective practice, offering advantages in terms of patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. Further research and implementation of standardized protocols are warranted to maximize the benefits of same-day discharge while ensuring patient safety and satisfaction.

The effect of preemptive retrolaminar block on lumbar spinal decompression surgery.

Spinal decompression surgery causes severe pain. Retrolaminar block (RLB) is block, which is done by infiltration of local anesthetic to block spinal nerves between the lamina and superior costotransversospinalis muscle. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of RLB on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing spinal surgery. Secondary aims are effects on additional anesthetic and analgesic consumption. The sixty (60) patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery between May 2020 and May 2021 under general anesthesia with or without applied preemptive RLB for postoperative analgesia were included in this prospective observational study. Group I received ultrasound-guided preemptive RLB. In Group II, no intervention was performed. Postoperative VAS scores were compared in groups as primary outcome, perioperative additional anesthetic and analgesic needs were compared as secondary outcome. There was a significant difference between the groups in favor of the RLB group in terms of postoperative VAS scores at rest [1.33 (0.33-3.509)] and movement [2.40 (1.20-4.00)] (p < 0.001). Perioperative sevoflurane consumption was significantly low in block group (p < 0.001). Postoperative tramadol consumption was lower in Group I compared with Group II [Group 1: 200 (100-300); Group 2: 37.5 (0-200); p < 0.001]. Preemptive RLB may be used to reduce patients' pain in lumbar decompression surgery as well as to be part of a multimodal analgesia and anesthesia regimen to reduce anesthetic and analgesic drug consumption. Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT04209907).

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Ambulatory Lumbar Spine Decompression Surgery

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Ambulatory Lumbar Spine Decompression Surgery

Factors influencing slippage after microsurgical single level lumbar spinal decompression surgery - Are the psoas and multifidus muscles involved?

Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) require microsurgical decompression (MSD) surgery; however, MSD is often associated with postoperative instability at the operated level. Paraspinal muscles support the spinal column; lately, paraspinal volume has been used as a good indicator of sarcopenia. This study aimed to determine preoperative radiological factors, including paraspinal muscle volume, associated with postoperative slippage progression after MSD in LSS patients. Patients undergoing single-level (L3/4 or L4/5) MSD for symptomatic LSS and followed-up for ≥ 5years in our institute were reviewed retrospectively to measure preoperative imaging parameters focused on the operated level. Paraspinal muscle volumes (psoas muscle index [PMI] and multifidus muscle index [MFMI]) defined using the total cross-sectional area of each muscle/L3 vertebral body area in the preoperative lumbar axial CT) were calculated. Postoperative slippage in the form of static translation (ST) ≥ 2mm was assessed on the last follow-up X-ray. We included 95 patients with average age and follow-up periods of 69 ± 8.2years and 7.51 ± 2.58years, respectively. PMI and MFMI were significantly correlated with age and significantly larger in male patients. Female sex, preoperative ST, dynamic translation, sagittal rotation angle, facet angle, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, and PMI were correlated with long-term postoperative worsening of ST. However, as per multivariate analysis, no independent factor was associated with postoperative slippage progression. Lower preoperative psoas muscle volume in LSS patients is an important predictive factor of postoperative slippage progression at the operated level after MSD. The predictors for postoperative slippage progression are multifactorial; however, a well-structured postoperative exercise regimen involving psoas muscle strengthening may be beneficial in LSS patients after MSD.

Postural Control and Weight Bearing Symmetry Patterns in Patients Post Lumbar Spinal Decompression Surgery

Background Prolapsed intervertebral disc is one of the most common reasons for low back pain often causing altered postural control and weight bearing symmetry of foot. Although these components are known to be affected there is limited literature available explaining the postural control and weight bearing symmetry post spinal decompression surgical procedures.Objective The study was formulated with the objective to understand postural control and symmetry of weight bearing patterns among patients post lumbar spinal decompression surgery.Methods The study was conducted involving 65 patients who were assessed pre-and post-lumbar decompression surgery. Nintendo Wii balance board was used to assess the patients at all intervals.Results The post-surgical values at discharge showed a clinical improvement in postural control bilaterally left P0.068 and right P0.031 but showed deterioration at one month with right P0.076 and significant on left side P0.009. Contrary to this the follow up values at one month showed a significant improvement in weight bearing symmetry P0.001. Pain values both on activity and at rest taken at both follow-up intervals F1 and F2 showed a statistically significant reduction P0.001.Conclusion Postural control assessed with single limb stance shows worsening at one month post decompression procedure. Weight bearing symmetry parameters may demonstrate a decline immediately post lumbar decompression surgery but may show a significant improvement along with reduction in pain post surgically as early as one month.

A prospective and comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of oral pregabalin vs gabapentin combined with IV paracetamol as preemptive analgesic for post-operative pain in patients undergoing single level open lumbar spine decompression surgery in a tertiary health care center

Background: Post-operative pain in spine surgery, whether neuropathic or nociceptive, presents a significant challenge for both surgeons and patients. Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of pre-operative oral gabapentinoids in reducing postoperative pain, extending the time to first rescue analgesia, and diminishing overall analgesic requirements. Methods: This study involved 120 patients undergoing lumbar discectomy for disc herniation. They were randomly assigned to receive pre-operative oral pregabalin, gabapentin, or a placebo, along with IV paracetamol as preemptive analgesia. The study assessed their efficacy through post-operative pain scores (VAS), and sedation scores (Ramsay sedation score) at various intervals, time to first rescue analgesia, and total analgesia consumption. Results: No significant differences were found in demographic variables, surgical levels, or duration among the groups. The placebo group had the shortest time to first rescue analgesia, while the pregabalin group showed the longest, with a notable difference. Across most time frames, the pregabalin group reported the lowest mean postoperative VAS scores, whereas the placebo group had the highest. Initial variations in sedation scores converged in later time frames, with the placebo group consistently recording the lowest scores. Total rescue analgesia (tramadol) in the initial 24 hours was highest in the placebo group, followed by the gabapentin group, and lowest in the pregabalin group, with no significant variance. Conclusions: This study affirms the superiority of pre-operative oral pregabalin with IV paracetamol. It effectively prolongs the time to first rescue analgesia and reduces overall analgesic consumption post-lumbar spine surgery, compared to pre-operative oral gabapentin with IV paracetamol.

Hospital cost differences between open and endoscopic lumbar spine decompression surgery.

In recent years, fully endoscopic decompression surgery for degenerative spine disease has become increasingly popular in the US. Although an endoscopic approach has demonstrated some benefits compared with open procedures in randomized controlled trials, the cost of advanced technologies remains contested. The authors evaluated the differences in costs and cost drivers between open and endoscopic decompression surgical procedures performed at a single institution. Using associated Current Procedural Terminology codes, the authors identified all open and endoscopic decompression lumbar surgical procedures performed from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2022. Preoperative comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were captured. The costs of index surgery-related readmission for revision, washout, or other complications were included in the index surgery expenses. Associated in-hospital costs were collected; these were reported in comparative percentages with open surgical procedures as the baseline because of an institutional agreement. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The retrospective search identified 633 open surgical procedures and 195 endoscopic surgical procedures for inclusion. The two patient cohorts were similar, with clinically nonrelevant but statistically significant differences in mean age (open 55.7 years vs endoscopic 59.4 years, p = 0.01) and mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class (open 2.3 vs endoscopic 2.4, p = 0.03). Postoperatively, patients who underwent open surgical procedures had significantly longer mean hospital stays (open 1.4 days vs endoscopic 0.7, p < 0.01) and more perioperative complications (open 7.9% of patients vs endoscopic 3.1%, p = 0.02), and they required washout surgical procedures in some cases (open 1.3% vs endoscopic 0%, p = 0.12). The largest cost difference between open and endoscopic surgical procedures was the significantly greater cost of disposable supplies for endoscopic cases (10.1% vs 31.7% of the total cost of open procedures, p < 0.01), and open surgical procedures were generally less costly in total (100.0% vs 115.1%, p < 0.01). In multivariate linear regression, endoscopic surgery was independently associated with greater total costs (standardized beta 15.9%, p < 0.01), although length of hospital stay (standardized beta 34.0%) and readmissions (standardized beta 30.0%, p < 0.01) had larger effects on cost. The endoscopic approach was associated with greater total in-hospital costs compared with open procedures. The findings of further cost evaluations, including those of patient-reported outcomes, social cost, and capital costs per procedure type, need to be included in operational and clinical decisions.

Preoperative Epidural Steroid Injections and Postoperative Infections After Lumbar or Cervical Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectiveTo determine the risk difference and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) for postoperative infections (POIs) associated with preoperative epidural steroid injections (ESIs) in adults undergoing lumbar or cervical spine surgery. MethodsComprehensive database searches were conducted from inception dates through December 2023. Inclusion criteria included all study designs involving adults receiving a preoperative ESI before lumbar or cervical decompression or fusion spine surgery. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified tool developed for uncontrolled studies. The summary estimates of risk difference and the corresponding PIs were reported. ResultsA total of 12 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 9 were included in the meta-analysis. Preoperative ESIs within 1 month of lumbar spine decompression or fusion surgery were associated with a 0.6% and 2.31% greater risk of a POI, respectively. In adults ≥65 years of age, ESIs within 1 or 1-3 months of lumbar spine decompression or fusion surgery were associated with a 1.3% and 0.6% greater risk of a POI, respectively. Preoperative ESIs within 3 months of cervical spine fusion were not associated with an increased risk of a POI. The bounds of all corresponding 95% PIs were nonsignificant. ConclusionThe observations of this study provide summary estimates of risk difference and 95% PIs, which could be used to support shared decision-making about the use of ESIs before cervical or lumbar spine surgery.

Does low-back pain improve after decompressive spinal surgery? A prospective observational study from the British Spine Registry.

Lumbar spine decompression surgery, in the form of laminectomy or discectomy, is known to be effective in improving symptoms of radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication. However, it is less clear how it impacts coexisting low-back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to quantify the change in LBP after lumbar decompression. This study analyzed data from the British Spine Registry on patients who underwent lumbar decompression surgery. LBP severity was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), and the primary outcome was the change in VAS score at 1 year, with secondary outcomes measuring the change in score at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 2 years. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as a 30% reduction in pain. Of the 25,349 patients included in the study, 92.2% reported significant back pain at baseline. Of the entire cohort, 12,951 (55.4%) patients had follow-up data for 6 weeks, 9066 (38.8%) for 6 months, 7926 (33.9%) for 1 year, and 5517 (23.6%) for 2 years; 17,304 (68.3%) patients had follow-up data for at least one time point. Sixty-two percent of patients attained the MCID (VAS score ≥ 30%) in back pain reduction, with 51% reporting a substantial improvement (VAS score ≥ 50%). This improvement was observed by 6 weeks postoperation and was mostly maintained at 2 years. Patients with back pain predominance were more likely to attain the MCID compared with those with leg pain predominance (63.6% vs 60.1%; OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.34; p = 0.0291). Severity of baseline back pain did not reduce the proportion attaining the MCID. Regardless of pain presentation, LBP improves in approximately 62% of patients who undergo lumbar decompressive surgery, with 51% experiencing substantial improvement. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression can be advised on the chance of a meaningful improvement in back pain postsurgery.

MRI after Lumbar Spine Decompression and Fusion Surgery: Technical Considerations, Expected Findings, and Complications.

Postoperative MRI of the lumbar spine is a mainstay for detailed anatomic assessment and evaluation of complications related to decompression and fusion surgery. Key factors for reliable interpretation include clinical presentation of the patient, operative approach, and time elapsed since surgery. Yet, recent spinal surgery techniques with varying anatomic corridors to approach the intervertebral disc space and implanted materials have expanded the range of normal (expected) and abnormal (unexpected) postoperative changes. Modifications of lumbar spine MRI protocols in the presence of metallic implants, including strategies for metal artifact reduction, provide important diagnostic information. This focused review discusses essential principles for the acquisition and interpretation of MRI after lumbar spinal decompression and fusion surgery, highlights expected postoperative changes, and describes early and delayed postoperative complications with examples.

The Implication of Preoperative Central Stenosis on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Decompression Surgery

To assess the impact of central stenosis severity on patient-reported outcomes after lumbar decompression. Patient diagnosis, demographics, and surgical characteristics were collected via query search and manual chart review of electronic medical records. The inclusion criteria were posterior lumbar decompressions from 2014-2020, with accessible MRI reports. As previously validated by Lee et al., central stenosis was determined on magnetic resonance imaging and graded as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients were dichotomized into two groups to improve statistical power for comparisons: none or mild central stenosis and moderate or severe central stenosis. PROMs were compared between cohorts at one year postoperatively. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. On bivariant analysis, no significant differences were noted between cohorts with regard to preoperative, one-year postoperative, and ΔPROMs. In addition, no significant difference in the number of patients attaining minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for each PROM was noted between cohorts. With the exception of MCS-12, all intragroup preoperative to postoperative PROMs indicated significant improvement (all p<0.05) after lumbar decompression surgery. Multivariate regression identified moderate or severe central canal stenosis as a significant independent predictor of improvement in VAS-back (estimate=-1.464, p=0.045). We demonstrate that patients with moderate or severe central spinal stenosis may have more improvement in back pain than those with mild or no central stenosis after lumbar spine decompression surgery.

Personalized Interventional Surgery of the Lumbar Spine: A Perspective on Minimally Invasive and Neuroendoscopic Decompression for Spinal Stenosis.

Pain generator-based lumbar spinal decompression surgery is the backbone of modern spine care. In contrast to traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for spinal surgery, assessing the severity of neural element encroachment, instability, and deformity, staged management of common painful degenerative lumbar spine conditions is likely to be more durable and cost-effective. Targeting validated pain generators can be accomplished with simplified decompression procedures associated with lower perioperative complications and long-term revision rates. In this perspective article, the authors summarize the current concepts of successful management of spinal stenosis patients with modern transforaminal endoscopic and translaminar minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques. They represent the consensus statements of 14 international surgeon societies, who have worked in collaborative teams in an open peer-review model based on a systematic review of the existing literature and grading the strength of its clinical evidence. The authors found that personalized clinical care protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis rooted in validated pain generators can successfully treat most patients with sciatica-type back and leg pain including those who fail to meet traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for surgery since nearly half of the surgically treated pain generators are not shown on the preoperative MRI scan. Common pain generators in the lumbar spine include (a) an inflamed disc, (b) an inflamed nerve, (c) a hypervascular scar, (d) a hypertrophied superior articular process (SAP) and ligamentum flavum, (e) a tender capsule, (f) an impacting facet margin, (g) a superior foraminal facet osteophyte and cyst, (h) a superior foraminal ligament impingement, (i) a hidden shoulder osteophyte. The position of the key opinion authors of the perspective article is that further clinical research will continue to validate pain generator-based treatment protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis. The endoscopic technology platform enables spine surgeons to directly visualize pain generators, forming the basis for more simplified targeted surgical pain management therapies. Limitations of this care model are dictated by appropriate patient selection and mastering the learning curve of modern MIS procedures. Decompensated deformity and instability will likely continue to be treated with open corrective surgery. Vertically integrated outpatient spine care programs are the most suitable setting for executing such pain generator-focused programs.

Impact of erector spinae plane block on the quality of recovery after lumbar spine decompression surgery: A comparative study between addicts and non-addicts.

Acute pain management in drug addicts is a critical yet understudied topic. Drug addicts have a decreased pain threshold, impairing anaesthetic pain control. This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative quality of recovery in addicts and non-addicts after receiving erector spinae plane block (ESPB) with general anaesthesia. Sixty males, aged 18-60 years, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II, scheduled for elective lumbar decompression surgery, were divided into two equal groups. Group A included 30 addicts and group N included 30 non-addicts. Both groups received bilateral ultrasound-guided ESPB with 20 mL bupivacaine (0.25%) before induction of general anaesthesia. The primary outcome was comparison of the 24-hour postoperative quality of recovery (QoR-15) score. The secondary outcomes were time to first analgesic requirement, postoperative pain scores, morphine consumption, and adverse events. The QoR-15 score was higher in group N (median = 128.5, interquartile range = 107-136) than in group A (118 [99-130]), indicating a better recovery in group N. The visual analogue scale pain score was lower in group N than in group A, especially in the first 12 hours postoperatively. Time to first analgesic request was significantly longer in group N than in group A (mean ± standard deviation: 8.67 ± 2.74 and 5.53 ± 1.64 hours, respectively, P =0.001), Morphine consumption was significantly higher in group A than in group N (9.62 ± 3.2 and 7.08 ± 2.57 mg, respectively, P =0.041). Drug addicts experienced decreased analgesic efficacy of ESPB compared to non-addicts, with comparable postoperative QoR-15 score following lumbar decompression surgery.

Factors associated with an increased risk of developing postoperative symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis after decompression surgery: an explorative two-centre international cohort study

PurposeSymptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis can be treated with decompression surgery. A recent review reported that, after decompression surgery, 1.6–32.0% of patients develop postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis and may therefore be indicated for lumbar fusion surgery. The latter can be more challenging due to the altered anatomy and scar tissue. It remains unclear why some patients get recurrent neurological complaints due to postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis, though some associations have been suggested. This study explores the association between key demographic, biological and radiological factors and postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis after lumbar decompression.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients who had undergone lumbar spinal decompression surgery between January 2014 and December 2016 at one of two Spine Centres in the Netherlands or Switzerland and had a follow-up of two years. Patient characteristics, details of the surgical procedure and recurrent neurological complaints were retrieved from patient files. Preoperative MRI scans and conventional radiograms (CRs) of the lumbar spine were evaluated for multiple morphological characteristics. Postoperative spondylolisthesis was evaluated on postoperative MRI scans. For variables assessed on a whole patient basis, patients with and without postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis were compared. For variables assessed on the basis of the operated segment(s), surgical levels that did or did not develop postoperative spondylolisthesis were compared. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify associations with postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis.ResultsSeven hundred and sixteen patients with 1094 surgical levels were included in the analyses. (In total, 300 patients had undergone multilevel surgery.) ICCs for intraobserver and interobserver reliability of CR and MRI variables ranged between 0.81 and 0.99 and 0.67 and 0.97, respectively. In total, 66 of 716 included patients suffered from postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis (9.2%). Multivariable regression analyses of patient-basis variables showed that being female [odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95%CI 1.07–3.09] was associated with postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis. Higher BMI (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.88–0.99) was associated with a lower probability of having postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis.Multivariable regression analyses of surgical level-basis variables showed that levels with preoperative spondylolisthesis (OR 17.30, 95%CI 10.27–29.07) and the level of surgery, most importantly level L4L5 compared with levels L1L3 (OR 2.80, 95%CI 0.78–10.08), were associated with postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis; greater facet joint angles (i.e. less sagittal-oriented facets) were associated with a lower probability of postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.95–0.99).ConclusionBeing female was associated with a higher probability of having postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis, while having a higher BMI was associated with a lower probability. When looking at factors related to postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis at the surgical level, preoperative spondylolisthesis, more sagittal orientated facet angles and surgical level (most significantly level L4L5 compared to levels L1L3) showed significant associations. These associations could be used as a basis for devising patient selection criteria, stratifying patients or performing subgroup analyses in future studies regarding decompression surgery with or without fusion.

Changes in the glycosylated hemoglobin levels and body mass index after decompression surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis in a tertiary care center, Saudi Arabia

Objectives: Lumbar spinal decompression surgery is a well-studied intervention in its benefit in pain control. It can also improve physical activity that indirectly facilitates glycemic control in diabetic patients and weight loss in obese patients. This study aimed to assess the changes of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) post-intervention at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with LSS who had lumbar decompression, with or without instrumentation at King Abdulaziz Medical City, from 2016 and 2020. Patients over 18 years, treated surgically for LSS, were included with a minimum of a 1-year follow-up. Patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, with comorbidities, that limited physical activity, or without follow-up records were excluded from the study. Results: In total, 140 patients were included in the study. They had three underlying diseases: LSS (n = 87, 62.1%), spondylolisthesis (n = 37, 26.4%), and degenerative disc disease (n = 16, 11.4%). Results showed that obese patients were associated with the lower BMI at 6- and 12- month follow-ups compared to the non-obese. In addition, there was a statistical difference in HbA1c change at follow-ups between controlled (HbA1c &lt;7) and uncontrolled diabetes groups (HbA1c ≥7). Conclusion: Lumbar spinal decompression can help in the reduction of BMI of obese patients with LSS. However, there is a need for extensive investigation of the reasons for the contradicting results of an increase in the HbA1c level at 12-month follow-up in the current study.

Rare sudden hearing loss after lumbar spine decompression surgery: A case report and review of the literature

Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is a known but rare complication of non-otological surgeries. SNHL after spinal decompression also remains a rare occurrence with a handful of reports in the literature. The exact mechanism is not clearly understood. Cerebrospinal fluid leak, barotrauma, microemboli, hypoperfusion, vasospasm, traumatic event, and anesthetic agents are some of the proposed etiologies. Early diagnosis and prompt intervention have shown benefits though management lacks consensus. We report a case of profound SNHL post-lumbar decompression and fixation surgery, who showed significant recovery at 4-week follow-up, and we review the literature for hearing loss after spine surgeries.

Endoscopic Spinal Decompression: A Retrospective Review of Pain Outcomes at an Academic Medical Center.

Introduction: Spinal stenosis is a chronic, debilitating condition that is expected to affect an increasing number of people as the population ages. Symptomatic spinal stenosis, like other spine pathologies, including disc herniation and degenerative disc disease, traditionally required an open decompressive surgical approach if more conservative approaches failed. An emerging alternative has been developed to address the needs of this population of patients in the form of endoscopic spine surgery (ESS). Advantages of ESS include minimal tissue trauma, decreased risk of damage to the neurovascular structures, minimal epidural fibrosis/scarring, reduced hospital stay, early functional recovery, and improved cosmetic outcomes. The purpose of this study was to review the outcomes of patients undergoing transforaminal endoscopic spinal decompression at an academic pain program.Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical records with approval from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB #202001529). Twenty patients underwent successful transforaminal endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression surgery at UF Health Pain Medicine from July 1, 2019, to June 1, 2020. The majority of cases were performed at L4-5 (n = 14), followed by an equal number (n = 3) of cases at L3-4 and L5-S1. Preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores from patients' pain clinic appointments were obtained from the electronic health records system to assess the intervention as a pain relief strategy.Results: Patients had an average pain reduction of 82% (SD = 31%), resulting in an average postoperative pain score of 1.8 (SD = 2.8) on a 10-point VAS.Conclusion: This study highlights the benefits of endoscopic spine surgery for patients, including pain reduction and reduced scarring.

Diagnosis-Specific Work Disability before and after Lumbar Spine Decompression Surgery-A Register Study from Sweden.

Low back pain (LBP) patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression surgery (LSDS) often suffer from multi-comorbidity and experience high work disability. This study aimed to identify diagnosis-specific work disability patterns in all LBP-patients before and after LSDS during 2008–2010, that were aged 19–60 years and living in Sweden (n = 10,800) and compare these patterns to LBP-patients without LSDS (n = 109,179), and to matched individuals without LBP (n = 472,191). Work disability days (long-term sickness absence (LTSA), disability pension (DP)) during the three years before to three years after the cohort’s entry date were identified by generalised estimating equations. LBP-patients undergoing LSDS had higher overall work disability during the three years following surgery (LTSA: 23.6%, DP: 6.3%) than LBP-patients without LSDS (LTSA: 19.5%, DP: 5.9%), and those without LBP (LTSA: 7.9%, DP: 1.7%). Among patients undergoing LSDS, the prevalence of work disability due to dorsopathies increased from 20 days three years before surgery to 70 days in the year after and attenuated to 30 days in the third year following surgery. Work disability for other diagnoses remained stable at a low level in this group (<10 days annually). LBP-patients undergoing LSDS have an unfavourable long-term work disability prognosis, primarily due to dorsopathies. Decompression surgery seemed to restrict further inclines in work disability in the long run.

Postoperative lumbar spine MRI: How well does a radiology report that raises suspicion for infection correlate with true clinical infection?

IntroductionInterpretation of a lumbar spine MRI in the immediate postoperative period is challenging, as postoperative tissue enhancement and fluid collections may be mistaken for infection. Radiology reports may use ambiguous language, creating a clinical problem for a surgeon in determining whether a patient needs treatment with antibiotics or revision surgery. Moreover, retrospective criticism of management in instances of a true infection may lead to medicolegal ramifications. MethodsA retrospective review of patients undergoing posterior-approach lumbar decompressive surgery with or without fusion over a 30-month period identified those undergoing postoperative MRI within 10 weeks of surgery. Patients initially operated upon for infection were excluded. The MRI reports were analyzed for language describing findings suspicious for infection and those of these with true infections were identified. ResultsOf 487 patients undergoing posterior lumbar spine decompression surgery, 68 (14%) had postoperative MRI within 10 weeks. Of these, the radiology reports raised suspicion for infection in 20 (29%), of which 2 (10%) patients had a true infection. Two patients underwent reoperation for new motor deficit from seroma/hematoma. Of 63 patients who had MRI to evaluate complaints of back and/or leg pain without new motor deficits, the MRI significantly altered management in 3 patients (4.8%). ConclusionRadiology reports of postoperative lumbar spine MRIs frequently use language that raises suspicion for infection; but it is uncommon, however, that these patients harbor true infections. A radiology report describing possible infectious findings may not be considered significant without corroboration with other laboratory and clinical data.

The Relationship between Lifestyle, Socioeconomic Status and Quality of Life in Patients with Lumbar Spine Decompression Surgery.

The article’s abstract is not available.