Object The minimally invasive transpsoas interbody fusion technique requires dissection through the psoas muscle, which contains the nerves of the lumbosacral plexus posteriorly and genitofemoral nerve anteriorly. Retraction of the psoas is becoming recognized as a cause of transient postoperative thigh pain, numbness, paresthesias, and weakness. However, few reports have described the nature of thigh symptoms after this procedure. Methods The authors performed a review of patients who underwent the transpsoas technique for lumbar spondylotic disease, disc degeneration, and spondylolisthesis treated at a single academic medical center. A review of patient charts, including the use of detailed patient-driven pain diagrams performed at equal preoperative and follow-up intervals, investigated the survival of postoperative thigh pain, numbness, paresthesias, and weakness of the iliopsoas and quadriceps muscles in the follow-up period on the ipsilateral side of the surgical approach. Results Over a 3.2-year period, 59 patients underwent transpsoas interbody fusion surgery. Of these, 62.7% had thigh symptoms postoperatively. New thigh symptoms at first follow-up visit included the following: burning, aching, stabbing, or other pain (39.0%); numbness (42.4%); paresthesias (11.9%); and weakness (23.7%). At 3 months postoperatively, these percentages decreased to 15.5%, 24.1%, 5.6%, and 11.3%, respectively. Within the patient sample, 44% underwent a 1-level, 41% a 2-level, and 15% a 3-level transpsoas operation. While not statistically significant, thigh pain, numbness, and weakness were most prevalent after L4–5 transpsoas interbody fusion at the first postoperative follow-up. The number of lumbar levels that were surgically treated had no clear association with thigh symptoms but did correlate directly with surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay. Conclusions Transpsoas interbody fusion is associated with high rates of immediate postoperative thigh symptoms. While larger, prospective studies are necessary to validate these findings, the authors found that half of the patients had symptom resolution at approximately 3 months postoperatively and more than 90% by 1 year.

While hospital setting, treatment population, patient selection, and physician expectation play major roles in determining hospital charges and LOS, this pilot study at an academic teaching hospital shows trends for quicker discharge, reduced hospital charges, and lower transfer rates to inpatient rehabilitation with MIS. However, larger multicenter studies are necessary to validate these findings and their relevance across diverse US practice environments.

OBJECTIVE Augmented reality (AR) has the potential to improve the accuracy and efficiency of instrumentation placement in spinal fusion surgery, increasing patient safety and outcomes, optimizing ergonomics in the surgical suite, and ultimately lowering procedural costs. The authors sought to describe the use of a commercial prototype Spine AR platform (SpineAR) that provides a commercial AR head-mounted display (ARHMD) user interface for navigation-guided spine surgery incorporating real-time navigation images from intraoperative imaging with a 3D-reconstructed model in the surgeon's field of view, and to assess screw placement accuracy via this method. METHODS Pedicle screw placement accuracy was assessed and compared with literature-reported data of the freehand (FH) technique. Accuracy with SpineAR was also compared between participants of varying spine surgical experience. Eleven operators without prior experience with AR-assisted pedicle screw placement took part in the study: 5 attending neurosurgeons and 6 trainees (1 neurosurgical fellow, 1 senior orthopedic resident, 3 neurosurgical residents, and 1 medical student). Commercially available 3D-printed lumbar spine models were utilized as surrogates of human anatomy. Among the operators, a total of 192 screws were instrumented bilaterally from L2–5 using SpineAR in 24 lumbar spine models. All but one trainee also inserted 8 screws using the FH method. In addition to accuracy scoring using the Gertzbein-Robbins grading scale, axial trajectory was assessed, and user feedback on experience with SpineAR was collected. RESULTS Based on the Gertzbein-Robbins grading scale, the overall screw placement accuracy using SpineAR among all users was 98.4% (192 screws). Accuracy for attendings and trainees was 99.1% (112 screws) and 97.5% (80 screws), respectively. Accuracy rates were higher compared with literature-reported lumbar screw placement accuracy using FH for attendings (99.1% vs 94.32%; p = 0.0212) and all users (98.4% vs 94.32%; p = 0.0099). The percentage of total inserted screws with a minimum of 5° medial angulation was 100%. No differences were observed between attendings and trainees or between the two methods. User feedback on SpineAR was generally positive. CONCLUSIONS Screw placement was feasible and accurate using SpineAR, an ARHMD platform with real-time navigation guidance that provided a favorable surgeon-user experience.