History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a popular surgical technique for lumbar arthrodesis, widely considered to hold great efficacy while conferring an impressive safety profile through the minimization of soft tissue damage. This elegant approach to lumbar stabilization is the byproduct of several innovations throughout the past century. In 1934, Mixter and Barr’s paper in the New England Journal of Medicine elucidated the role of disc herniation in spinal instability and radiculopathy, prompting surgeons to explore new approaches and instruments to access the disc space. In 1944, Briggs and Milligan published their novel technique, the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), involving continuous removal of vertebral bone chips and replacement of the disc with a round bone peg. The following decades witnessed several PLIF modifications, including the addition of long pedicle screws. In 1982, Harms and Rolinger sought to redefine the posterior corridor by approaching the disc space through the intervertebral foramen, establishing the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). In the 1990s, lumbar spine surgery experienced a paradigm shift, with surgeons placing increased emphasis on tissue-sparing minimally invasive techniques. Spurred by this revolution, Foley and Lefkowitz published the novel MIS-TLIF technique in 2002. The MIS-TLIF has demonstrated comparable surgical outcomes to the TLIF, with an improved safety profile. Here, we present a view into the history of the posterior-approach treatment of the discogenic radiculopathy, culminating in the MIS-TLIF. Additionally, we evaluate the hallmark characteristics, technical variability, and reported outcomes of the modern MIS-TLIF and take a brief look at technologies that may define the future MIS-TLIF

Does Baseline Severity of Arm Pain Influence Outcomes Following Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?

Study Design Retrospective cohort. Purpose To assess preoperative arm pain severity influence on postoperative patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Overview of Literature There is evidence that preoperative symptom severity can affect postoperative outcomes. Few have evaluated this association between preoperative arm pain severity and postoperative PROMs and MCID achievement following ACDF. Methods Individuals undergoing single-level ACDF were identified. Patients were grouped by preoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) arm ≤8 vs. >8. PROMs collected preoperatively and postoperatively included VAS-arm/VAS-neck/Neck Disability Index (NDI)/12-item Short Form (SF-12) Physical Composite Score (PCS)/SF-12 mental composite score (MCS)/Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF). Demographics, PROMs, and MCID rates were compared between cohorts. Results A total of 128 patients were included. The VAS arm ≤8 cohort significantly improved for all PROMs excepting VAS arm at 1-year/2-years, SF-12 MCS at 12-weeks/1-year/2-years, and SF-12 PCS/PROMIS-PF at 6-weeks, only (p≤0.021, all). The VAS arm >8 cohort significantly improved for VAS neck at all timepoints, VAS arm from 6-weeks to 1-year, NDI from 6-weeks to 6-months, and SF-12 MCS/PROMIS-PF at 6-months (p≤0.038, all). Postoperatively, the VAS arm >8 cohort had higher VAS-neck (6 weeks/6 months), VAS-arm (12 weeks/6 months), NDI (6 weeks/6 months), lower SF-12 MCS (6 weeks/6 months), SF-12 PCS (6 months), and PROMIS-PF (12 weeks/6 months) (p≤0.038, all). MCID achievement rates were higher among the VAS arm >8 cohort for the VAS-arm at 6-weeks/12-weeks/1-year/overall and NDI at 2 years (p≤0.038, all). Conclusions Significance in PROM score differences between VAS arm ≤8 vs. >8 generally dissipated at the 1-year and 2-year time-point, although higher preoperative arm pain patients suffered from worse pain, disability, and mental/physical function scores. Furthermore, clinically meaningful rates of improvement were similar throughout the vast majority of timepoints for all PROMs studied

Do Patient Expectations Represent a More Important Clinical Difference? A Study of Surgical Outcomes in the Cervical Spine

Objective This study aims to compare the impact of achieving an MCID or meeting preoperative expectations on patient satisfaction following cervical spine procedures. Methods A surgical database was retrospectively reviewed for cervical spine surgery patients from 2016 to 2020. Inclusion criteria were primary or revision, single- or multilevel cervical disc arthroplasty or anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDF). Visual analogue scale (VAS) neck and arm pain was assessed preoperatively and postoperatively (6-week, 12-weeks, 6-months, 1-year). Preoperative patient expectation and postoperative satisfaction were recorded. MCID achievement was determined using previously established values. Expectations met and MCID achievement were compared as possible predictors of satisfaction. Results One hundred and six cervical spine patients were included. Both meeting expectations and achieving MCID were significant predictors of satisfaction for arm pain at 6-weeks and 12-weeks (all p≤0.007). Achieving MCID significantly predicted satisfaction for neck pain at all timepoints (all p≤0.007) and meeting expectations predicted satisfaction for neck pain at 6-weeks, 12-weeks, and 1-year (all p≤0.003). Comparison of coefficients revealed no significant difference in effect size between meeting expectations and achievement of MCID as predictors of patient satisfaction (all p>0.050). Conclusion MCID achievement and meeting expectations were significant predictors of satisfaction for neck pain and short-term arm pain. Both measures may be similarly useful for interpretation of patient outcomes and the optimal choice of metric may depend on practice-specific factors

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Outpatient Setting with Multimodal Analgesic Protocol: Clinical Case Series

Objective Minimally invasive techniques and multimodal analgesia protocols have made spine surgery in the outpatient setting increasingly feasible. A number of spinal procedures have been documented in the outpatient setting, though the feasibility of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) on an ambulatory basis has not been thoroughly assessed. To present a clinical case series of patients undergoing LLIF in the outpatient setting. Methods A prospectively maintained surgical database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients undergoing outpatient spine procedures with an enhanced multimodal analgesia protocol from October 2016 to February 2021. Patient demographics, medical and spinal diagnoses, procedural characteristics, operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative pain scores, postoperative narcotic consumption, and incidence of any intra- or postoperative complications were collected. The state’s prescription monitoring program was queried to assess rates of filling narcotic prescriptions >6 weeks following surgery. Results A total of 24 LLIF patients were included. Mean postoperative pain score was 5.8, and mean postoperative narcotic consumption was 26.8 oral morphine equivalents. All patients were discharged on the same day of surgery. No postoperative complications were observed. After the 6-week postoperative timepoint, 16.7% of patients filled a prescription for tramadol, 8.3% for hydrocodone, 4.2% for hydromorphone, 4.2% for cyclobenzaprine, and 4.2% for alprazolam. Conclusion This clinical case series demonstrates that LLIF can be both safe and feasible in the outpatient setting, with minimal narcotic medication dependence in the postoperative period

Using Swallowing Quality of Life to Compare Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Following Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Objective To evaluate dysphagia outcomes using the swallowing quality of life (SWAL-QOL) questionnaire between patients undergoing cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected using SWAL-QOL, VAS, NDI, and SF-12 PCS. All measures were recorded preoperatively to 6-month postoperatively. Patients were grouped according to cervical procedure and instrumentation used. Differences in PROMs and SWAL-QOL domains were evaluated by t-test and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc testing, respectively. Simple linear regression was employed to evaluate the relationship between number of levels operated on and postoperative outcomes. Results 161 patients were included. CDA patients had significantly worse SWAL-QOL scores at 6-months. Preoperative VAS neck was significantly worse for patients who underwent either an ACDF procedure with a stand-alone cage or CDA as compared to patients who underwent an ACDF with anterior plating. At 6-months postoperatively, CDA patients reported a significantly worse “fatigue” score compared to ACDF patients. At 6-months postoperatively, ACDF patients reported a significantly better “sleep” scores compared to CDA patients with both recipients of an anterior plate and stand-alone cage reporting significantly better scores compared to the CDA cohort (p=0.024; p<0.001). The SWAL-QOL domain of symptom frequency at 6-weeks postoperatively was significantly associated with number of levels operated (p=0.032). Conclusion Patients undergoing either an ACDF or CDA procedure largely did not demonstrate differences in pain, disability, and dysphagia scores. However, at more longitudinal timepoints CDA patients reported worse fatigue and sleep scores compared to ACDF patients

Kosten-nutzenanalytische Bewertung der Produktion und Nutzung von Rapsoel fuer Treibstoff-, Schmierstoff- und technische Zwecke

SIGLEAvailable from TIB Hannover: FR 6542 / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekDEGerman