Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedure Research Articles

Novel Technique for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Fusion: Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation Combined with Contralateral Interbody Cage Fusion for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract Objective The common traditional surgical techniques for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and fixation are bilateral pedicle screw fixation with or without interbody cage fusion and unilateral pedicle screw fixation with ipsilateral cage fusion. However, the novel unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with the contralateral interbody cage fusion technique may provide the benefits and avoid the hazards of those traditional techniques. This prospective randomized comparative clinical trial aims to compare pedicle screw fixation with contralateral interbody cage fusion and unilateral pedicle screw fixation with ipsilateral cage fusion in single-level PLIF and fixation. Methods This comparative prospective study was conducted on 60 patients subjected to a single-level PLIF and unilateral pedicle screw fixation during the period from January 2022 to July 2022 to compare two different surgical modalities: group A (unilateral pedicle screw fixation with contralateral interbody cage fusion) and group B (unilateral pedicle screw fixation with ipsilateral cage fusion). Results Operative time, blood loss, operative complications, and visual analog scale improvements showed insignificant differences between the two groups, while group A showed significant improvements in the Oswestry Disability Index and wider coronal disc heights contralateral to the screw, which is the side of the cages, during postoperative follow-up. Conclusion Unilateral pedicle screw fixation with contralateral cage fusion during the PLIF and pedicle screw fixation procedure is preferred to maintain bilateral coronal disc heights and thus better clinical and mechanical results without affection of the preceding disc.

Vertebral Endplate Cavities (VEC) with titanium cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Vertebral endplate cavities (VEC) have been reported with the use of Ti cages. Only few articles have recently demonstrated unfavorable radiographic changes in the form of cysts or cavities which may predispose to nonunion. The aim was to assess the prevalence of VEC in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using Titanium (Ti) cages, and to estimate their impact on fusion. The term "cavity" was used to describe the endplate changes. CT analysis of the VEC and fusion status following PLIFs with Ti cages was conducted by two observers. VEC were assessed according to the size, multiplicity, location, and presence of sclerosis. 42 consecutive patients with surgeries conducted on 52 levels were enrolled. There were 20 males and 22 females. The mean age was 43.6 ±10.89 years. The mean follow-up was 20.85±8.49 months. Definite union was seen in 48 levels (92.3%) by observer 1 and in 40 levels (76.9%) by observer 2. The strength of agreement was moderate. The presence of VEC was observed in 9 levels (17.3%) by observer 1 and in 12 levels (23.1%) by observer 2. The strength of agreement was moderate. The majority of VEC in the endplates were <5mm. The strength of agreement was high. The strength of agreement for location and multiplicity were moderate. The VEC was significantly correlated with the fusion status. Our study confirmed that VEC were observed following Ti cage placement after PLIF procedures. They tend to be small and might be associated with non-union. Furthermore, it reflected the limited inter-rater reliability of the assessment of both the fusion status and VEC morphology after Ti PLIF cage placement.

Impact of State Laws on Dispensing Opioid Prescriptions Following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedures: A Retrospective Large National Database Study.

Retrospective Cohort Study. This study aimed to examine the effect of state legislation on prescribing behavior after a commonly performed spinal procedure, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Two cohorts of patients from the Pearl Diver Database were created based on patients who underwent PLIF surgery in 2014-15 and 2018-19. We compared opioid prescription rates and morphine-milli-equivalent (MME) between states with and without prescription legislation. We analyzed 50 958 PLIF patients from 2014-15 and 46 751 patients from 2018-19. Among them, 38 states passed opioid prescription laws in 2016-2017, while 12 states did not. The percentage of patients receiving opioid prescriptions within 365 days post-surgery remained similar in both time periods (49% in 2014-15 and 48% in 2018-2019). This trend was consistent across states with and without prescription legislation (50% vs 48% in 2014-2015, and similar in 2018-19). Opioid prescription quantity significantly decreased in all states between 2014-15 and 2018-19. In states with legislation, average MME dropped from 9198 ± 21 002 to 4932 ± 13 213 (46.4% decrease), and in states without legislation, it decreased from 9175 ± 21 032 to 4994 ± 11 687 (45.6% decrease). However, these differences were not statistically significant (P = .7985). From 2014 to 2018, there was a significant decrease in the number of opioids prescribed after PLIF. However, this decrease occurred irrespective of state legislation on prescribing practices being passed. We believe the reduction in opioids prescribed was due to increased awareness surrounding the dangers of opioids among physicians.

Comparison of Inflammatory Markers Changes in Patients Who Used Postoperative Prophylactic Antibiotics within 24 Hours after Spine Surgery and 5 Days after Spine Surgery.

C-reactive protein (CRP) level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and white blood cell (WBC) count are inflammatory markers used to evaluate postoperative infections. Although these markers are non-specific, understanding their normal kinetics after surgery may be helpful in the early detection of postoperative infections. To compliment the recent trend of reducing the duration of antibiotic use, this retrospective study investigated the inflammatory markers of patients who had received antibiotics within 24 hours after surgery according to the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service guidelines and compared them with those of patients who had received antibiotics for 5 days, which was proven to be non-infectious. We enrolled 74 patients, divided into two groups. Patients underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at a single institution between 2019 and 2020. Group A included 37 patients who received antibiotics within 24 hours after the PLIF procedure, and group B comprised 37 patients who had used antibiotics for 5 days. A 1 : 1 nearest-neighbor propensity-matched analysis was used. The clinical variables included age, sex, medical history, body mass index, estimated blood loss, and operation time. Laboratory data included CRP, ESR, and WBC, which were measured preoperatively and on postoperative days (POD) 1, 3, 5, and 7. CRP dynamics tended to decrease after peaking on POD 3, with a similar trend in both groups. The average CRP level in group B was slightly higher than that in group A; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed operation time, number of fused levels, and estimated blood loss as significant predictors of a greater CRP peak value (r²=0.473, p<0.001) in patients. No trend (a tendency to decrease from the peak value) could be determined for ESR and WBC count on POD 7. Although slight differences were observed in numerical values and kinetics, sequential changes in inflammatory markers according to the duration of antibiotic administration showed similar patterns. Knowledge of CRP kinetics allows the assessment of the degree of difference between the clinical and expected values.

C-reactive protein to lymphocyte ratio as a new biomarker in predicting surgical site infection after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and instrumentation.

PurposeThis study aims to evaluate the potential of C-reactive protein to lymphocyte count ratio (CLR) for the prediction of surgical site infection (SSI) following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and the instrumentation of lumbar degenerative diseases.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we considered patients with a lumbar degenerative disease diagnosis surgically treated by the instrumented PLIF procedure from 2015 to 2021. Patient data, including postoperative early SSI and other perioperative variables, were collected from their respective hospitalization electronic medical records. The receiver operator characteristic curve was constructed to determine the optimal cut-off value for CLR, and the ability to predict SSI was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC). According to the cut-off value, patients were dichotomized with high- or low-CLR, and between-group differences were compared using univariate analysis. The independent impact of CLR on predicting SSI was investigated by multivariate logistics regression analysis.ResultsA total of 773 patients were included, with 26 (3.4%) developing an early SSI post-operation. The preoperative CLR was 11.1 ± 26.1 (interquartile range, 0.4–7.5), and the optimal cut-off was 2.1, corresponding to a sensitivity of 0.856, a specificity of 0.643, and an AUC of 0.768 (95% CI, 0.737–0.797). CLR demonstrated a significantly improved prediction ability than did lymphocyte count (P = 0.021) and a similar ability to predict an infection as C-response protein (P = 0.444). Patients with a high CLR had a significantly higher SSI incidence than those with a low CLR (7.6% vs. 0.8%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for numerous confounding factors, CLR ≥ 2.1 was associated with an 11.16-fold increased risk of SSI, along with other significant variables, i.e., diabetes, preoperative waiting time, and surgical duration.ConclusionA high CLR exhibited an improved ability to predict incident SSI and was associated with a substantially increased risk of SSI following instrumented PLIF. After better-design studies verified this finding, CLR could potentially be a beneficial tool in surgical management.

Resident Involvement in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion is Associated With Increased Readmissions and Operative Time, But No Increased Short-term Risks.

A retrospective cohort study. The aim was to compare rates of adverse events and additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cases assisted by residents versus cases performed solely by an orthopedic attending. PLIF is a widely accepted surgical technique for the management of a variety of spinal conditions requiring spinal stabilization and fusion. However, no published studies have assessed the effects of resident involvement on intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in PLIF. This retrospective study utilized the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) registry from 2007 to 2012 to identify patients who underwent PLIF procedures. A propensity score matching model was utilized to reduce patient cohort variances. The perioperative data and outcomes in the matched population were analyzed using paired t test and the McNemar test in order to assess, based on resident presence, the rates of postoperative adverse events, readmission, reoperation within 30 days, and operative time. In total, 1633 patients undergoing PLIF were included in the study, with 24.62% involving resident participation. The propensity score matching algorithm yielded 396 well-matched resident and nonresident pairs. Patients undergoing PLIF involving a resident were associated with a higher rate of readmission (1.77% vs. 0.00%; P=0.008), and longer operative time (245.7 vs. 197.7 min; P<0.001). However, these procedures were not associated with any significant difference in minor or severe adverse events. Resident involvement in PLIF was associated with an increased rate of readmissions, and operative time; however, was not associated with an increase in minor or severe adverse events. Further investigation is needed to characterize the role of resident involvement based on level of training experience, as well as methods to improve the learning curve to independence while reducing postoperative hospital length of stay. Level III-retrospective comparative study.

Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Finite Element Analysis of the Vibration Characteristics of Fused Lumbar Spine

Previous studies have investigated biomechanical characteristics of the lumbar spine after different types of lumbar interbody fusion surgery under static loadings. However, very few have dealt with the whole-body vibration (WBV) condition that is typically present in vehicles. The aim of this study was to compare the influence of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) on dynamic responses of the fused lumbar spine to vertical WBV. The PLIF and TLIF procedures with bilateral pedicle screw fixation at L4-L5 level were simulated by modifying a previously validated intact lumbar L1-S1 finite element model. The PLIF and TLIF models were subjected to a sinusoidal vertical load with a compressive follower preload, and computed for transient dynamic analysis. The obtained dynamic responses for the models at the fused and adjacent levels were collected and compared. The results showed that the contact force between endplate and cage was higher in the PLIF model than in the TLIF model, indicating that PLIF allowed for higher compressive load across the anterior structure. At fused L4-L5 level, the TLIF led to a higher stress in the endplate and posterior BPSF system than the PLIF. At adjacent L3-L4 level and L5-S1 level, the computed dynamic responses, in terms of stress and deformation, for the PLIF and TLIF models showed very few differences. This study may be helpful to quantify dynamic mechanical properties of the fused lumbar spine, and better understand biomechanical differences between the PLIF and TLIF procedures during vibration.

Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method.

Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

We aimed to systematically review the literature to analyze the differences in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on the complications, risk factors, and fusion rate of each approach. Spinal fusion surgery is a well-established surgical procedure for a variety of indications, and different approaches developed. The various approaches and their advantages, as well as approach-related pathology and complications, are well investigated in spinal surgery. Focusing only on lumbosacral fusion, the comparative studies of different approaches remain fewer in numbers. We systematically reviewed the literature on the complications associated with lumbosacral interbody fusion. Only the PLIF, ALIF, or TLIF approaches and studies published within the last decade (2007–2017) were included. The exclusion criteria in this study were oblique lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral interbody fusion, more than one procedure per patient, and reported patient numbers less than 10. The outcome variables were indications, fusion rates, operation time, perioperative complications, and clinical outcome by means of Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. Five prospective, 17 retrospective, and two comparative studies that investigated the lumbosacral region were included. Mean fusion rates were 91,4%. ALIF showed a higher operation time, while PLIF resulted in greater blood loss. In all approaches, significant improvements in the clinical outcome were achieved, with ALIF showing slightly better results. Regarding complications, the ALIF technique showed the highest complication rates. Lumbosacral fusion surgery is a treatment to provide good results either through an approach for various indications as causes of lower back pain. For each surgical approach, advantages can be depicted. However, perioperative complications and risk factors are numerous and vary with ALIF, PLIF, and TLIF procedures, as well as with fusion rates.

Comparison between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a relatively common cause of low back and lower extremity pain. The most common type, degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS), is a disease that causes stenosis of the spinal canal. Two surgical methods of treatment are widely accepted, namely posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Between 2015 and 2017, the findings of 333 consecutive DLS patients who underwent surgical decompression with instrumented fusion were analyzed in a prospective study at the Department of Neurosurgery University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine at Safarik University in Kosice. The PLIF and TLIF procedures were performed in 214 and 119 patients, respectively. The clinical results and quality of life were compared. In comparison with PLIF, the TLIF procedures show better results as to the mean time of surgery (118.61±24.74 vs 147.56±38.62 min), blood loss (271.74±104.45 vs 361.23±142.78ml) and number of blood transfusions (6 vs 38); p=0.015, p=0.023, and p=0.001, respectively. PLIF and TLIF groups were compared as to the number of cases with nerve root injuries (14 vs 2), dural tear (17 vs 3), wound infections (8 vs 3) and reoperations (15 vs 2); p=0.04, p=0.04, p=0.55 and p=0.03, respectively. The quality of life at follow-up examinations significantly improved as measured with VAS and ODI (p=0.001). This research found that both surgical techniques, TLIF and PLIF, are suitable for DLS treatment. The two methods differed in postoperative complications which were less frequent in TLIF. There were no significant differences in the postoperative quality of life (Tab. 5, Ref. 19). Text in PDF www.elis.sk.

Facet Arthrodesis with the FFX Device: One-Year Results from a Prospective Multicenter Study.

Facet osteosynthesis can be performed to treat facet syndrome (FS) and reduce spinal instability following laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The present study evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes following facet osteosynthesis with the FFX device. Patients with FS or LSS were prospectively enrolled in a single-arm, multicenter study. The device was placed at affected levels with or without concomitant posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedures. The visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively. Computed tomography scans to assess fusion and migration were performed 1 year following surgery. Fifty-three patients (26 men/27 women) with a mean age of 65.0 ± 9.6 years (range: 37-83 years) were enrolled. A total of 205 FFX devices were implanted with 15 patients undergoing concurrent PLIF procedures. There were no intraoperative or postoperative surgical complication reported, and no patient required revision surgery. Mean VAS leg and back pain scores significantly improved from 5.57 to 2.09 (P < .001) and 5.74 to 3.13 (P < .001), respectively, between the preoperative and 1 year follow-up assessments. Mean ODI scores also significantly improved from 44.7% to 24.0% (P < .001) during the same time period. Facet fusion occurred with 86.3% of device placements after 12 months. There was 1 (0.5%) asymptomatic device migration. Eight devices (3.9%) were considered misplaced. The use of the FFX device is associated with a significant reduction in both pain and disability following surgery with a high facet joint fusion rate. 4. This is the first study reporting clinical experience using the FFX device to facilitate facet osteosynthesis. The ability of the device to relieve pain, reduce disability, and enhance lumbar facet fusion with a low rate of device misplacement and migration was demonstrated.

Role of MRI in the assessment of interbody fusion with tantalum intervertebral implant

IntroductionRadiologic assessment of interbody fusion (IF) is controversial; thin-slice CT is the present gold standard despite artifacts due to the metal implant that hinder interpretation. The present study aimed to assess the contribution of MRI in IF assessment after instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using tantalum intervertebral implants. The study hypothesis was that fusion following PLIF can be assessed on MRI. Materials and methodA single-center retrospective study included 52 single-level PLIF procedures (42 for degenerative disc disease and 10 for isthmic spondylolisthesis) using 2 tantalum intervertebral cages without interbody bone graft. Fusion was assessed at 1 year on static and dynamic X-ray and on MRI with a dedicated protocol. Two senior osteoarticular radiologists screened frontal and sagittal MRI slices for continuous cancellous interbody bridges. Consolidation was considered acquired (grade I) in case of continuous bridges on at least 2 successive frontal or sagittal slices, possible (grade II) in case of continuous bridge on just 1 slice, or absent (grade III) in case of no or discontinuous bridge. ResultsForty-eight patients were included, with a mean 55 months’ follow-up (range, 25–74 months). There were no hardware failures. Intervertebral mobility on dynamic X-ray was systematically less than 5°. Fusion on MRI was grade I in 71% of cases, grade II in 8% and grade III in 21%. Interobserver agreement was 100% on X-ray and 81% on MRI, with kappa coefficient=0.56 (range, 0.35–0.77). DiscussionTantalum implants without bone autograft enabled satisfactory standard radiographic study. MRI provided imperfect assessment of fusion, being contributive only in case of positive findings (71% in the present study); when no bridge is detected on MRI, no conclusion can be drawn. Progress in CT to reduce artifacts may improve fusion assessment, unless bone integration on both sides of the implant is considered to be sufficient for interbody continuity, without a continuous bone bridge between endplates being a requirement. Level of evidenceIV.

Postoperative pain after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: is it worth it?

Introduction Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is a widely accepted procedure for many lumbar degenerative disorders. However, it has been suspected for causing significant postoperative pain in the first few months. Patients and methods This prospective study included 36 consecutive patients who underwent a single-level PLIF procedure and were followed up for at least 1 year. At one-year follow-up, there were 20 females and 16 males, with an average age of 60.7 y (range: 39–81 y). All patients were operated in a standardized fashion, with bone graft taken from the iliac crest. Postoperatively, all patients received a standardized analgesic regimen. The modified Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog score (VAS) were assessed preoperatively, at 3 months, at 6 months, and at 1 year postoperatively. Patients who had an obvious surgical reason for postoperative pain such as pedicular screw misplacement, postoperative hematoma, infection, wound problems, loose osseous fragment impingement on neural structures and postoperative pedicle, vertebral body, endplate fracture, or sacroiliac joint violation were excluded from the study. Results The most common indication for PLIF was lumbar stenosis with instability (n=18) and at 1-year follow-up, all 36 patients achieved bony intervertebral body fusion. The average preoperative ODI was 67.33% (range: 56–82%), and the mean preoperative VAS was 7 (range: 5–9). At 3 months, there was a significant improvement in relation to the preoperative ODI and VAS (P less than 0.0001 for both). Yet, at 6 months and at one year, there was a significant improvement when compared with the preoperative ODI and VAS (P Conclusion For many patients, PLIF is a painful experience, and strict adherence to the details of the operation are necessary to optimize the overall outcome. Still, the iliac crest graft is a major source of postoperative pain, although there is a significant overall improvement of the ODI and VAS at 1 year, and most patients report that they benefited from this operation. This series is based only on a single-center experience, and hence larger multicentric studies are needed to produce reliable data. Confounding this small series is individual pain perception and the inherent subjectivity of the ODI and the VAS.

Characterizing the Risk and Outcome Profiles of Lumbar Fusion Procedures in Patients With Opioid Use Disorders: A Step Towards Improving Enhanced Recovery Protocols for a Unique Patient Population

Abstract INTRODUCTION This national-level study sought to provide a necessary assessment of the risks and outcomes for different lumbar fusion procedures in patients with opioid use disorders (OUDs) to help guide the future development of targeted enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for this unique population. METHODS Data for patients with or without OUDs who underwent an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), or lateral transverse lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar disc degeneration (LDD) were collected from the 2013 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample. Multivariable logistic regression was implemented to analyze how OUD impacted in-hospital complications, length of hospitalization, discharge disposition, and total charges by procedure type. RESULTS A total of 139 995 patients with LDD were identified, with 1280 patients (0.91%) also having a concurrent OUD diagnosis. Overall complication rates were higher in OUD patients (48.44% vs 31.01%; P &lt; .0001). OUD patients had higher odds of pulmonary (P = .0006), infectious (P &lt; .0001), and hematological complications (P = .0009). Multivariate regression modeling of outcomes by procedure type showed that following ALIF, OUD increased odds of nonhome discharge (P = .0007), extended hospitalization (P = .0002), and greater total charges (P = .0054). This analysis also revealed that OUD increased odds of complication (P = .0149 and P = .0471), extended hospitalization (P = .0439 and P = .0001), and higher total charges (P &lt; .0001) following PLIF and LLIF procedures, respectively. CONCLUSION Obtaining a better understanding of the risks and outcomes that OUD patients face perioperatively is a necessary step towards developing more effective ERAS protocols for this vulnerable population. This study, which sought to characterize outcome profiles for lumbar fusion procedures in OUD patients on a national level, found this population experienced increased odds of complication, extended hospitalization, nonhome discharge, and higher total charges. Results from this study warrant future prospective studies to better understand these associations and further the development of ERAS programs to improve patient care and reduce cost burden.

Characterizing the risk and outcome profiles of lumbar fusion procedures in patients with opioid use disorders: a step toward improving enhanced recovery protocols for a unique patient population.

OBJECTIVEThe authors set out to conduct the first national-level study assessing the risks and outcomes for different lumbar fusion procedures in patients with opioid use disorders (OUDs) to help guide the future development of targeted enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for this unique population.METHODSData for patients with or without OUDs who underwent an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), or lateral transverse lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar disc degeneration (LDD) were collected from the 2013-2014 National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample database. Multivariable logistic regression was implemented to analyze how OUD status impacted in-hospital complications, length of hospital stay, discharge disposition, and total charges by procedure type.RESULTSA total of 139,995 patients with LDD were identified, with 1280 patients (0.91%) also having a concurrent OUD diagnosis. Overall complication rates were higher in OUD patients (48.44% vs 31.01%, p < 0.0001). OUD patients had higher odds of pulmonary (p = 0.0006), infectious (p < 0.0001), and hematological (p = 0.0009) complications. Multivariate regression modeling of outcomes by procedure type showed that after ALIF, OUD patients had higher odds of nonhome discharge (p = 0.0007), extended hospitalization (p = 0.0002), and greater total charges (p = 0.0054). This analysis also revealed that OUD patients faced higher odds of complication (p = 0.0149 and p = 0.0471), extended hospitalization (p = 0.0439 and p = 0.0001), and higher total charges (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001) after PLIF and LLIF procedures, respectively.CONCLUSIONSObtaining a better understanding of the risks and outcomes that OUD patients face perioperatively is a necessary step toward developing more effective ERAS protocols for this vulnerable population. This study, which sought to characterize the outcome profiles for lumbar fusion procedures in OUD patients on a national level, found that this population tended to experience increased odds of complications, extended hospitalization, nonhome discharge, and higher total costs. Results from this study warrant future prospective studies to better the understanding of these associations and to further the development of better ERAS programs that may improve patient care and reduce cost burden.

Effect of osteoporosis on the clinical and radiological outcomes following one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion

BackgroundCage subsidence or pedicle screw loosening following lumbar fusion surgery is frequently reported in osteoporotic patients. However, few studies have analyzed clinical as well as radiological outcomes after such surgeries as a function of bone mineral density. We aimed to evaluate the impact of osteoporosis on the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). MethodsFifty-five non-osteoporotic (T-score ≥ −1.0) and 31 osteoporotic (T-score ≤ −2.5) patients who underwent one-level PLIF were followed up for >2 years. Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) parameters were assessed. Fusion success was identified with dynamic plain radiographs and computed tomography. Pedicle screw loosening and cage subsidence were evaluated. The clinical and radiological parameters were compared between osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic patients. Subgroup analysis was performed on cage subsidence or screw loosening. ResultsAlthough VAS score for back pain was higher in osteoporotic patients than in non-osteoporotic patients at 6 months postoperatively (3.3 vs. 2.2, P = 0.062), this difference disappeared at 1 year postoperatively (2.9 vs. 2.5, P = 0.606). However, no differences were noted between the groups in ODI and EQ-5D grades. Cage subsidence (65.4% vs. 17.6%, P < 0.001) and screw loosening rates (32.3% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.029) were significantly higher in osteoporotic patients than in non-osteoporotic patients, but fusion rate did not differ between the groups. Although clinical outcomes did not differ between those who had cage subsidence or screw loosening and those who did not, fusion rate was lower in those who showed screw loosening than those who did not (71.4% vs. 93.9%, P = 0.038). ConclusionsHigher cage subsidence and pedicle screw loosening rates in osteoporotic patients did not significantly affect the clinical outcomes, but screw loosening, which occurred more frequently in older patients, significantly reduced the fusion success rate. Thus, PLIF procedure may be a good surgical treatment option to achieve good clinical outcomes, even in osteoporotic patients despite higher rates of cage subsidence and pedicle screw loosening. However, surgeons should monitor screw loosening because of its significant association with non-union.

Modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented with bone cement in the treatment of senile degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: study protocol for a self-controlled trial

Background and objectives: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion is the main repair method for senile degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. For elderly patients with osteoporosis, single screw rod system fixation regularly results in dislocation. The incidence of implant loosening is high, and therefore, effective internal fixation is not achieved. Thus, this study will use the modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure combined with bone cement augmentation for the treatment of senile degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis so as to increase the stability of the vertebral body, make the fixator firm, and to maximize the recovery of postoperative motor function. Design: This is a prospective, single-center, self-controlled trial. Methods: 113 patients with senile degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, aged 65–70 years, irrespective of sex, will be recruited from the Department of Orthopedics of Affiliated Hospital of Qinghai University of China. The patients will be treated with modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with bone cement augmentation. Follow-up will be performed at 3 and 12 months. Outcome measures: The primary outcome measure is recovery of motor function as indicated by the postoperative Oswestry Disability Index score at 12 months. The secondary outcome measures are the change in the rate of excellent and good Oswestry Disability Index scores (comparing preoperative scores with the 4-month postoperative scores), Visual Analogue Scale scores, intervertebral space height, foraminal height, the preoperative and 4 and 14 months postoperative slip distance and slip angle, incidence of adverse reactions, success rate of vertebral fusion, and incidence of secondary slip 4 and 14 months postoperatively. Discussion: This trial aims to observe the efficacy of modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with bone cement augmentation in the treatment of senile degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and to validate whether the procedure is safe and reliable. Ethics and dissemination: This trial has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Affiliated Hospital of Qinghai University of China (approval number: QHY023G). The study protocol will be proformed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, formulated by the World Medical Association. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. This trial was designed in October 2017. The recruitment of subjects and data collection will begin in June 2018. The recruitment will be finished in December 2018. Outcome measures will be analyzed in January 2020. This trial will be completed in February 2020. The results of the trial will be reported in a scientific conference or disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration: This trial had been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR1800015335). Protocol version (1.0).

Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion

BackgroundThe benefits of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) as a minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis have been unclear. We sought to evaluate the invasiveness and tolerability of XLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS) compared with traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).MethodsFifty-six consecutive patients underwent open PLIF and 46 consecutive patients underwent single-staged treatment with XLIF with posterior PPS fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, and were followed up for a minimum of 1 year. We analyzed postoperative serum makers for muscle damage and inflammation, postoperative surgical pain, and performance status. A Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were obtained at the time of hospital admission and 1 year after surgery.ResultsIntraoperative blood loss (51 ± 41 ml in the XLIF/PPS group and 206 ± 191 ml in the PLIF group), postoperative WBC counts and serum CRP levels in the XLIF/PPS group were significantly lower than in the PLIF group. Postoperative serum CK levels were significantly lower in the XLIF/PPS group on postoperative days 4 and 7. Postoperative recovery of performance was significantly greater in the XLIF/PPS group than in the PLIF group from postoperative days 2 to 7. ODI and visual analog scale (VAS) score (lumbar) 1 year after surgery were significantly lower in the XLIF/PPS group compared with the PLIF group.ConclusionsThe XLIF/PPS procedure is advantageous to minimize blood loss and muscle damage, with consequent earlier recovery of daily activities and reduced incidence of low back pain after surgery than with the open PLIF procedure.

The Correlation Between Cage Subsidence, Bone Mineral Density, and Clinical Results in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

A retrospective review of prospectively collected radiographic and clinical data. This study aims to investigate the relationship between cage subsidence and bone mineral density (BMD), and to reveal the clinical implications of cage subsidence. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has become one of the standard treatment modality for lumbar degenerative disease. However, cage subsidence might result in recurrent foraminal stenosis and deteriorate the clinical results. Furthermore, numbers of osteoporosis patients who underwent PLIF are increasing. Therefore, the information on the correlations between cage subsidence, BMD, and clinical results will be of great significance. A total 139 segments was included in this retrospective study. We examined functional rating index (Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form-36 score) preoperatively, and investigated their changes after postoperative 1 year. Correlation between cage subsidence and clinical scores was investigated. Plain anteroposterior and lateral radiograph were taken preoperatively and postoperatively and during follow-up. Preoperative BMD and subsidence measured by postoperative 1 year 3-dimensional computed tomography were achieved and their correlation was assessed. All postoperative clinical scores improved significantly compared with preoperative ones (pain Visual Analogue Scale: 7.34-2.89, Oswestry Disability Index: 25.34-15.86, Short Form-36: 26.45-16.46, all P<0.001). BMD showed significant weak correlation with subsidence (r=-0.285, P<0.001). Severe osteoporotic segments (T score <-3.0) had more risk to develop severe subsidence (>3 mm) compared with the segments in which T score were higher than -3.0 (P=0.012), and its odds ratio was 8.44. Subsidence had no significant correlation with all clinical scores. This study revealed that cage subsidence is relevant to BMD. However, it was demonstrated that subsidence is not related to the clinical deterioration. Therefore, PLIF procedure which is conducted carefully can be a good surgical option to treat lumbar degenerative disease for osteoporotic patients.

Complication Rates in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) Surgery With Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2: Medicare Population.

Study Design:Retrospective cohort study among Medicare beneficiaries who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery.Objective:To identify the complication rates associated with the use of bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) in PLIF. Human BMP2 is commonly used in the “off-label” manner for various types of spine fusion procedures, including PLIF. However, recent studies have reported potential complications associated with the recombinant human BMP2 (rhBMP2) use in the posterior approach.Methods:Medicare records within the PearlDiver database were queried for patients undergoing PLIF procedure with and without rhBMP2 between 2005 and 2010. We evaluated complications within 1 year postoperatively. Chi-square was used to compare the complication rates between the 2 groups.Results:A total of 8609 patients underwent PLIF procedure with or without rhBMP2. Individual complication rates in the rhBMP2 group ranged from 0.45% to 7.68% compared with 0.65% to 10.99 in the non-rhBMP2 group. Complication rates for cardiac, pulmonary, lumbosacral neuritis, infection, wound, and urinary tract (include acute kidney failure and post-operative complications) were significantly lower in the rhBMP2 group (P < .05). There was no difference in the rates of central nervous system complications or radiculitis between the 2 groups.Conclusion:Our data showed that the patients who received rhBMP2 had lower complication rates compared to the non-rhBMP2 group. However, use of rhBMP2 was associated with a higher rate of pseudarthrosis. We did not observe any difference in radiculitis and central nervous system complications between the groups.