Tag: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Posted on

Is the Goutallier grade of multifidus fat infiltration associated with adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion?

J Neurosurg Spine 34:190–195, 2021

The aim of this study was to investigate whether fat infiltration of the lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle affects revision surgery rates for adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) after L4–5 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS A total of 178 patients undergoing single-level L4–5 TLIF for spondylolisthesis (2006 to 2016) were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were a minimum 2-year follow-up, preoperative MR images and radiographs, and single-level L4–5 TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Twenty-three patients underwent revision surgery for ASD during the follow-up. Another 23 patients without ASD were matched with the patients with ASD. Demographic data, Roussouly curvature type, and spinopelvic parameter data were collected. The fat infiltration of the LM muscle (L3, L4, and L5) was evaluated on preoperative MRI using the Goutallier classification system.

RESULTS A total of 46 patients were evaluated. There were no differences in age, sex, BMI, or spinopelvic parameters with regard to patients with and those without ASD (p > 0.05). Fat infiltration of the LM was significantly greater in the patients with ASD than in those without ASD (p = 0.029). Fat infiltration was most significant at L3 in patients with ASD than in patients without ASD (p = 0.017). At L4 and L5, there was an increasing trend of fat infiltration in the patients with ASD than in those without ASD, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.354 for L4 and p = 0.077 for L5).

CONCLUSIONS Fat infiltration of the LM may be associated with ASD after L4–5 TLIF for spondylolisthesis. Fat infiltration at L3 may also be associated with ASD at L3–4 after L4–5 TLIF.

Posted on

Functional and radiological outcome of anterior retroperitoneal versus posterior transforaminal interbody fusion in the management of single-level lumbar degenerative disease

Neurosurg Focus 49 (3):E2, 2020

In this study the authors compared the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) techniques in a homogeneous group of patients affected by single-level L5–S1 degenerative disc disease (DDD) and postdiscectomy syndrome (PDS). The purpose of the study was to analyze perioperative, functional, and radiological data between the two techniques.

METHODS A retrospective analysis of patient data was performed between 2015 and 2018. Patients were clustered into two homogeneous groups (group 1 = ALIF, group 2 = TLIF) according to surgical procedure. A statistical analysis of clinical perioperative and radiological findings was performed to compare the two groups. A senior musculoskeletal radiologist retrospectively revised all radiological images.

RESULTS Seventy-two patients were comparable in terms of demographic features and surgical diagnosis and included in the study, involving 32 (44.4%) male and 40 (55.6%) female patients with an average age of 47.7 years. The mean follow-up duration was 49.7 months. Thirty-six patients (50%) were clustered in group 1, including 31 (86%) with DDD and 5 (14%) with PDS. Thirty-six patients (50%) were clustered in group 2, including 28 (78%) with DDD and 8 (22%) with PDS. A significant reduction in surgical time (107.4 vs 181.1 minutes) and blood loss (188.9 vs 387.1 ml) in group 1 (p < 0.0001) was observed. No significant differences in complications and reoperation rates between the two groups (p = 0.561) was observed. A significant improvement in functional outcome was observed in both groups (p < 0.001), but no significant difference between the two groups was found at the last follow-up. In group 1, a faster median time of return to work (2.4 vs 3.2 months) was recorded. A significant improvement in L5–S1 postoperative lordosis restoration was registered in the ALIF group (9.0 vs 5.0, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS According to these results, interbody fusion is effective in the surgical management of discogenic pain. Even if clinical benefits were achieved earlier in the ALIF group (better scores and faster return to work), both procedures improved functional outcomes at last follow-up. The ALIF group showed significant reduction of blood loss, shorter surgical time, and better segmental lordosis restoration when compared to the TLIF group. No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. Based on these results, the ALIF technique enhances radiological outcome improvement in spinopelvic parameters when compared to TLIF in the management of adult patients with L5–S1 DDD.

Posted on

A Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Grade 1 Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Neurosurgery DOI:10.1093/neuros/nyaa097

It remains unclear if minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is comparable to traditional, open TLIF because of the limitations of the prior small-sample-size, single-center studies reporting comparative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To compare MI-TLIF to traditional, open TLIF for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in the largest study to date by sample size.

METHODS: We utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried patients with grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent singlesegment surgery with MI- or open TLIF methods. Outcomes were compared 24 mo postoperatively.

RESULTS: A total of 297 patients were included: 72 (24.2%) MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) open TLIF. MI-TLIF surgeries had lower mean body mass indexes (29.5±5.1 vs 31.3±7.0, P=.0497) and more worker’s compensation cases (11.1% vs 1.3%, P< .001) but were otherwise similar. MI-TLIF had less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 mL, P < .001), longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 min, P < .001), and a higher return-to-work (RTW) rate (100% vs 80%, P = .02). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for 24-mo Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale back pain (NRS-BP), NRS leg pain (NRS-LP), and Euro-Qol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) (P > .001). In multivariable adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF was associated with lower ODI (β =−4.7; 95% CI=−9.3 to −0.04; P= .048), higher EQ-5D (β =0.06; 95% CI=0.01-0.11; P=.02), and higher satisfaction (odds ratio for North American Spine Society [NASS] 1/2 = 3.9; 95% CI = 1.4-14.3; P = .02). Though trends favoring MI-TLIF were evident for NRS-BP (P = .06), NRS-LP (P = .07), and reoperation rate (P = .13), these results did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION: For single-level grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with less disability, higher quality of life, and higher patient satisfaction compared with traditional, open TLIF. MI-TLIF was associated with higher rates of RTW, less blood loss, but longer operative times. Though we utilized multivariable adjusted analyses, these findings may be susceptible to selection bias.

Posted on

Predictors of Poor Outcome in Patients Submitted to Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

World Neurosurg. (2018) 119:488-493

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has become an increasingly popular method for lumbar arthrodesis. While having similar long-term outcomes when compared with open TLIF, it decreases the amount of intraoperative blood loss and iatrogenic muscle damage, the intensity of postoperative pain, and the duration of hospital stay. However, uncertainty remains about which factors contribute to outcomes in these patients. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze a cohort of patients submitted to MI-TLIF and to identify factors that can be associated with a worse postoperative outcome.

METHODS: Clinical records from 283 patients were assessed and, according to Odom’s criteria, postoperative clinical outcome at 12 months was classified as excellent, good, fair, and poor. Demographic variables, clinical data, and surgery-related data were analyzed, looking for associations between them and clinical outcome. A binomial logistic regression analysis was then performed to include those associations.

RESULTS: The main variables associated with worse prognosis (“poor” class according to Odom’s criteria) were a period of sick leave longer than 3 months before the surgery, age younger than 50 years, lytic spondylolisthesis, L5-S1 level, and occurrence of complications. These 5 conditions were included in a logistic regression analysis, and 3 of them were independently associated with poor outcome: operative complications, age younger than 50 years, and sick leave longer than 3 months before surgery. –

CONCLUSIONS: Younger patients, those on a sick leave for more than 3 months before surgery, or those who suffered surgical complications tended to have less satisfactory results after MI-TLIF.

Posted on

Expandable vs Static Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Neurosurgery 81:69–74, 2017

One criticism of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the inability to increase segmental lordosis (SL). Expandable interbody cages are a relatively new innovation theorized to allow improvement in SL.

OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in SL and lumbar lordosis (LL) after TLIF with nonexpandable vs expandable cages. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who were ≥18 years old and underwent single-level TLIF between 2011 and 2014. Patients were categorized by cage type (static vs expandable). Primary outcome of interestwas change in SL and LL from preoperative values to those at 1 month and 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were studied (48 nonexpandable group, 41 expandable group). Groups had similar baseline characteristics. For SL, median (interquartile range) improvement was 3◦ for nonexpandable and 2◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P = .09; adjusted, P = .68) at 1 month postoperatively, and 3◦ for nonexpandable and 1◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P=.41; adjusted, P=.28) at 1 year postoperatively. For LL, median improvement was 1◦ for nonexpandable and 2◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P = .20; adjusted, P = .21), and 2◦ for nonexpandable and 5◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P = .15; adjusted, P=.51) at 1 year postoperatively. After excluding parallel expandable cages, there was still no difference in SL or LL improvement at 1month or 1 year postoperatively between static and expandable cages (both unadjusted and adjusted, P > .05).

CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing single-level TLIF experienced similar improvements in SL and LL regardless of whether nonexpandable or expandable cages were placed.

Posted on

The Influence of Pelvic Incidence and Lumbar Lordosis Mismatch on Development of Symptomatic Adjacent Level Disease Following Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Neurosurgery 80:880–886, 2017

Annual incidence of symptomatic adjacent level disease (ALD) following lumbar fusion surgery ranges from 0.6% to 3.9% per year. Sagittal malalignment may contribute to the development of ALD.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the relationship between pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and the development of symptomatic ALD requiring revision surgery following single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylosis and/or low-grade spondylolisthesis.

METHODS: All patients who underwent a single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at either L4/5 or L5/S1 between July 2006 and December 2012 were analyzed for pre- and postoperative spinopelvic parameters. Using univariate and logistic regression analysis,we compared the spinopelvic parameters of those patients who required revision surgery against those patients who did not develop symptomatic ALD. We calculated the predictive value of PI-LL mismatch.

RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The results noted that, for a 1◦ increase in PI-LL mismatch (preop and postop), the odds of developing ALD requiring surgery increased by 1.3 and 1.4 fold, respectively, which were statistically significant increases. Based on our analysis, a PI-LL mismatch of >11◦ had a positive predictive value of 75% for the development of symptomatic ALD requiring revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS: A high PI-LL mismatch is strongly associated with the development of symptomatic ALD requiring revision lumbar spine surgery. The development of ALD may represent a global disease process as opposed to a focal condition. Spine surgeons may wish to consider assessment of spinopelvic parameters in the evaluation of degenerative lumbar spine pathology.

 

Posted on

Benefit of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vs Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in Lumbar Spine Disorders

tlif-x-ray-lat

Neurosurgery 79:397–405, 2016

Despite increasing use and potential benefits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF), previous studies have not documented improved clinical outcomes with TLIF vs PSF.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of TLIF with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and adjacent level disease.

METHODS: The National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had a lumbar fusion. Eighty-five percent (1722) of enrolled cases had 12-month follow-up data. There were 306 PSF patients and 1230 TLIF patients. PSF cases within each diagnostic subgroup were propensity-matched to patients who had TLIF. Sufficient propensity-matched controls were available for patients with spondylolisthesis (109), spinal stenosis (63), and adjacent segment disease (47).

RESULTS: Operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were similar between PSF and TLIF in all 3 propensity-matched groups. In the spondylolisthesis group, there was a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) with TLIF vs PSF at 3 months (19.4 vs 26.0, P = .009), 12 months (20.8 vs 29.3, P = .001), and in percentage reaching minimal clinically important difference at 12 months (80% vs 62%, P = .007). There were no differences in ODI improvement between PSF and TLIF in the stenosis or adjacent segment disease groups.

CONCLUSION: TLIF generated more favorable ODI outcomes than PSF for patients with spondylolisthesis, but not for patients with spinal stenosis or adjacent segment disease. There was also equivalence in operating room time and estimated blood loss between TLIF and PSF, potentially altering the long-standing assumption that PSF is a simpler procedure.

Posted on

A Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between Open Transforaminal and Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions

lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Neurosurgery 78:585–595, 2016

Direct cost comparisons between minimally invasive spine surgeries and the open options are rare.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs associated with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and to calculate the thresholds for minimum clinically important difference and minimum cost-effective difference for patient-reported outcome measures at the 2-year follow-up.

METHODS: Forty-five patients who underwent single-level TLIF and 29 patients who underwent single-level stand-alone LLIF were included in the comparison. All costs from diagnosis through the 2-year follow-up were available from a comprehensive single-center data bank within a unified hospital system. Payment provided for all spine-related medical resource use from the time of diagnosis through 2 years was recorded. A 0% discount rate was applied. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EuroQol-5D collected in an unbiased manner. Difference in total cost per QALY gained for LLIF minus that for TLIF was assessed as the estimate of the ICER from a US perspective.

RESULTS: Significant improvements were observed at the 2-year follow-up for both TLIF and LLIF with the Short Form-36 physical component summary, Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale back pain and leg pain scores, and EuroQol-5D. ICER calculations revealed similar mean cumulative QALYs gained at the 2-year interval (0.67 for TLIF and 0.60 for LLIF; P = .33). Median total costs of care after TLIF and LLIF were $44 068 and $45 574, respectively (P = .96). Minimum cost-effective difference thresholds with an anchor of ,$50 000 per QALY were higher than minimum clinically important difference thresholds for all patient-reported outcome measures. Total mean cost and EuroQol-5D were statistically equivalent between the 2 treatment groups.

CONCLUSION: TLIF and LLIF produced equivalent 2-year patient outcomes at an equivalent cost-effectiveness profile.

Posted on

Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

tlif-x-ray-lat

Neurosurgery 77:847–874, 2015

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)—or MI-TLIF—has been increasing in prevalence compared with open TLIF (O-TLIF) procedures. The use of MI-TLIF is an evolving technique with conflicting reports in the literature about outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of MI-TLIF in comparison with O-TLIF for early and late outcomes by using the Visual Analog Scale for back pain (VAS-back) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary end points include blood loss, operative time, radiation exposure, length of stay, fusion rates, and complications between the 2 procedures.

METHODS: During August 2014, a systematic literature search was performed identifying 987 articles. Of these, 30 met inclusion criteria. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed by using both pooled and subset analyses based on study type.

RESULTS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that MI-TLIF reduced blood loss (P < .001), length of stay (P < .001), and complications (P = .001) but increased radiation exposure (P < .001). No differences were found in fusion rate (P = .61) and operative time (P = .34). A decrease in late VAS-back scores was demonstrated for MI TLIF (P < .001), but no differences were found in early VAS-back, early ODI, and late ODI.

CONCLUSION: MI-TLIF is associated with reduced blood loss, decreased length of stay, decreased complication rates, and increased radiation exposure. The rates of fusion and operative time are similar between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF. Differences in long-term outcomes in MI-TLIF vs O-TLIF are inconclusive and require more research, particularly in the form of large, multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled trials.

Posted on

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions and fluoroscopy

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions and fluoroscopy

Neurosurg Focus 35 (2):E8, 2013

There is an increasing awareness of radiation exposure to surgeons and the lifelong implications of such exposure. One of the main criticisms of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) is the amount of ionizing radiation required to perform the procedure. The goal in this study was to develop a protocol that would minimize the fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure needed to perform an MIS TLIF without compromising visualization of the anatomy or efficiency of the procedure.

Methods. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was performed to review the development of a low-dose protocol for MIS TLIFs in which a combination of low-dose pulsed fluoroscopy and digital spot images was used. Total fluoroscopy time and radiation dose were reviewed for 50 patients who underwent single-level MIS TLIFs.

Results. Fifty patients underwent single-level MIS TLIFs, resulting in the placement of 200 pedicle screws and 57 interbody spacers. There were 28 women and 22 men with an average age of 58.3 years (range 32–78 years). The mean body mass index was 26.2 kg/m2 (range 17.1–37.6 kg/m2). Indications for surgery included spondylolisthesis (32 patients), degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy (12 patients), and recurrent disc herniation (6 patients). Operative levels included 7 at L3–4, 40 at L4–5, and 3 at L5–S1. The mean operative time was 177 minutes (range 139–241 minutes). The mean fluoroscopic time was 18.72 seconds (range 7–29 seconds). The mean radiation dose was 0.247 mGy*m2 (range 0.06046–0.84054 mGy*m2). No revision surgery was required for any of the patients in this series.

Conclusions. Altering the fluoroscopic technique to low-dose pulse images or digital spot images can dramatically decrease fluoroscopy times and radiation doses in patients undergoing MIS TLIFs, without compromising image quality, accuracy of pedicle screw placement, or efficiency of the procedure.

Posted on

Outcomes of MITLIF and open TLIF approaches

Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions- is there a difference?

Neurosurg Focus 35 (2):E6, 2013

Previous studies comparing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) with open TLIF have demonstrated that MITLIF reduces blood loss and decreases postoperative pain while preserving fusion rates and reducing complications. In this study, the authors wanted to compare outcomes of MITLIF with those of open TLIF to determine whether MITLIF also improves postoperative functional mobility and decreases the usage of pain medication.

Methods. In total, 75 consecutive patients who underwent either single-level open TLIF or MITLIF at the University of California, San Francisco, between 2006 and 2011 were included, and patients were followed up for an average of 5.05 years. Fifty patients underwent MITLIF and 25 underwent open TLIF. Primary outcomes included administration of morphine-equivalent narcotics and functional status on postoperative Day 1. Secondary outcomes included operative characteristics, complications, long-term fusion rates, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores.

Results. No statistically significant differences in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), level of disease, or surgical indication were detected between the open TLIF and MITLIF groups. Similarly, preoperative medication usage did not significantly differ between these groups. Intraoperatively, compared with TLIF, MITLIF resulted in decreased lengths of operation, lower blood loss, and fewer complications (p < 0.05). Total administration of morphine-equivalent pain medication in the hospital also tended to be lower in the MITLIF than in the TLIF group. Functional assessment by physical therapy on postoperative Day 1 demonstrated higher function in the MITLIF patients for transfer-related tasks, ambulatory ability, and distance walked than in the TLIF patients (p < 0.05). This translated to shorter inpatient hospitalizations (6.05 vs 4.8 days for open TLIF vs MITLIF patients, respectively, p = 0.006) and an average cost reduction of $3885 per MITLIF patient. Long-term fusion rates were 92% in the MITLIF group and 100% in the open TLIF group (p = 0.09). Preoperative VAS pain scores were 7.1 for the MITLIF patients and 7.6 for the TLIF patients (p = 0.26). At the last follow-up, the reported VAS pain score was 2.9 in the MITLIF patients and 3.5 in the open TLIF patients, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.25). There was also no statistically significant difference in the degree change in this score (p = 0.44).

Conclusions. The MITLIF approach achieves improved functional mobility, decreases the usage of postoperative pain medication, and significantly reduces cost compared with open TLIF while preserving long-term fusion rates. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study comparing the postoperative usage of pain medication between treatments in the postoperative period before discharge.

Posted on

Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience

J Neurosurg Spine 16:44–50, 2012. DOI: 10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11373

Since its original description in 1982, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has grown in popularity as a means for achieving circumferential fusion. The authors sought to define the perioperative complication rates of the TLIF procedure at a large academic medical center.

Methods. For all eligible patients from a consecutive series of 531 TLIF procedures, the institution’s complication database and the medical record were reviewed to identify complications. Medical, nonprocedure-related complications such as myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism were excluded due to inconsistency in the recording of these complications in the database. Rates were calculated for each type of complication, and subgroup analysis was performed to investigate the effect of previous lumbar surgery, and of multilevel versus single-level interbody fusion on complication rates. Odds ratios were calculated and evaluated using chi-square analysis.

Results. Five hundred thirty-one patients underwent a TLIF procedure during the study period. Two hundred forty-four patients (46%) had undergone a previous lumbar operation. Interbody fusion was performed at 1 level in 317 patients, at 2 levels in 188 patients, at 3 levels in 24 patients, and at 4 levels in 2 patients. One hundred thirty-five patients (25.4%) had at least one procedure-related complication. The most common complications were durotomy (14.3% of patients) and infection (3.8% of patients). Symptomatic screw misplacement (2.1% of patients) and interbody cage migration (1.8% of patients) were less common complications. The overall complication rate was greater in those patients who had undergone a previous operation (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18–2.59; p < 0.01) and in those who had multilevel surgery (OR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.04–2.28; p = 0.03), and the incidence of durotomy was higher in patients who had a previous operation (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07–2.87; p = 0.03). These differences were statistically significant. Durotomy also occurred more frequently in patients who had multilevel interbody fusion (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.92–2.43; p = 0.13). A trend toward higher infection rates in those patients who underwent multilevel interbody fusion was observed (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.62–3.68; p = 0.49), but this was not statistically significant. Infection rates did not differ between revision and first-time surgeries.

Conclusions. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has gained widespread popularity as a procedure for achieving arthrodesis in the lumbar spine. Complications occurred more often in patients undergoing revision surgery or multilevel interbody fusion. Durotomy and infection were the most common complications in this series.

Posted on

Cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis

J Neurosurg Spine 15:138–143, 2011. DOI: 10.3171/2011.3.SPINE10562

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis-associated back and leg pain is associated with improvement in pain, disability, and quality of life. However, given the rising health care costs associated with spinal fusion procedures and varying results of recent cost-utility studies, the cost-effectiveness of TLIF remains unclear. The authors set out to assess the comprehensive costs of TLIF at their institution and to determine its cost-effectiveness in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Methods. Forty-five patients undergoing TLIF for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis–associated back and leg pain after 6–12 months of conservative therapy were included. The authors assessed the 2-year back pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, leg pain VAS score, Oswestry Disability Index, and total back-related medical resource utilization, missed work, and health-state values (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs], calculated from EQ-5D with US valuation). Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts (direct cost), and patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). The mean total 2-year cost per QALY gained after TLIF was assessed.

Results. Compared with preoperative health states reported after at least 6 months of medical management, a significant improvement in back pain VAS score, leg pain VAS score, and Oswestry Disability Index was observed 2 years after TLIF, with a mean 2-year gain of 0.86 QALYs. The mean ± SD total 2-year cost of TLIF was $36,836 ± $11,800 (surgery cost, $21,311 ± $2800; outpatient resource utilization cost, $3940 ± $2720; indirect cost, $11,584 ± $11,363). Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was associated with a mean 2-year cost per QALY gained of $42,854.

Conclusions. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion improved pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis–associated back and leg pain. The total cost per QALY gained for TLIF was $42,854 when evaluated 2 years after surgery with Medicare fees, suggesting that TLIF is a cost-effective treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Posted on

Reduction and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with posterior fixation versus transsacral cage fusion in situ with posterior fixation in the treatment of Grade 2 adult isthmic spondylolisthesis in the lumbosacral spine

J Neurosurg Spine 13:394–400, 2010.DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09560

In situ transsacral fusion in the treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis has rarely been reported. The authors treated 13 cases of L-5 Grade 2 isthmic spondylolisthesis associated with collapsed disc space and osteoporosis by using transsacral fusion and fixation, and compared its clinical and radiological outcomes with the results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and instrumental reduction in 21 patients.

Methods. The authors retrospectively analyzed 21 patients in Group A who were treated with reduction and TLIF, and 13 patients in Group B who were treated with transsacral cage fusion. Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale scores of back and leg pain were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. Radiological parameters for assessment included the percentage of slippage, whole lumbar lordosis, and lumbosacral angle. Operative data, fusion rate, and perioperative complications were recorded as well.

Results. The mean operation time and blood loss in Group B was less than that in Group A. Both groups realized good recovery from previous symptoms. The decrease in back and leg pain after surgery was significant within each group, without much difference between the 2 groups. No significant differences were found in lumbosacral angle, whole lumbar lordosis, visual analog scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index score between the 2 groups after surgery. The solid fusion rate was 95.2% in Group A and 92.3% in Group B. In Group A, 2 patients suffered from graft site pain, 1 had a superficial infection, and 1 had screw loosening; in Group B, dural tears were found in 2 patients, transient S-1 paresthesia in 2, and extensor hallucis longus muscle weakness in 1.

Conclusions. For patients with a collapsed disc space and poor bone quality, posterior in situ transsacral cage fusion may be used as an alternative to the TLIF procedure. The short-term clinical and radiological outcomes in the transsacral cage group were comparable with those in the TLIF group, although with a relatively higher neurological complication rate.

Proudly powered by WordPress