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
Study Design. Retrospective cohort study. Objective. To evaluate the ability of patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) assessments to capture disability related to cervical sagittal alignment and secondarily to compare these findings to legacy outcome measures. Summary of Background Data. PROMIS is a validated patient-reported outcome metric that is increasing in popularity due to its speed of administration relative to legacy metrics. The ability of PROMIS to capture disability from sagittal alignment and baseline health status in patients with neck pain has not been investigated. Methods. Patients presenting with a chief complaint of neck pain from December 2016 to July 2017 were included. Demographics and comorbidities were retrospectively collected. All patients prospectively completed the neck disability index (NDI), EQ-5D, visual analog scale (VAS) neck, VAS arm, PROMIS physical function, PROMIS pain intensity, and PROMIS pain interference metrics. Cervical sagittal alignment parameters were measured on standing X-rays. The correlations between outcome measures, health status indexes, psychiatric diagnoses, and sagittal alignment were analyzed. Results. Two hundred twenty-six patients were included. The sample was 58.4% female with a mean age of 55.1 years. In patients with neck pain, PROMIS physical function correlated strongly with the NDI (r = −0.763, P < 0.01), EQ-5D (r = 0.616, P < 0.01), VAS neck pain (−0.466, P < 0.01), and VAS arm pain (r = −0.388, P < 0.01). One hundred seventy-seven patients (69.96%) were included in the radiographic analysis. 20.3% of the radiographic cohort had cervical deformity and in this group, less cervical lordosis correlated with PROMIS pain intensity and EQ-5D but not NDI. In patients without cervical deformity, no outcome metric was found to correlate significantly with cervical alignment parameters. Conclusion. PROMIS domains correlated strongly with legacy outcome metrics. For the whole cohort, sagittal alignment was not correlated with outcomes. In patients with sagittal cervical deformity, worsening alignment correlated with PROMIS pain intensity and EQ-5D but not NDI. Level of Evidence: 3
BACKGROUND Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) is a common radiographic complication of adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery. Although previous literature has reported a 5 to 61% incidence of PJK, these studies are limited by small sample sizes and short-term follow-up. OBJECTIVE To assess the incidence of PJK utilizing a high-powered ASD database. METHODS Retrospective review of a prospective multicenter ASD database. Operative ASD patients > 18 yr old from 2009 to 2017 were included. PJK was defined as ≥ 10° for the sagittal Cobb angle between the inferior upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) endplate and the superior endplate of the UIV + 2. Chi-square analysis and post hoc testing assessed annual and overall incidence of acute (6-wk follow-up [f/u]), progressive (increase in degree of PJK from 6 wk to 1 yr), and delayed (1-yr, 2-yr, and 3-yr f/u) PJK development. RESULTS A total of 1005 patients were included (age: 59.3; 73.5% F; body mass index: 27.99). Overall PJK incidence was 69.4%. Overall incidence of acute PJK was 48.0%. Annual incidence of acute PJK has decreased from 53.7% in 2012 to 31.6% in 2017 (P = .038). Overall incidence of progressive PJK was 35.0%, with stable rates observed from 2009 to 2016 (P = .297). Overall incidence of 1-yr-delayed PJK was 9.3%. Annual incidence of 1-yr-delayed PJK has decreased from 9.2% in 2009 to 3.2% in 2016 (P < .001). Overall incidence of 2-yr-delayed PJK development was 4.3%. Annual incidence of 2-yr-delayed PJK has decreased from 7.3% in 2009 to 0.9% in 2015 (P < .05). Overall incidence of 3-yr-delayed PJK was 1.8%, with stable rates observed from 2009 to 2014 (P = .594). CONCLUSION Although progressive PJK has remained a challenge for physicians over time, significantly lower incidences of acute and delayed PJK in recent years may indicate improving operative decision-making and management strategies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.