R. Kirk Owens

Outcomes and revision rates in normal, overweight, and obese patients 5 years after lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Obesity is a growing problem in health care. Studies have demonstrated similar functional outcomes but higher complication rates after spine surgery in obese patients. PURPOSE This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes and revision rates 5 years after instrumented posterior lumbar fusion between normal, overweight, and obese patients. STUDY DESIGN Propensity matched case control. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients who had posterior instrumented lumbar spinal fusion from 2001 to 2008 from a single spine specialty center with complete preoperative and 5-year postoperative outcome measures were identified. OUTCOME MEASURES Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Back Pain (0-10) and Leg Pain (0-10) Numeric Rating Scales, and Short Form-36 Physical Composite Summary Scores (SF-36 PCS). METHODS Three comparison groups, one with body mass index (BMI) ≥20-25 kg/m2 (normal), another with ≥25-<30 kg/m2 (overweight), and another with ≥30-40 kg/m2 (obese) were created using propensity matching techniques based on demographics, baseline clinical outcome measures, and surgical characteristics. Five-year postoperative outcome measures and revision rates in the three groups were compared. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables, and Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables between the groups. Significance was set at p<.01. RESULTS There were 82 cases matched in each cohort. Estimated blood loss (440 cc vs. 702 cc vs. 798 cc, p=.000) and operative time (234 minutes vs. 263 minutes vs. 275 minutes, p=.003) were significantly greater in the overweight and obese patients. Improvements in ODI (14.2 vs. 9.6 vs. 10.4, p=.226), SF-36 PCS (5.9 vs. 2.9 vs. 3.5, p=.361), back pain (3.0 vs. 2.0 vs. 2.1, p=.028), and leg pain (3.0 vs. 2.3 vs. 2.3, p=.311) scores were similar among the groups. Revision rates (14 vs. 15 vs. 13, p=.917), and time between index and revision surgery (p=.990) were similar among the three groups as well. CONCLUSION When considering a subset of patient-reported outcomes and revision surgery after 5 years, patients with an elevated BMI >25 at baseline did not appear to have worse outcomes than those with a normal BMI of 20-25 when undergoing posterior lumbar fusion surgery. Obesity should not be considered a contraindication to surgery in patients with appropriate surgical indications.

Impact of Surgical Approach on Clinical Outcomes in the Treatment of Lumbar Pseudarthrosis

Study Design Retrospective comparative cohort. Objective Pseudarthrosis following fusion for degenerative lumbar spine pathologies remains a substantial problem. Current data shows that patients who develop a pseudarthrosis have suboptimal outcomes. This study evaluates if treatment of pseudarthrosis can be affected by surgical approach. Methods Medical records of 63 female and 65 male patients (mean age 50.37) who were treated for nonunion following lumbar fusion were reviewed. Sixty patients underwent posterolateral fusion (PSF), 18 underwent PSF with transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF), 32 underwent anterior and posterior spinal fusion (AP), and 24 underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Results Significant differences between the treatment groups were observed in length of stay (p = 0.000), blood loss (p = 0.000), and operative time (p = 0.000). In the AP fusion group, minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reached in 47% of patients for back pain, 28% for leg pain, and 28% for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). PSF had the highest percentage of patients reaching MCID for Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical composite score at 25%. ALIF and TLIF subgroups reached MCID for ODI in 17% of patients. Linear regression analysis showed that type of surgical approach did not impact change in ODI scores. Conclusion Although not statistically significant, the AP fusion group reached MCID more frequently in all outcomes except SF-36 Physical Component Summary. All surgical approaches examined for treatment of lumbar pseudarthrosis resulted in only poor to modest improvement in ODI. This result further emphasizes the importance of achieving a solid fusion with the index surgery.

Back pain improves significantly following discectomy for lumbar disc herniation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Although lumbar disc herniation (LDH) classically presents with lower extremity radiculopathy, there are patients who have substantial associated back pain. PURPOSE The present study aims to determine if patients with LDH with substantial back pain improve with decompression alone. STUDY DESIGN This is a longitudinal observational cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients enrolled in the Quality and Outcomes Database with LDH and a baseline back pain score of ≥5 of 10 who underwent single- or two-level lumbar discectomy only. OUTCOME MEASURES Back and leg pain scores (0-10), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQoL 5D were measured. METHODS Standard demographic and surgical variables were collected, as well as patient-reported outcomes at baseline and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS The mean age of the cohort was 49.8 years and 1,195 (52.8%) were male. Mean body mass index was 30.1 kg/m2. About half of the patients (1,103, 48.8%) underwent single-level discectomy and the other half (1,159, 51.2%) had two-level discectomy. Average blood loss was 44 cc. Most of the patients (2,217, 98%) were discharged home with routine postoperative care. The average length of stay was 0.53 days. At 3 and 12 months postoperatively, there were statistically significant (p<.000) improvements in back pain (from 7.7 to 2.9 to 3.2), leg pain (from 7.5 to 2.3 to 2.5), and ODI (from 26.2 to 11.6 to 11.2). Patients with a single-level discectomy, compared with patients with a two-level discectomy, had similar improvements in 3- and 12-month back pain, leg pain, and ODI scores. CONCLUSIONS Patients with LDH who have substantial back pain can be counseled to expect improvement in their back pain scores 12 months after a discectomy.

Outcomes and revision rates following multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Background Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for cervical degenerative disease is an accepted treatment for symptomatic cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. One- and two-level fusions are much more common and more widely studied. Outcomes and revision rates for three- and four-level ACDF have not been well described. The purpose of this study is to report on clinical outcomes and revision rates following multilevel ACDF. Methods Patients who underwent three- or four-level anterior cervical discectomy with plate fixation between 2006 and 2011 from a single-center multi-surgeon practice for symptomatic cervical degenerative disease were identified. Improvements in neck disability index (NDI), neck and arm pain scores two years after surgery and revision rates were analyzed. Results Forty-six patients with a mean age of 55.9 years were included in the analysis. Twenty-one (46%) were male, 10 (22%) were smokers. Forty-one (89%) underwent three-level fusion and 5 (11%) underwent four-level fusion. NDI improved from 34.46 at baseline to 25.47 at 2 years. Neck pain improved from 7.04 at baseline to 3.95 and arm pain improved from 6.24 to 3.09 at 2 year follow up. Sixteen patients (35%) returned to surgery within 2 years with 11 of these patients (24%) returning for non-union. The average number of days to revision surgery was 750.6±570.3 days. Conclusions Patients undergoing three- and four-level ACDF for multilevel cervical disease demonstrate substantial improvement in outcomes. However, the two-year revision rate is relatively high at 35% with the majority of these patients returning due to non-union.

Randomized trial of Cell Saver in 2- to 3-level lumbar instrumented posterior fusions

OBJECTIVEThe goal of this study was to determine efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Cell Saver in 2- and 3-level lumbar decompression and fusion.METHODSPatients seen at a tertiary care spine center who were undergoing a posterior 2- or 3-level lumbar decompression and fusion were randomized to have Cell Saver used during their surgery (CS group, n = 48) or not used (No Cell Saver [NCS] group, n = 47). Data regarding preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit, estimated blood loss, volume of Cell Saver blood reinfused, number of units and volume of allogeneic blood transfused intraoperatively and postoperatively, complications, and costs were collected. Costs associated with Cell Saver use were calculated based on units of allogeneic blood transfusions averted.RESULTSDemographics and surgical parameters were similar in both groups. The mean estimated blood loss was similar in both groups: 612 ml in the CS group and 742 ml in the NCS group. There were 53 U of allogeneic blood transfused in 29 patients in the NCS group at a total blood product cost of

Superior articulating facet violation: percutaneous versus open techniques

67,688; and 38 U of allogeneic blood transfused in 16 patients in the CS group at a total blood cost of

Can the anxiety domain of EQ-5D and mental health items from SF-36 help predict outcomes after surgery for lumbar degenerative disorders?

113,162, resulting in a cost of

Prognostic factors associated with best outcomes (minimal symptom state) following fusion for lumbar degenerative conditions

3031 per allogeneic blood transfusion averted using Cell Saver.CONCLUSIONSCell Saver use produced lower rates of allogeneic transfusion but was found to be more expensive than using only allogeneic blood for 2- and 3-level lumbar degenerative fusions. This increased cost may be reasonable to patients who perceive that the risks associated with allogeneic transfusions are unacceptable.■ CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE Type of question: therapeutic; study design: randomized controlled trial; evidence: class III.