No abstract

Object Minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been demonstrated in previous studies to offer improvement in pain and function comparable to those provided by the open surgical approach. However, comparative studies in the obese population are scarce, and it is possible that obese patients may respond differently to these two approaches. In this study, the authors compared the clinical benefit of open and MI TLIF in obese patients. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study based on review of electronic medical records at a single institution. Eligible patients had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2, were ≥ 18 years of age, underwent single-level TLIF between 2007 and 2011, and outcome was assessed at a minimum 6 months postoperatively. The authors categorized patients according to surgical approach (open vs MI TLIF). Outcome measures included postoperative improvement in visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), estimated blood loss (EBL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results A total 74 patients (21 open and 53 MI TLIF) were studied. Groups had similar baseline characteristics. The median BMI was 34.4 kg/m2 (interquartile range 31.6–37.5 kg/m2). The mean follow-up time was 30 months (range 6.5–77 months). The mean improvement in VAS score was 2.8 (95% CI 1.9–3.8) for the open group (n = 21) and 2.4 (95% CI 1.8–3.1) for the MI group (n = 53), which did not significantly differ (unadjusted, p = 0.49; adjusted, p = 0.51). The mean improvement in ODI scores was 13 (95% CI 3–23) for the open group (n = 14) and 15 (95% CI 8–22) for the MI group (n = 45), with no significant difference according to approach (unadjusted, p = 0.82; adjusted, p = 0.68). After stratifying by BMI (< 35 kg/m2 and ≥ 35 kg/m2), there was still no difference in either VAS or ODI improvement between the approaches (both unadjusted and adjusted, p > 0.05). Complications and EBL were greater for the open group than for the MI group (p < 0.05). Conclusions Obese patients experienced clinically and statistically significant improvement in both pain and function after undergoing either open or MI TLIF. Patients achieved similar clinical benefit whether they underwent an open or MI approach. However, patients in the MI group experienced significantly decreased operative blood loss and complications than their counterparts in the open group.

Object Minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has proven to be effective in the treatment of spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease (DDD). Compared with the traditional open TLIF, the MI procedure has been associated with less blood loss, less postoperative pain, and a shorter hospital stay. However, it is uncertain whether the advantages of an MI TLIF also apply specifically to obese patients. This study was dedicated to evaluating whether obese patients reap the perioperative benefits similar to those seen in patients with normal body mass index (BMI) when undergoing MI TLIF. Methods Obese patients—that is, those with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2—who had undergone single-level TLIF were retrospectively identified and categorized according to BMI: Class I obesity, BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m2; Class II obesity, BMI 35.0–39.9 kg/m2; or Class III obesity, BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m2. In each obesity class, patients were stratified by TLIF approach, that is, open versus MI. Perioperative outcomes, including intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), complications (overall, intraoperative, and 30-day postoperative), and hospital length of stay (LOS), were compared. The chi-square test, Fisher exact test, or 2-tailed Student t-test were used when appropriate. Results One hundred twenty-seven patients were included in the final analysis; 49 underwent open TLIF and 78 underwent MI TLIF. Sixty-one patients had Class I obesity (23 open and 38 MI TLIF); 45 patients, Class II (19 open and 26 MI); and 21 patients, Class III (7 open and 14 MI). Overall, mean EBL was 397.2 ml and mean hospital LOS was 3.7 days. Minimally invasive TLIF was associated with significantly less EBL and a shorter hospital stay than open TLIF when all patients were evaluated as a single cohort and within individual obesity classes. Overall, the complication rate was 18.1%. Minimally invasive TLIF was associated with a significantly lower total complication rate (11.5% MI vs 28.6% open) and intraoperative complication rate (3.8% MI vs 16.3% open) as compared with open TLIF. When stratified by obesity class, MI TLIF was still associated with lower rates of total and intraoperative complications. This effect was most profound and statistically significant in patients with Class III obesity (42.9% open vs 7.1% MI). Conclusions Minimally invasive TLIF offers obese patients perioperative benefits similar to those seen in patients with normal BMI who undergo the same procedure. These benefits include less EBL, a shorter hospital stay, and potentially fewer complications compared with open TLIF. Additional large retrospective studies and randomized prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.

No abstract

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

OBJECTIVEThe Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is one of the most commonly used patient-reported outcome instruments, but completion of this 10-question survey can be cumbersome. Tools from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) are an alternative, and potentially more efficient, means of assessing physical, mental, and social outcomes in spine surgery. Authors of this retrospective study assessed whether scores on the 4-item surveys of function and pain from the PROMIS initiative correlate with those on the ODI in lumbar spine surgery.METHODSPatients evaluated in the adult neurosurgery spine clinic at a single institution completed the ODI, PROMIS Short Form v2.0 Physical Function 4a (PROMIS PF), and PROMIS Short Form v1.0 Pain Interference 4a (PROMIS PI) at various time points in their care. Score data were retrospectively analyzed using linear regressions with calculation of the Pearson correlation coefficient.RESULTSThree hundred forty-three sets of surveys (ODI, PROMIS PF, and PROMIS PI) were obtained from patients across initial visits (n = 147), 3-month follow-ups (n = 107), 12-month follow-ups (n = 52), and 24-month follow-ups (n = 37). ODI scores strongly correlated with PROMIS PF t-scores at baseline (r = −0.72, p < 0.0001), 3 months (r = −0.79, p < 0.0001), 12 months (r = −0.85, p < 0.0001), and 24 months (r = −0.89, p < 0.0001). ODI scores also correlated strongly with PROMIS PI t-scores at baseline (r = 0.71, p < 0.0001), at 3 months (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001), at 12 months (r = 0.86, p < 0.0001), and at 24 months (r = 0.88, p < 0.0001). Changes in ODI scores moderately correlated with changes in PROMIS PF t-scores (r = −0.68, p = 0.0003) and changes in PROMIS PI t-scores (r = 0.57, p = 0.0047) at 3 months postoperatively.CONCLUSIONSA strong correlation was found between the ODI and the 4-item PROMIS PF/PI at isolated time points for patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Large cohort studies are needed to determine longitudinal accuracy and precision and to assess possible benefits of time savings and improved rates of survey completion.

No abstract

No abstract