Study Design. A retrospective cohort study at a single institution. Objective. The aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and bilateral minimally invasive surgery (MIS) Wiltse approach TLIF (Wil-TLIF). Summary of Background Data. Several studies have compared open TLIF to MIS TLIF; however, comparing the techniques using a large cohort of one-level TLIFs has not been fully explored. Methods. We reviewed the charts of patients undergoing a single-level primary posterior lumbar interbody fusion between 2012 and 2017. The cases were categorized as Open TLIF (traditional midline exposure including lateral exposure of transverse processes) or bilateral paramedian Wiltse TLIF approach. Differences between groups were assessed by t tests. Results. Two hundred twenty-seven patients underwent one-level primary TLIF (116 O-TLIF, 111 Wil-TLIF). There was no difference in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), or body mass index (BMI) between groups. Wil-TLIF had the lowest estimated blood loss (EBL; 197 vs. 499 mL O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001), length of stay (LOS; 2.7 vs. 3.6 days O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001), overall complication rate (12% vs. 24% O-TLIF, P = 0.015), minor complication rate (7% vs. 16% O-TLIF, P = 0.049), and 90-day readmission rate (1% vs. 8% O-TLIF, P = 0.012). Wil-TLIF was associated with the higher fluoroscopy time (83 vs. 24 seconds O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001). There was not a significant difference in operative time, intraoperative or neurological complications, extubation time, reoperation rate, or infection rate. Conclusion. In comparing Wiltse MIS TLIF to Open TLIF, the minimally invasive paramedian Wiltse approach demonstrated the lowest EBL, LOS, readmission rates, and complications, but longer fluoroscopy times when compared with the traditional open approach. Level of Evidence: 3

No abstract

No abstract

Study Design: Retrospective clinical review. Objective: To assess the use of intraoperative computed tomography (CT) image-guided navigation (IGN) and robotic assistance in posterior lumbar surgery and their relationship with patient radiation exposure and perioperative outcomes. Methods: Patients ≥18 years old undergoing 1- to 2-level transforaminal lateral interbody fusion in 12-month period were included. Chart review was performed for pre- and intraoperative data on radiation dose and perioperative outcomes. All radiation doses are quantified in milliGrays (mGy). Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were utilized for categorical variables. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey test was used for continuous variables. Results: A total of 165 patients were assessed: 12 IGN, 62 robotic, 56 open, 35 fluoroscopically guided minimally invasive surgery (MIS). There was a lower proportion of women in open and MIS groups ( P = .010). There were more younger patients in the MIS group ( P < .001). MIS group had the lowest mean posterior levels fused ( P = .015). Total-procedure radiation, total-procedure radiation/level fused, and intraoperative radiation was the lowest in the open group and highest in the MIS group compared with IGN and robotic groups (all P < .001). Higher proportion of robotic and lower proportion of MIS patients had preoperative CT ( P < .001). Estimated blood loss ( P = .002) and hospital length of stay ( P = .039) were lowest in the MIS group. Highest operative time was observed for IGN patients ( P < .001). No differences were observed in body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and postoperative complications ( P = .313, .051, and .644, respectively). Conclusion: IGN and robotic assistance in posterior lumbar fusion were associated with higher intraoperative and total-procedure radiation exposure than open cases without IGN/robotics, but significantly less than MIS without IGN/robotics, without differences in perioperative outcomes. Fluoro-MIS procedures reported highest radiation exposure to patient, and of equal concern is that the proportion of total radiation dose also applied to the surgeon and operating room staff in fluoro-MIS group is higher than in IGN/robotics and open groups.

No abstract

No abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To investigate radiological differences in lumbar disc herniations (herniated nucleus pulposus [HNP]) between patients receiving microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) and nonoperative patients. Methods: Patients with primary treatment for an HNP at a single academic institution between November 2012 to March 2017 were divided into MLD and nonoperative treatment groups. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), axial HNP area; axial canal area; HNP canal compromise; HNP cephalad/caudal migration and HNP MRI signal (black, gray, or mixed) were measured. T test and chi-square analyses compared differences in the groups, binary logistic regression analysis determined odds ratios (ORs), and decision tree analysis compared the cutoff values for risk factors. Results: A total of 285 patients (78 MLD, 207 nonoperative) were included. Risk factors for MLD treatment included larger axial HNP area ( P < .01, OR = 1.01), caudal migration, and migration magnitude ( P < .05, OR = 1.90; P < .01, OR = 1.14), and gray HNP MRI signal ( P < .01, OR = 5.42). Cutoff values for risks included axial HNP area (70.52 mm2, OR = 2.66, P < .01), HNP canal compromise (20.0%, OR = 3.29, P < .01), and cephalad/caudal migration (6.8 mm, OR = 2.43, P < .01). MLD risk for those with gray HNP MRI signal (67.6% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area >70.52 mm2 (75.5%, P = .01) and HNP canal compromise >20.0% (71.1%, P = .05) cutoffs. MLD risk in patients with cephalad/caudal migration >6.8 mm (40.5% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area and HNP canal compromise (52.4%, 50%; P < .01). Conclusion: Patients who underwent MLD treatment had significantly different axial HNP area, frequency of caudal migration, magnitude of cephalad/caudal migration, and disc herniation MRI signal compared to patients with nonoperative treatment.

Study Design. Retrospective analysis of outcomes in single-level spine and primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare baseline and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery procedures with total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to further define outcomes in orthopedic surgery. Summary of Background Data. Computer-adaptive Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS) allows for standardized assessment of the health-related quality of life across different disease states. Methods. Patients who underwent spine surgery (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement, lumbar laminectomy, microscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or adult reconstruction surgery [THA, TKA]) were grouped. Mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Baseline (BL), and 6-month PROMIS scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity were determined. Paired t tests compared differences in CCI, BL, 6 months, and change in PROMIS scores for spine and adult reconstruction procedures. Results. A total of 304 spine surgery patients (age = 58.1 ± 15.6; 42.9% female) and 347 adult reconstruction patients (age = 62.9 ± 11.8; 54.1% Female) were compared. Spine surgery groups had more disability and pain at baseline than adult reconstruction patients according to physical function ([21.0, 22.2, 9.07, 12.6, 10.4] vs. [35.8, 35.0], respectively, P < 0.01), pain interference ([80.1, 74.1, 89.6, 92.5, 90.6] vs. [64.0, 63.9], respectively, P < 0.01), and pain intensity ([53.0, 53.1, 58.3, 58.5, 56.1] vs. [53.4, 53.8], respectively, P < 0.01). At 6 months, spine surgery patients remained more disabled and had more pain compared to adult reconstruction patients. Over the 6-month timespan, spine patients experienced greater improvements than adult reconstruction patients in terms of physical function ([+8.7, +22.2, +9.7, +12.9, +12.1] vs. [+5.3, +3.9], respectively, P < 0.01) and pain interference scores ([−15.4,−28.1, −14.7, −13.1, −12.3] vs. [−8.3, −6.0], respectively, P < 0.01). Conclusion. Spinal surgery patients had lower BL and 6-month PROMIS scores, but greater relative improvement in PROMIS scores compared to adult reconstruction patients. Level of Evidence: 3