The influence of obesity on the outcome of treatment of lumbar disc herniation: analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

BACKGROUND: Questions remain as to the effect that obesity has on patients managed for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. The purpose of this study was to determine if obesity affects outcomes following the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: An as-treated analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. A comparison was made between patients with a body mass index of/m² (nonobese) (n = 854) and those with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m² (obese) (n = 336). Baseline patient demographic and clinical characteristics were documented. Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and at regular follow-up time intervals up to four years. The difference in improvement from baseline between operative and nonoperative treatment was determined at each follow-up period for both groups. RESULTS: At the time of the four-year follow-up evaluation, improvements over baseline in primary outcome measures were significantly less for obese patients as compared with nonobese patients in both the operative treatment group (Short Form-36 physical function, 37.3 compared with 47.7 points [p \u3c 0.001], Short Form-36 bodily pain, 44.2 compared with 50.0 points [p = 0.005], and Oswestry Disability Index, -33.7 compared with -40.1 points [p \u3c 0.001]) and the nonoperative treatment group (Short Form-36 physical function, 23.1 compared with 32.0 points [p \u3c 0.001] and Oswestry Disability Index, -21.4 compared with -26.1 points [p \u3c 0.001]). The one exception was that the change from baseline in terms of the Short Form-36 bodily pain score was statistically similar for obese and nonobese patients in the nonoperative treatment group (30.9 compared with 33.4 points [p = 0.39]). At the time of the four-year follow-up evaluation, when compared with nonobese patients who had been managed operatively, obese patients who had been managed operatively had significantly less improvement in the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index and the Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Index, but had no significant difference in patient satisfaction or self-rated improvement. In the present study, 77.5% of obese patients and 86.9% of nonobese patients who had been managed operatively were working a full or part-time job. No significant differences were observed in the secondary outcome measures between obese and nonobese patients who had been managed nonoperatively. The benefit of surgery over nonoperative treatment was not affected by body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Obese patients realized less clinical benefit from both operative and nonoperative treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Surgery provided similar benefit over nonoperative treatment in obese and nonobese patients

Duration of symptoms resulting from lumbar disc herniation: effect on treatment outcomes: analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to determine if the duration of symptoms affects outcomes following the treatment of intervertebral lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: An as-treated analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) for the treatment of intervertebral lumbar disc herniation. Randomized and observational cohorts were combined. A comparison was made between patients who had had symptoms for six months or less (n = 927) and those who had had symptoms for more than six months (n = 265). Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and at regular follow-up intervals up to four years. The treatment effect for each outcome measure was determined at each follow-up period for the duration of symptoms for both groups. RESULTS: At all follow-up intervals, the primary outcome measures were significantly worse in patients who had had symptoms for more than six months prior to treatment, regardless of whether the treatment was operative or nonoperative. When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the operative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) (mean change, 48.3 compared with 41.9; p \u3c 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 47.7 compared with 41.2; p \u3c 0.001), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, -41.1 compared with -34.6; p \u3c 0.001) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months (with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms on the SF-36 and indicating more severe symptoms on the Oswestry Disability Index). When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the nonoperative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 31.8 compared with 21.4; p \u3c 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 29.5 compared with 22.6; p = 0.015), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, -24.9 compared with -18.5; p = 0.006) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months. Differences in treatment effect between the two groups related to the duration of symptoms were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Increased symptom duration due to lumbar disc herniation is related to worse outcomes following both operative and nonoperative treatment. The relative increased benefit of surgery compared with nonoperative treatment was not dependent on the duration of the symptoms

Radiographic Results of Expandable Interbody Devices

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has become a mainstay procedure in the treatment of degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Expandable interbody devices have gained popularity in recent times due to several well-cited advantages including greater correction of disc height and lordosis and decreased intraoperative disruption of neurologic structures. However, the clinical benefits offered by these devices compared to traditional static implants remain unclear. This study seeks to investigate differences in the radiographic and clinical outcomes between traditional static versus expandable interbody devices used in MIS-TLIF. Methods: Patients who underwent MIS-TLIF performed by three surgeons from 2014 to 2020 at a single institution high-volume center were retrospectively reviewed. Radiographic measurements were performed on lateral radiographs taken preoperatively, 3-weeks following, and at least 6 months following the date of surgery. Radiographic analysis included anterior and posterior disc height, segmental lordosis, endplate violation, and cage subsidence. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by assessing for the presence of radicular leg pain on the side of the TLIF following surgery at 3 months follow up. Statistical analysis included independent t tests for continuous variables and chi-square analysis for categorical values. Results: Three-hundred and sixty-seven patients who underwent MIS-TLIF for degenerative diagnoses using either a static (229 patients) or expandable (138 patients) cage were included. The mean age was 62.9 ± 11.7 years in the static group and 67.4 ± 11.2 years in the expandable group. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 30.4 ± 6.4 in the static group and 30.73 ± 7.3 in the expandable group. Patients receiving expandable cages had significantly greater anterior disc height (11.5 mm static vs. 13.2 mm expandable, p \u3c 0.001), posterior disc height (7.18 mm static vs 8.19 mm expandable, p \u3c 0.001), and segmental lordosis (6.47 degrees static vs 7.49 degrees expandable, p = 0.001) at most recent follow up. No significant differences in cage subsidence rates were noted between static (19.7%) and expandable (22.9%) devices (OR =0.823, CI 0.513 – 1.321, p = 0.42). Patients who received expandable devices reported greater improvements in leg pain at 3 months follow up (p = 0.012). Discussion: Patients who underwent MIS-TLIF with an expandable device demonstrated greater correction of anterior and posterior disc height, as well as greater and more sustained correction of segmental lordosis compared to static cages. No significant differences were noted in cage subsidence rate between static and expandable cages. Patients who received expandable devices were noted to have greater improvements in radicular leg pain

Sacral Fractures and Associated Injuries.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to describe the injuries associated with sacral fractures and to analyze their impact on patient outcome. METHODS: A comprehensive narrative review of the literature was performed to identify the injuries associated with sacral fractures. RESULTS: Sacral fractures are uncommon injuries that result from high-energy trauma, and that, due to their rarity, are frequently underdiagnosed and mistreated. Only 5% of sacral fractures occur in isolation. Injuries most often associated with sacral fractures include neurologic injuries (present in up to 50% of sacral fractures), pelvic ring disruptions, hip and lumbar spine fractures, active pelvic/ abdominal bleeding and the presence of an open fracture or significant soft tissue injury. Diagnosis of pelvic ring fractures and fractures extending to the lumbar spine are key factors for the appropriate management of sacral fractures. Importantly, associated systemic (cranial, thoracic, and abdominopelvic) or musculoskeletal injuries should be promptly assessed and addressed. These associated injuries often dictate the management and eventual outcome of sacral fractures and, therefore, any treatment algorithm should take them into consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral fractures are complex in nature and often associated with other often-missed injuries. This review summarizes the most relevant associated injuries in sacral fractures and discusses on their appropriate management

The Development of a Universally Accepted Sacral Fracture Classification: A Survey of AOSpine and AOTrauma Members.

Study Design Survey study. Objective To determine the global perspective on controversial aspects of sacral fracture classifications. Methods While developing the AOSpine Sacral Injury Classification System, a survey was sent to all members of AOSpine and AOTrauma. The survey asked four yes-or-no questions to help determine the best way to handle controversial aspects of sacral fractures in future classifications. Chi-square tests were initially used to compare surgeons\u27 answers to the four key questions of the survey, and then the data was modeled through multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 474 surgeons answered all questions in the survey. Overall 86.9% of respondents felt that the proposed hierarchical nature of injuries was appropriate, and 77.8% of respondents agreed that that the risk of neurologic injury is highest in a vertical fracture through the foramen. Almost 80% of respondents felt that the separation of injuries based on the integrity of L5-S1 facet was appropriate, and 83.8% of surgeons agreed that a nondisplaced sacral U fracture is a clinically relevant entity. Conclusion This study determines the global perspective on controversial areas in the injury patterns of sacral fractures and demonstrates that the development of a comprehensive and universally accepted sacral classification is possible

Early Experience With Uniplanar Versus Biplanar Expandable Interbody Fusion Devices in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

ObjectiveTo compare the early radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable uniplanar versus biplanar interbody cages used for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). MethodA retrospective review of 1-level MIS-TLIFs performed with uniplanar and biplanar polyetheretherketone cages was performed. Radiographic measurements were performed on radiographs taken preoperatively, at 6-week follow-up, and 1-year follow-up. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg at 3-month and 1-year follow-up. ResultsA total of 93 patients (41 uniplanar, 52 biplanar) were included. Both cage types provided significant postoperative improvements in anterior disc height, posterior disc height, and segmental lordosis at 1 year. No significant differences in cage subsidence rates were found between uniplanar (21.9%) and biplanar devices (32.7%) at 6 weeks (odds ratio, 2.015; 95% confidence interval, 0.651–6.235; p = 0.249) with no additional instances of subsidence at 1 year. No significant differences in the magnitude of improvements based on ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 3-month or 1-year follow-up between groups and the proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference in ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 1 year were not statistically significantly different (p \u3e 0.05). Finally, there were no significant differences in complication rates (p = 0.283), 90-day readmission rates (p = 1.00), revision surgical procedures (p = 0.423), or fusion rates at 1 year (p = 0.457) between groups. ConclusionsBiplanar and uniplanar expandable cages offer a safe and effective means of improving anterior disc height, posterior disc height, segmental lordosis, and patient-reported outcome measures at 1 year postoperatively. No significant differences in radiographic outcomes, subsidence rates, mean subsidence distance, 1-year patient-reported outcomes, and postoperative complications were noted between groups

Lateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine: The Utility of an Access Surgeon

BACKGROUND: Lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs) utilize a retroperitoneal approach that avoids the intraperitoneal organs and manipulation of the anterior vasculature encountered in anterior approaches to the lumbar spine. The approach was championed by spinal surgeons; however, general/vasculature surgeons may be more comfortable with the approach. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following LLIF procedures based on whether a spine surgeon or access surgeon performed the approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all one- to two-level LLIFs at a tertiary care center from 2011 to 2021 for degenerative spine disease. Patients were divided into groups based on whether a spine surgeon or general surgeon performed the surgical approach. The electronic medical record was reviewed for hospital readmissions and complication rates. RESULTS: We identified 239 patients; of which 177 had approaches performed by spine surgeons and 62 by general surgeons. The spine surgeon group had fewer levels with posterior instrumentation (1.40 vs. 2.00; CONCLUSION: Similar outcomes may be seen regardless of whether a spine or access surgeon performs the approach for an LLIF

Correction of Spinal Sagittal Alignment after Posterior Lumbar Decompression: Does Severity of Central Canal Stenosis Matter?

Study Design This study adopted a retrospective study design. Purpose Our study aimed to investigate the impact of central canal stenosis severity on surgical outcomes and lumbar sagittal correction after lumbar decompression. Overview of Literature Studies have evaluated sagittal correction in patients with central canal stenosis after lumbar decompression and the association of stenosis severity with worse preoperative sagittal alignment. However, none have evaluated the impact of spinal stenosis severity on sagittal correction. Methods Patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression (PLD) of ≤4 levels were divided into severe and non-severe central canal stenosis groups based on the Lee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grading system. Patients without preoperative MRI or inadequate visualization on radiographs were excluded. Surgical characteristics, clinical outcomes, and sagittal measurements were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the predictors of pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI–LL). Results Of the 142 patients included, 39 had severe stenosis, and 103 had non-severe stenosis. The mean follow-up duration for the cohort was 4.72 months. Patients with severe stenosis were older, had higher comorbidity indices and levels decompressed, and longer lengths of stay and operative times (p0.05). On multivariate regression, severe stenosis was a significant predictor of a lower preoperative LL (estimate=−5.243, p=0.045) and a higher preoperative PI–LL mismatch (estimate=6.192, p=0.039). No differences in surgical or clinical outcomes were observed (p>0.05). Conclusion Severe central lumbar stenosis was associated with greater spinopelvic mismatch preoperatively. Sagittal balance improved in both patients with severe and non-severe stenosis after PLD to a similar degree, with differences in sagittal parameters remaining after surgery. We also found no differences in postoperative outcomes associated with stenosis severity

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Incidental Durotomy during Lumbar Spine Decompression with or without Fusion

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for incidental durotomies during lumbar decompression surgeries. In addition, we aimed to determine the changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on incidental durotomy status. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There is limited literature investigating the affect of incidental durotomy on patient reported outcome measures. While the majority of research does not suggest differences in complications, readmission, or revision rates, many studies rely on public databases, and their sensitivity and specificity for identifying incidental durotomies is unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with or without fusion at a single tertiary care center were grouped based on the presence of a durotomy. Multivariate analysis was performed for length of stay (LOS), hospital readmissions, and changes in PROMs. To identify surgical risk factors for durotomy, 3:1 propensity matching was performed using stepwise logistic regression. The sensitivity and specificity of the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes (G96.11 and G97.41) were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 3,684 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar decompressions, 533 (14.5%) had durotomies, and a complete set of PROMs (preoperative and 1-year postoperative) were available for 737 patients (20.0%). Incidental durotomy was an independent predictor of increased LOS but not hospital readmission or worse PROMs. The durotomy repair method was not associated with hospital readmission or LOS. However, repair with collagen graft and suture predicted reduced improvement in Visual Analog Scale back (β =2.56, p=0.004). Independent risk factors for incidental durotomies included revisions (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; p CONCLUSIONS: The durotomy rate for lumbar decompressions was 14.5%. No differences in outcomes were detected except for increased LOS. Database studies relying on ICD codes should be interpreted with caution due to the limited sensitivity in identifying incidental durotomies

A Comparison of Radiographic Alignment between Bilateral and Unilateral Interbody Cages in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Purpose: To compare radiographic outcomes between unilateral and bilateral cage placement in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF) and to determine if the rate of fusion at the 1-year postoperative point was different in patients who received bilateral versus unilateral cages. Overview of Literature There is no clear evidence to dictate whether bilateral or unilateral cages promote superior radiographic or surgical outcomes in TLIF. Methods: Patients \u3e18 years old who underwent primary one- or two-level TLIFs at our institution were identified and propensity-matched in a 3:1 fashion (unilateral:bilateral). Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and radiographic outcomes, including vertebral endplate obliquity, segmental lordosis, subsidence, and fusion status, were compared between groups. Results: Of the 184 patients included, 46 received bilateral cages. Bilateral cage placement was associated with greater subsidence (1.06±1.25 mm vs. 0.59±1.16 mm, p=0.028) and enhanced restoration of segmental lordosis (5.74°±14.1° vs. −1.57°±10.9°, p=0.002) at the 1-year postoperative point, while unilateral cage placement was associated with an increased correction of endplate obliquity (−2.02°±4.42° vs. 0.24°±2.81°, p\u3c0.001). Bilateral cage placement was significantly associated with radiographic fusion on bivariate analysis (89.1% vs. 70.3%, p=0.018) and significantly predicted radiographic fusion on multivariable regression analysis (estimate, 1.35; odds ratio, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.51–12.05; p=0.010). Conclusions: Bilateral interbody cage placement in TLIF procedures was associated with restoration of lumbar lordosis and increased fusion rates. However, endplate obliquity correction was significantly greater for patients who received a unilateral cage