Prior Lumbar Fusion Research Articles

Transforaminal Versus Lateral Interbody Fusions for Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease in the Lumbar Spine.

Retrospective comparative study. This study compared outcomes for patients managed with a lateral approach to interbody fusion [lateral (LLIF) or oblique (OLIF)] versus a posterior (PLIF) or transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of adjacent segment disease (ASD) above or below a prior lumbar fusion construct. No study has compared outcomes of lateral approaches to more traditional posterior approaches for the treatment of ASD. Retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent single-level lateral or posterior approaches for lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic ASD between January 2010 and December 2021. Exclusion criteria included skeletal immaturity (age below 18y old) and surgery indication for malignancy or infection. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, operative details, postoperative complications, and revision surgery profiles were collected for all patients. Standard descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. Comparative statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 28.0.1.0; Chicago, IL). A total of 152 patients (65±10y) were included in the study with a mean duration of follow-up of 1.6±1.4 years. The cohort included 123 PLIF/TLIF (81%), 18 LLIF (12%), 11 OLIF (7%). TLIF/PLIF experienced greater mean operative time (210±62min vs. 184±80 OLIF/105±64 LLIF, P<0.001) and estimated blood loss (414±254mL vs. 49±29 OLIF/36±33 LLIF, P<0.001). No significant difference in rate of postoperative complications. Postoperative radicular pain was significantly greater in OLIF (7, 64%) and LLIF (7, 39%) compared with PLIF/TLIF (16, 13%), P<0.001. No statistically significant difference in health care utilization was noted between the groups. Lateral fusions to treat ASD demonstrated no significantly different risk of complication compared with posterior approaches. Our study demonstrated significantly increased operative time and estimated blood loss for the posterior approach and an increased risk of radicular pain from manipulation/retraction of psoas following lateral approaches. Level III.

Patients With a History of Lumbar Fusion Have a Greater Risk of Revision Arthroscopy and Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty After Primary Hip Arthroscopy

PurposeTo characterize the risk of revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) among patients with a history of lumbar fusion undergoing primary hip arthroscopy. MethodsWe used the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, an administrative database including all ambulatory and inpatient surgery encounters in New York (NY), to identify all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI between 2010–2020. Patients with prior lumbar fusion were identified using CPT and ICD 9th/10th Revision coding definitions. Patients with and without prior fusion were matched in a 1:5 ratio according to age and comorbidity burden. The number of levels fused was defined in the following fashion: i) no fusion, ii) 1-2 levels, or iii) ≥3 levels. Patients were followed for two years to evaluate the rate of revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to THA. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to measure the association between number of levels fused and revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to THA. ResultsBetween 2010–2020, there were 23,277 patients that underwent primary hip arthroscopy in NY state. Of these, 348 (1.4%) had a prior lumbar fusion. After matching for age and comorbidities, the composite rate of revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to THA was higher in patients with prior lumbar fusion compared to patients without (16.5% vs. 8.5%; P < 0.001). This risk increased with the number of levels fused (1-2 levels: 15.1%; aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3–2.6; vs. ≥3 levels: 26.3%; aOR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7–7.0). ConclusionPatients with a history of lumbar fusion had significantly higher rates of revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to THA compared to patients without prior fusion. The risk of revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to THA was increased approximately 2-fold in patients with 1-2 levels fused and 3-fold in patients with 3 or more levels fused. Level of EvidenceLevel III, prognostic retrospective matched comparative case series.

Incidence, treatment, and outcomes of modern dual-mobility intraprosthetic dissociations.

Dual-mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a rare complication of DM that is believed to have decreased with contemporary implants. This study aimed to report incidence, treatment, and outcomes of contemporary DM IPD. A total of 1,453 DM components were implanted at a single academic institution between January 2010 and December 2021: 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. Of these, 49 presented with a dislocation of the large DM head and five presented with an IPD. At the time of closed reduction of the large DM dislocation, six additional IPDs occurred. The mean age was 64 years (SD 9.6), 54.5% were female (n = 6), and mean follow-up was 4.2 years (SD 1.8). Of the 11 IPDs, seven had a history of instability, five had abductor insufficiency, four had prior lumbar fusion, and two were conversions for failed fracture management. The incidence of IPD was 0.76%. Of the 11 IPDs, ten were missed either at presentation or after attempted reduction. All ten patients with a missed IPD were discharged with a presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was three weeks (0 to 23). One patient died after IPD prior to revision. Of the ten remaining hips with IPD, the DM head was exchanged in two, four underwent acetabular revision with DM exchange, and four were revised to a constrained liner. Of these, five (50%) underwent reoperation at a mean 1.8 years (SD 0.73), including one additional acetabular revision. No patients who underwent initial acetabular revision for IPD treatment required subsequent reoperation. The overall rate of IPD was low at 0.76%. It is essential to identify an IPD on radiographs as the majority were missed at presentation or after iatrogenic dissociation. Surgeons should consider acetabular revision for IPD to allow conversion to a larger DM head, and take care to remove impinging structures that may increase the risk of subsequent failure.

Effect of revision sacroiliac joint fusion on unresolved pain and disability: a retrospective cohort study.

The sacroiliac (SI) joint is recognized as a source of low back pain in 15-30% of patients. Though randomized controlled trials have shown clinical improvement following SI joint fusion in 83.1% of patients, revision rates of 2.9% within 2years have been reported. There is a paucity of literature reviewing this small yet significant population of patients requiring revision surgery. Following IRB approval, retrospective review of patients, who underwent a revision SI joint fusion from 2009 to 2021 was completed. Patient-reported outcomes were measured before and at each clinic visit after surgery with visual analoge scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patient characteristics (chronic opiate use and prior lumbar fusion) and surgical factors (operative approach, type/number of implants and use of bone graft) were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with Paired t and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression determined if patients met the minimally clinical important differences (MCID) for VAS-back pain and ODI scores at 1year. Fifty-two patients (77% female) with an average age of 49.1 (SD ± 11.1) years met inclusion criteria. Forty-four had single sided revisions and eight bilateral revisions. At 1year follow-up there was no significant improvement in VAS-Back (p = 0.06) or ODI (p = 0.06). Patients with chronic opioid use were 8.5 times less likely to achieve the MDC for ODI scores (OR 0.118, p = 0.029). There was no difference in outcomes when comparing the different surgical approaches (p = 0.41). Our study demonstrates patients undergoing revision surgery have moderate improvement in low back pain, however, few have complete resolution of their symptoms. Specific patient factors, such as chronic opiate use and female sex may decrease the expected improvement in patient-reported outcomes following surgery. Failure to obtain relief may be due to incorrect indications, lack of biologic fusion and/or presence of co-pathologies. Further clinical examination and consistent long-term follow-up, clarify the role revision surgery plays in long-term patient outcomes.

Nationwide Analysis of Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Trends: Regional Variations in Utilization and Population Characteristics.

Retrospective cohort analysis. This study evaluates utilization and demographic trends for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusions across the United States (US). Patients who underwent SIJ fusion from 2010-2021 were identified within the PearlDiver national database using International Classification of Disease (ICD-9, ICD-10) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Indications for trauma, malignancy, or infection were excluded. Demographic, clinical, and procedure characteristics were recorded along with annual utilization rates. Annual percent change (APC) was calculated to identify increasing or decreasing utilization from prior years. Negative binomial regression was performed to project subsequent utilization for 2022-2028. Chi-squared analysis followed by post-hoc comparisons were used to compare differences in diagnostic indications and clinical features associated with SIJ fusion across regions. Bonferroni adjustments were applied to P-values for pairwise analyses. Overall, 18032 patients (69.8% female, mean age = 51.0 + 13.4years) underwent SIJ fusion between 2010 and 2021. Annual utilization increased by 33.5% on average. The South comprised the largest proportion of cases (48.9%). Projections for 2022-2028 predict continued growth in procedures, with an overall increase of 1100% from 1350 cases in 2021 to 16195 by end of 2028. Spondyloarthropathy-induced sacroilitis was the most prevalent diagnostic indication nationwide (51%). Of patients undergoing SIJ fusion, 18% had a prior lumbar fusion, and only 45% received a preoperative diagnostic SIJ injection. As SIJ fusion is increasingly utilized to treat refractory SIJ-based pain, establishing evidence-based guidelines, improving diagnostic strategies, and defining indications are imperative to support growing applications within clinical practice.

INCIDENCE, TREATMENT, AND OUTCOME OF MODERN DUAL MOBILITY DISSOCIATIONS

Dual mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a known rare complication of these implants and has reportedly decreased with modern implants. The purpose of this paper is to report the diagnosis and treatment of modern DM IPD.1453 DM components were implanted between 2010 and 2021. 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. 49 hips sustained a dislocation of the large head and 5 sustained an IPD at presentation. 6 additional IPD occurred at the time of reduction of large head. The average age was 64, 54% were female and the mean follow-up was three years. Of the 11 IPD, 8 had a history of instability, 5 had abductor insufficiency, 4 had prior lumbar fusion, and 3 were conversions from fracture.The overall IPD incidence was 0.76%. Ten of the 11 DM IPD were missed at initial presentation or at the time of reduction, and all were discharged with presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was 3 weeks. One patient died with an IPD at 5 months. A DM head was reimplanted in six, two underwent revision of the acetabular component with exchange of DM head, and four were revised to a constrained liner. The re-revision rate was 55% at a mean 1.8 years. None of the patients who underwent cup revision required subsequent re-revision while half of the constrained liners and exchange of DM heads required re-revision.The overall rate of DM dislocation or IPD is low. It is critical to identify an IPD on radiographs as it was almost universally missed at presentation or when it occurred iatrogenically. For patients presenting with IPD, the surgeon should consider acetabular revision and conversion to a constrained liner or a larger DM, with special attention to removing impinging structures that could increase the risk of re-dislocation.

Can a bioactive interbody device reduce the cost burden of achieving lateral lumbar fusion?

Intervertebral devices are increasingly utilized for fusion in the lumbar spine, along with a variety of bone graft materials. These various grafting materials often have substantial cost burdens for the surgical procedure, although they are necessary to overcome the limitations in healing capacity for many traditional interbody devices. The use of bioactive interbody fusion devices, which have demonstrable stimulatory capacity for the surrounding osteoblasts and osteoprogenitor cells and allow for osseointegration, may reduce this heavy reliance on osteobiologics for achieving interbody fusion. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of successful interbody fusion with a bioactive lateral lumbar interbody titanium implant with limited volume and low-cost graft material. The authors conducted a retrospective study (May 2017 to October 2018) of consecutively performed lateral lumbar interbody fusions with a bioactive 3D-printed porous titanium interbody device. Each interbody device was filled with 2-3 cm3/cage of a commercially available ceramic bone extender (β-tricalcium phosphate-hydroxyapatite) and combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation. No other biological agents or grafts were utilized. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic variables were captured. Fusion success was the primary endpoint of the study, with graft subsidence, fixation failure, and patient-reported outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] and visual analog scale [VAS]-back and -leg pain scores) collected as secondary endpoints. The authors utilized a CT-based fusion classification system that accounted for both intervertebral through-growth (bone bridging) and ingrowth (integration of bone at the endplate-implant interface). In total, 136 lumbar levels were treated in 90 patients. The mean age was 69 years, and 63% of the included patients were female. Half (50.0%) had undergone previous spinal surgery, and a third (33.7%) had undergone prior lumbar fusion. A third (33.7%) were treated at multiple levels (mean levels per patient 1.51). One year after surgery, the mean improvements in patient-reported outcomes (vs preoperative scores) were -17.8 for ODI (p < 0.0001), -3.1 for VAS-back pain (p < 0.0001), and -2.9 for VAS-leg pain (p < 0.0001). Bone bridging and/or appositional integrity was achieved in 99.3% of patients, including 97.8% who had complete bone bridging. No fixation loosening or implant failure was observed at any segment. Low-grade graft subsidence (Marchi grade ≤ I) occurred in 3 levels (2.2%), and intraoperative endplate violation occurred twice (1.5%). High-grade subsidence was not found. No implant failure or revision surgery for pseudarthrosis/subsidence was necessary. The use of bioactive titanium interbody devices with a large surface footprint appears to result in a very high rate of effective fusion, despite the use of a small volume of low-cost biological material. This potential change in the osteobiologics required to achieve high fusion rates may have a substantially beneficial impact on the economic burden inherent to spinal fusion.

Instrumentation choice and early radiographic outcome following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): Lateral instrumentation versus posterior pedicle screw fixation

BackgroundLateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive fusion procedure that may be performed with or without supplemental instrumentation. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the effect of supplemental instrumentation technique on perioperative morbidity and fusion rate in LLIF. MethodsA single-institutional retrospective review of patients who underwent LLIF for lumbar spondylosis was conducted. Patients were grouped according to supplemental instrumentation technique: stand-alone LLIF, LLIF with laterally placed instrumentation, or LLIF with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF). Outcomes included fusion rates, peri-operative complication, and reoperation; estimated blood loss (EBL); surgery duration; length of stay; and length of follow-up. Results82 patients underwent LLIF at 114 levels. 35 patients (42.7%) received supplemental lateral instrumentation, 30 (36.6%) received supplemental PPSF, and 17 (20.7%) underwent stand-alone LLIF. More patients in the lateral instrumentation group had prior lumbar fusion at adjacent levels (23/35, 65.71%) versus stand-alone (3/17, 17.6%) or PPSF (2/30, 6.67%) groups (p = 0.003). 4/17 patients (23.5%) with stand-alone LLIF and 4/35 patients (11.42%) with lateral instrumentation underwent reoperation, versus 0/30 with PPSF (p = 0.030). There was no difference in fusion rates between groups (p = 0.717). Operation duration was longer in patients with PPSF (p < 0.005) and length of follow-up was longer for PPSF than lateral instrumentation (p = 0.001). Choice of instrumentation group was a statistically significant predictor of reoperation. ConclusionsWhile rates of complete radiographic fusion on imaging follow-up didn't differ, patients receiving PPSF were less likely than stand-alone or lateral instrumentation groups to require reoperation, though operative time was significantly longer. Further study of choice of supplemental instrumentation with LLIF is indicated.

PO013 / #762 POSTERIOR APPROACH SI JOINT FUSION: PAIN REDUCTION, FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES, OPIOID CONSUMPTION, AND PATIENT SATISFACTION: 5 CENTER, 115 PATIENT CASE SERIES: E-POSTER VIEWING

Sacroiliac joint dysfunction is a common source of chronic low back pain. Medical literature suggests that 15-30% 1 of chronic low back pain has a SIJ pain source. Interestingly, this number increases to 40% 2 , some studies demonstrating as high as 63% 3, in patients with a prior lumbar fusion. A novel, minimally invasive, posterior approach to SIJ stabilization has demonstrated meaningful clinical improvement in patients suffering from SIJ dysfunction.

134. Lumbar total disc replacement for the treatment of adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> One of the potential problems associated with lumbar fusion is the development of adjacent segment degeneration. While there may be debate over the incidence and causes of ASD, it does exist and for patients with significant symptoms, merits treatment. There is little information available specifically on the treatment of this condition. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcome of lumbar TDR used to treat adjacent segment degeneration after prior lumbar fusion. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> This study was based on retrospective record review combined with a mailing to collect current outcome data. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> The study was based on 30 consecutive patients, beginning with first case experience in 2005, who underwent lumbar TDR at one or more levels adjacent to a prior fusion to treat symptomatic disc degeneration unresponsive to nonoperative care. The median number of lumbar spine surgeries prior to TDR was 2. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> The outcome measures used in the study included visual analog scales (VAS) assessing back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability index (ODI), and the occurrence of re-operations. <h3>METHODS</h3> Records of patients undergoing TDR were reviewed and those who had previously undergone lumbar fusion were identified. Charts were reviewed to collect general patient data, surgical details, and clinical outcome measures. Mailings were sent to patients who had not been seen recently in the clinic to collect current outcome data. <h3>RESULTS</h3> The mean follow-up duration after TDR was 76.6 months. A total of 40 TDRs were implanted in the 30 patients. The most frequently operated level was L4-5 above a prior L5-S1 fusion. The VAS back pain and ODI scores improved significantly from pre-TDR to final follow-up (VAS back pain from 7.3 to 4.6, p <0.001 and ODI scores 48.9 to 32.4, p <0.025). VAS leg pain scores improved, but not significantly (4.4 to 3.6). Three patients (10.0%) underwent additional lumbar spinal surgery after the TDR procedure. These included one patient undergoing a discectomy at an upper lumbar level following a fall, one patient underwent multiple surgeries at a remote facility to perform instrumented posterior fusion at the TDR level and the level fused anteriorly prior to the TDR surgery, and the third patient received a spinal cord stimulator after TDR and reported he later had surgery performed remotely to add posterior supplemental fixation at the TDR level due to instability. <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> While there is much literature discussing the occurrence and possible mechanisms of lumbar adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar fusion, less information is available on the treatment of this condition. The current study found that TDR can be used effectively for treating adjacent segment degeneration providing the patient is an appropriate candidate for this procedure. In evaluating these patients, particular attention must be paid to the condition of the facet joints to ensure TDR is not contra-indicated. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> Charite, ProDisc-L, activL (Not approved for this indication)

Total knee arthroplasty in patients with lumbar spinal fusion leads to significant changes in pelvic tilt and sacral slope.

The knee-hip-spine syndrome has been well elucidated in the literature in recent years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on spinopelvic sagittal alignment in patients with and without pre-TKA lumber spinal fusion. This is a retrospective cohort study of 113 patients who underwent TKA for primary osteoarthritis. Patients were stratified into the following three groups: (1) patients who had pre-TKA spinal fusion (SF, n = 19), (2) patients who had no spinal fusion but experienced pre-TKA flexion contracture (FC, n = 20), and (3) patients without flexion contracture or spinal fusion before TKA (no SF/FC, n = 74). Spinopelvic sagittal alignment parameters, including pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), thoracic kyphosis (TK), and plumb line-sacrum distance (SVA) were measured preoperatively and 3months postoperatively on lateral standing full-body low-dose images. TKA resulted in significant pre- to postoperative changes in pelvic tilt (average ∆ PT = -8.6°, p = 0.018) and sacral slope (average ∆ SS = 8.6°, p = 0.037) in the spinal fusion (SF) group. Non-significant changes in spinopelvic sagittal alignment parameters (PT, SS, LL, TK, SVA) were noted postoperatively in all patients in the FC and the no SF/FC groups. TKA can lead to meaningful changes in spinopelvic alignment in patients with prior lumbar fusion compared to those without spinal fusion. Patients with spinal fusion who are candidates for both hip and knee replacements should consider undergoing TKA first since changes in spinopelvic sagittal alignment can increase the risk of future complications. Retrospective Cohort Study.

Risk of Dislocation and Revision Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Prior Lumbar Fusion With Spinopelvic Fixation

BackgroundThe effect of spinopelvic fixation in addition to lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) on dislocation/instability and revision in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has not been reported previously. MethodsThe PearlDiver Research Program was used to identify patients aged 30 and above undergoing primary THA who received (1) THA only, (2) THA with prior single-level LSF, (3) THA with prior 2-5 level LSF, or (4) THA with prior LSF with spinopelvic fixation. The incidence of THA revision and dislocation/instability was compared through logistic regression and Chi-squared analysis. All regressions were controlled for age, gender, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI). ResultsBetween 2010 and 2018, 465,558 patients without history of LSF undergoing THA were examined and compared to 180 THA patients with prior spinopelvic fixation, 5,299 with prior single-level LSF, and 1,465 with prior 2-5 level LSF. At 2 years, 7.8% of THA patients with prior spinopelvic fixation, 4.7% of THA patients with prior 2-5 level LSF, 4.2% of THA patients with prior single-level LSF, and 2.2% of THA patients undergoing only THA had a dislocation event or instability (P < .0001). After controlling for length of fusion, pelvic fixation itself was associated with higher independent risk of revision (at 2 years: 2-5 level LSF + spinopelvic fixation: aHR = 3.15, 95% CI 1.77-5.61, P < .0001 vs 2-5 level LSF with no spinopelvic fixation: aOR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.76, P < .0001). ConclusionAt 2 years, spinopelvic fixation in THA patients were associated with a greater than 3.5-fold increase in hip dislocation risk compared to those without LSF, and an over 2-fold increase in THA revision risk compared to those with LSF without spinopelvic fixation. Level of EvidenceIII.

Does Prior Lumbar Fusion Influence Dislocation Risk in Hip Arthroplasty Performed for Femoral Neck Fracture?

Immobility of the lumbar spine predicts instability following elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to determine how prior lumbar fusion (LF) influenced dislocation rates and revision rates for patients undergoing THA or hemiarthroplasty (HA) for femoral neck fracture (FNF). A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted utilizing the PearlDiver database from 2010 to 2018. Patients who underwent arthroplasty for FNF were identified based on history of LF and whether they underwent THA or HA. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. A total of 328 patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent THA were at increased risk for 1-year dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, P < .001) and 2-year revision (OR 2.22, P < .001) compared to 14,217 patients without LF. The 461 patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent HA were at increased risk for dislocation (OR 2.22, P < .001) compared to 42,327 patients without LF. Patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent THA had higher rates of revision than patients with prior LF who underwent HA for FNF (OR 2.11, P < .001). In patients with prior LF and FNF, THA was associated with significantly increased risk for dislocation (OR 3.07, P < .001) and revision (OR 2.53, P < .001) compared to THA performed for osteoarthritis. Patients with prior LF who sustained an FNF and underwent THA or HA were at increased risk for early dislocation and revision compared to those without prior LF. This risk of dislocation and revision is even greater than that observed in patients with prior LF who underwent THA for osteoarthritis. Level III.

Reducing Postoperative Opioid-prescribing Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion Does Not Significantly Change Patient Satisfaction.

Retrospective comparative; LOE-3. The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, an institutional opioid reduction prescribing policy following one- or two-level lumbar fusion has on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey results. Previous research has demonstrated that high levels of opioid-prescribing may be related, in part, to a desire to produce superior patient satisfaction. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted on patients who underwent one- or two-level lumbar fusions L3-S1 between October 2014 and October 2019 at a single institution. Patients with complete survey information were included in the analysis. Patients with a history of trauma, fracture, spinal deformity, fusions more than two levels, or prior lumbar fusion surgery L3-S1 were excluded. Cohorts were based on date of surgery relative to implementation of an institutional opioid reduction policy, which commenced in October 1, 2018. To better compare groups, opioid prescriptions were converted into milligram morphine equivalents (MME). A total of 330 patients met inclusion criteria: 259 pre-protocol, 71 post-protocol. There were 256 one-level fusions and 74 two-level fusions included. There were few statistically significant differences between groups with respect to patient demographics (P > 0.05) with the exception of number of patients who saw the pain management service, which increased from 36.7% (95) pre-protocol to 59.2% (42) post-protocol; P < 0.001. Estimated blood loss (EBL) decreased from 533 ± 571 mL to 346 ± 328 mL (P = 0.003). Percentage of patients who underwent concomitant laminectomy decreased from 71.8% to 49.3% (P < 0.001). Average opioids prescribed on discharge in the pre-protocol period was 534 ± 425 MME, compared to after initiation of the protocol, that is 320 ± 174 MME (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference with respect to satisfaction with pain control, 4.49 ± 0.85 pre-protocol versus 4.51 ± 0.82 post-protocol (P = 0.986). A reduction in opioids prescribed at discharge after one- or two-level lumbar fusion is not associated with any statistically significant change in patient satisfaction with pain management, as measured by the HCAHPS survey.Level of Evidence: 3.

Spondylolisthesis at L4/5 but Fixation of L4, L5 and S1 Reduces the Rate of Adjacent Segment Degeneration

Study background: Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a common phenomenon seen in patients who have undergone prior lumbar fusion surgery is characterized by degeneration and/or stenosis. Treatment for ASD includes extension of the fusion with a posterior approach, with direct decompression of the neural elements when indicated. Methods: 54 patients of spondylolisthesis involving L4/5 level were included in this study that were operated from January 2012 to December 2020 in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University and few private hospital in Dhaka who failed to respond in conservative treatment. 30 patients were male and 24 were female. patients were evaluated by clinical finding (low back pain, sensory, motor and jerks) VAS score, ODI score, JOA score, modified Macnab’s criteria, claudication distance, X-ray lumbosacral spine AP and lateral view, MRI of lumbosacral spine, CT scan of lumbosacral spine. P value of less than 0.05 was level significance. Results: Mean (± SD) age of the patients was 56.29 ± 8.13 with highest age being 68 years and lowest being 41 years. 40 were male and 24 were female. Preoperative VAS score (for both back pain and leg pain) was 6.86 ± 0.65 which significantly reduced to 1.04 ± 0.19 36 months after operation. Out of 64 patients, 62 patients showed interbody fusion with good trabecular marking. Postoperative MRI of lumbosacral spine at 36 months showed 48 patients out of 64 had no desiccation of L3/4 disc, 9 had mild disc desiccation and 7 developed desiccation of L3/4 disc. Final outcome was determined by Modified Macnab’s criteria. Excellent result found in 39 patients, good result found in 22 patients and fair result found in 3 patients. Conclusion: Fixation of L4, L5 along with S1 in single level PLIF or TLIF in L4/5 level significantly reduce the rate of disc degeneration at L5/S1 level with slight degeneration at L3/4 level.

Management of patients with prior lumbar fusion: a cross-sectional survey of Veterans Affairs chiropractors\u2019 attitudes, beliefs, and practices

BackgroundLittle is known about the preferred treatment strategies of chiropractors in managing low back pain patients with prior lumbar fusions. There are several case reports which describe chiropractic care following surgical intervention, but there are no cohort or experimental studies published. Therefore, we sought to examine self-reported management approaches and practice patterns related to the management of patients with prior surgical lumbar fusion, among United States Veterans Affairs (VA) chiropractors.MethodsAn electronic survey was administered nationwide to all chiropractors providing clinical care within VA. Questions were informed by a prior survey and piloted on a sample of chiropractors external to VA. Statistical analysis included respondent background information, and quantitative analysis of chiropractic referral patterns and practices. This survey collect information on 1) provider demographics, 2) VA referral patterns, and 3) attitudes, beliefs, practices and interventions utilized by VA chiropractors to manage patients with a history of surgical lumbar fusion.ResultsThe survey response rate was 46.3% (62/134). The respondents were broadly representative of VA chiropractic providers in age, gender, and years in practice. The majority of respondents (90.3%) reported seeing at least 1 post-fusion patient in the past month. The most common therapeutic approaches utilized by VA chiropractors were healthy lifestyle advice (94.9%), pain education (89.8%), exercise prescription (88.1%), stretching (66.1%) and soft tissue manual therapies (62.7%). A relatively smaller proportion described always or frequently incorporating lumbar (16.9%), thoracic (57.6%) or pelvic (39.0%) spinal manipulation.ConclusionThis survey provides preliminary data on VA chiropractic services in the management of patients with prior lumbar fusion. These patients are often seen by VA chiropractors, and our findings support the need for further study to advance understanding of interventions utilized by chiropractors in this patient population.

Biomechanics of the Sacroiliac Joint: Anatomy, Function, Biomechanics, Sexual Dimorphism, and Causes of Pain.

The sacroiliac joints (SIJs), the largest axial joints in the body, sit in between the sacrum and pelvic bones on either side. They connect the spine to the pelvis and thus facilitate load transfer from the lumbar spine to the lower extremities. The majority of low back pain (LBP) is perceived to originate from the lumbar spine; however, another likely source of LBP that is mostly overlooked is the SIJ. This study (Parts I and II) aims to evaluate the clinical and biomechanical literature to understand the anatomy, biomechanics, sexual dimorphism, and causes and mechanics of pain of the SIJ leading to conservative and surgical treatment options using instrumentation. Part II concludes with the mechanics of the devices used in minimal surgical procedures for the SIJ. A thorough review of the literature was performed to analyze studies related to normal SIJ mechanics, as well as the effects of sex and pain on SIJ mechanics. A total of 65 studies were selected related to anatomy, biomechanical function of the SIJ, and structures that surround the joints. These studies discussed the effects of various parameters, gender, and existence of common physiological disorders on the biomechanics of the SIJ. The SIJ lies between the sacrum and the ilium and connects the spine to the pelvic bones. The SIJ transfers large bending moments and compression loads to lower extremities. However, the joint does not have as much stability of its own against the shear loads but resists shear due the tight wedging of the sacrum between hip bones on either side and the band of ligaments spanning the sacrum and the hip bones. Due to these, sacrum does not exhibit much motion with respect to the ilium. The SIJ range of motion in flexion-extension is about 3°, followed by axial rotation (about 1.5°), and lateral bending (about 0.8°). The sacrum of the female pelvis is wider, more uneven, less curved, and more backward tilted, compared to the male sacrum. Moreover, women exhibit higher mobility, stresses/loads, and pelvis ligament strains compared to male SIJs. Sacroiliac pain can be due to, but not limited to, hypo- or hypermobility, extraneous compression or shearing forces, micro- or macro-fractures, soft tissue injury, inflammation, pregnancy, adjacent segment disease, leg length discrepancy, and prior lumbar fusion. These effects are well discussed in this review. This review leads to Part II, in which the literature on mechanics of the treatment options is reviewed and synthesized.

Lumbar Spine Fusion Patients See Similar Improvements in Physical Activity Level to Non-Spine Fusion Patients Following Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe impact of prior lumbar spinal fusion on the change in physical activity level following total hip arthroplasty (THA) has not been thoroughly examined. Therefore, we sought to compare the change in physical activity level following THA for patients with and without a history of lumbar spine fusion. MethodsPatients who underwent primary elective THA were identified using an integrated healthcare system’s Total Joint Replacement Registry (2010-2013). Prior lumbar spine fusion was identified using the healthcare system’s Spine Registry. Physical activity was self-reported by patients and measured in min/wk. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate the association between prior spine fusion and the change in physical activity from 1 year pre-THA to 1-2 years post-THA. ResultsOf 11,416 THAs, 90 (0.8%) had a history of lumbar spinal fusion. Patients with a prior lumbar fusion had a median physical activity level of 28 min/wk prior to THA compared to 45 min/wk in the patients with no history of lumbar spinal fusion. One year after THA, patients with a history of lumbar spinal fusion reported a median of 120 min/wk of physical activity compared to 150 min/wk for patients without a history of lumbar spinal fusion. The difference in physical activity level change between groups was not statistically significant (estimate = −23.1, 95% confidence interval −62.1 to 15.9, P = .246). ConclusionPatients with prior lumbar fusion were found to have lower self-reported physical activity levels than patients without spine fusion both before and after THA surgery. However, both groups saw the same degree of improvement in physical activity level following THA. These findings may help in counseling patients who have had a prior lumbar spine fusion and in setting appropriate expectations prior to THA.

217. Impact of previous lumbar spine surgery on outcome of lumbar total disc replacement: analysis of prospective five-year follow up study data

BACKGROUND CONTEXT FDA-regulated prospective trials evaluating lumbar total disc replacement (LTDR) have included patients with previous lumbar surgeries. Unitedhealth care, one of the largest insurers in the United States recently issued a positive coverage policy for LTDR that disqualifies patients with previous lumbar surgeries of any kind from treatment with LTDR. However, such patients were included in FDA IDE trials that led to approval of these devices. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare LTDR outcomes in patients with prior lumbar spine surgery to outcomes in those without prior surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING The study was a post hoc analysis of data collected prospectively as part of an FDA-regulated trial with 5-year follow-up. PATIENT SAMPLE The study was based on 376 patients from the activL® IDE study population. All patients were treated for single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease at L4-L5 or L5-S1 unresponsive to at least 6 months of nonoperative care. OUTCOME MEASURES Clinical outcome measures used in the study included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual analog scales (VAS) assessing back and leg pain, SF-36, adverse events and reoperations. Radiographic outcome evaluations were based on flexion/extension range of motion (ROM) and translation of the operated segment. METHODS Patients were divided into two groups: prior lumbar surgery (PLS, n=92) and no prior lumbar surgery (NPLS, n=284). PLS patients had undergone one or more of the following procedures: intradiscal electrothermal annuloplasty (IDET) (n=5), percutaneous nucleoplasty (n=4), microdiscectomy (n=81), hemilaminectomy (n=17), laminotomy (n=36) or other (n=1) prior to receiving a LTDR. Patients with prior lumbar fusion were excluded from the IDE study. Baseline characteristics, functional and pain outcomes, serious adverse events and reoperations were statistically compared between the groups preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months and 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years. RESULTS Patient baseline demographics were very similar between the two groups. When comparing pre- to postoperative scores, ODI, VAS back pain and leg pain and the SF-36 Physical Component Score improved significantly (p CONCLUSIONS Prior lumbar spine surgery was not related to compromised outcomes among patients undergoing LTDR. There were no statistically significant differences in ODI, SF-36, pain scores or safety rates between PLS and NPLS patients. These results are in line with findings from earlier studies that prior surgery is not a contraindication for LTDR provided that other selection criteria are met. These results do not support the denial by an insurer to give patients and providers the option of receiving LTDR for DDD unresponsive to nonoperative care as described in the FDA approved device usage labeling. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS activL (Approved for this indication), ProDisc-L (Approved for this indication), Charite (Approved for this indication)

69. Coronal correction using the kickstand rod technique: a pilot adult scoliosis study and analysis of early outcomes and complications

BACKGROUND CONTEXT A major goal of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is more harmonious spinal alignment. Sagittal alignment has been emphasized since it was demonstrated to have the greatest impact on postoperative pain and functional outcomes. However, growing evidence suggests the impact of coronal alignment has likely been underestimated. Kickstand rods are a new technique recently utilized for achieving coronal balance. The kickstand spans from the thoracolumbar junction to a 3rd iliac screw. Using the iliac wing as a base, kickstand distraction produces powerful coronal realignment forces. Limited literature exists for this novel technique, and its associated outcomes and complications after ASD surgery are unknown. PURPOSE The objective of this pilot study was to investigate early outcomes and complications after coronal correction with kickstand rods. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective review of single-center database. PATIENT SAMPLE Consecutive ASD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES Radiographic alignment correction using standing long-cassette films (both coronal and sagittal spinopelvic measurements), back and leg pain assessed with numerical rating scale (NRS) scores (0-no pain; 10-unbearable pain), and associated complications. METHODS All ASD patients who had deformity correction using kickstand rods. Demographic, surgical, coronal- and sagittal-plane radiographic measurements, and back and leg pain NRS scores were analyzed. A kickstand rod correction classification was devised to illustrate our technique: Subtype (1a) Curve Pattern: C7PL towards major concavity and fractional convexity; Kickstand Distraction: corrects major curve onlySubtype (1b) Curve Pattern: C7PL towards major concavity with neutral/concave fractional curve; Kickstand Distraction: corrects major curve +/- simultaneous fractional correction; Subtype (2) Curve Pattern: C7PL towards major convexity; Kickstand Distraction: corrects fractional curve +/- simultaneous major correction; Subtype (3) Curve Pattern: global coronal balance with scoliosis; Kickstand distraction corrects major curve, but typically after fractional correction “shifts” the spine. RESULTS The cohort comprised 19 patients (mean age: 67±7 yrs; 79% women; 63% prior lumbar fusion) with mean follow-up 21 weeks (range: 2-72 weeks). All patients had posterior-only approach surgery with tri-iliac fixation (3rd iliac screw for the kickstand) for mean fusion length 12 levels. Kickstand correction was subtype 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 in 4 (21%), 6 (32%), 7 (37%), and 2 (9%) patients, respectively. 3-column osteotomy and lumbar TLIF were performed in 5 (26%) and 15 (79%) patients, respectively. Alignment was significantly improved (coronal balance: 8 to 1cm [p CONCLUSIONS Kickstand rod distraction can achieve significant coronal correction in ASD. Kickstand subtype 1a+b was most commonly utilized (since coronal curves with C7PL shifted to the major curve concavity are most common). Back and leg pain were significantly improved, and complications rates were reasonable. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.