Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without repositioning. To date, studies evaluating the P-LLIF have been small single surgeon series. This multicentre retrospective cohort examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF againsttraditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning in patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position P-LLIF technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 101 patients undergoing revision circumferential fusion with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch and segmental lumbar lordosis.
METHOD(S): A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed from 4 institutions from the USA and Australia of patients undergoing revision anterior-posterior lumbar fusion via either: 1) single-position prone LLIF (P-LLIF); or 2) lateral decubitus LLIF with repositioning to prone (L-LLIF) between January 2015 and November 2021. Patients with greater than 4 levels fused were excluded. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 101 patients undergoing revision lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs 2.66 L-LLIF, p=0.469) and interbody levels fused (1.23 P-LLIF vs 1.25 L-LLIF, p=0.838) were similar between groups. Levels decompressed, posterior column osteotomy and anterior column release were similar between groups. Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group compared to the L-LLIF group (151 vs 206 min, p=0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150 mL P-LLIF vs 182 mL L-LLIF, p=0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay (2.7 vs 3.3 days, p=0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in perioperative or postoperative complications between P-LLIF and L-LLIF groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment as measured by lumbar lordosis, PI-LL mismatch, or segmental lumbar lordosis between groups.
CONCLUSION(S): P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency and may reduce length of stay when compared to L-LLIF and repositioning for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Preoperative risk stratification is critical to determining which adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients may develop postop complications and to maximize surgical success. Currently it is unknown if a preoperative inflammatory state results in a higher risk for postop complications. This information can be used in risk stratification models to aid in complication avoidance. PURPOSE: To determine if patients with preoperative elevated serum markers for inflammation have higher rates of postoperative complications STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of multicenter prospective ASD database. PATIENT SAMPLE: ASD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: C-reactive protein (CRP), Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), complications by type and by severity of intervention: none, mild, moderate and severe. Demographic and surgical variables: age, estimated blood loss (EBL), operating room (OR) time, body mass index (BMI), America Society of Anesthesia physical classification scale (ASA), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), Edmonton frailty scale (EF), 3-column osteotomy (3CO), number of post fusion levels.
METHOD(S): Preoperative labs were drawn on ASD patients and the inflammatory markers were CRP and ESR. CRP thresholds for cardiac risk: normal = 3. The CRP moderate and elevated values were combined into one group named elevated. Normal ESR thresholds: Male age 50, =20, Female >50, =30. Patients were stratified by having normal or elevated markers and rates of complications were compared between the groups. A multivariate model with CRP/ESR and demographic/surgical variables for postoperative complications. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) metrics were compared RESULTS: The total number of patients with preoperative CRP was 159 and ESR was 158. CRP: normal=114 patients (71.7%), moderate elevation=28 (17.6%), severe elevation=17 (10.7%). Combined elevated=45/159(28.3%). Elevated ESR=25(15.8%), normal=133(84.2%). The elevated CRP group had significantly higher rate of moderate complication 13/45(28.9%) vs 16/114(14.0%), p=0.03 and severe complication 15/45 (33.3%) vs 17/114(14.9%, p=0.009. Elevated ESR patients had significantly higher rate of moderate complication 9/25 (36.0%) vs 20/133 (15.0%), p=0.01. In multivariable logistic regression elevated CRP had odds ratio for moderate complication of 3.3 (95% CI 1.4-7.6, p=0.006), and for severe complication of 2.3 (95% CI 1.05-5.1, p=0.037). Multivariable logistic regression for elevated ESR and moderate complication had odds ratio of 2.9 (95%CI 1.04-7.8, p=0.041). Elevated CRP also had significantly higher rate of wound complications (15.6% vs 3.5%, p=0.007) and MSK complications (11.1% vs 1.8%, p=0.01). Elevated ESR had significantly higher rate of cardiac complications (32.0% vs 13.5%, p=0.02) and neurological complications (24.0% vs 9.0%, p=0.03). Elevated CRP had worse preoperative leg pain, SRS Activity and VR12 PCS(p<0.05). Elevated ESR had worse baseline ODI (p=0.03).
CONCLUSION(S): A preoperative inflammatory state as defined by elevated CRP and ESR is an independent risk factor for the development of moderate and severe postop complications. Having elevated preop CRP is 3.3 and 2.3 times more likely to have a moderate and severe complication, respectively. Elevated ESR is 2.9 times more likely to have a moderate complication. This data can be used in risk stratification models to aid in minimizing postoperative complications. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Several studies have suggested that Hounsfield units (HU) in the spine are associated with increased complications for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess whether there exists a threshold for HU that is associated with increased blood loss following ASD surgery. We hypothesize that HU below thresholds on spinal CT are predictive of increased blood loss during surgery and implant complications within 90 days after surgery for ASD. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: ASD patients who had HU measured in the spine were identified from a multicenter database. OUTCOME MEASURES: High Intraoperative blood loss and implant complications within 90 days of surgery.
METHOD(S): HU at L1, upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) and total averages were assessed. Threshold linear regression with Bayesian information criteria was utilized to identify optimal cut-offs for predicting high blood loss (>2100mL, top 25% by volume) or any implant complications within 90 days. Implant complications included loosening, breakage and dislocation of rods or screws. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, osteotomy and levels fused.
RESULT(S): Of 527 patients included, the mean age was 61+/-14. Mean L1 HU was 154.59+/-87, UIV HU was 175.1+/-304, and total average HU was 165+/-168. There were 59 patients with high blood loss (mean 5,026+/-233ml) and 467 with low blood loss (1,331+/-39.5ml). Threshold regression analysis identified that a cut-off of =140.33 was optimal for predicting high blood loss and =99.75 total average HU was optimal for predicting implant complications within 90 days of surgery. On multivariable analysis, L1 HU less than 140 was associated with 1.57x higher odds of high blood loss (P=0.032). Total average HU less than 100 was associated with a 3.6x higher odds of having an implant related failure within 90 days of surgery (P=0.035).
CONCLUSION(S): In this prospective multi-center study, Those with L1 HU=140 had a 1.52x higher odds of high blood loss. Patients with an average HUof =100 have 3.6x higher odds of implant related complication within 90 days of surgery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prophylaxis usage has been established in literature as an important component of minimizing the risk of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) development. However, literature is scarce on the effects of prophylaxis in patients who have achieved adequate postoperative alignment and those who maintained poor alignment postoperatively. PURPOSE: To investigate how PJK prophylaxis impacts rates of PJK and PJF with and without ideal alignment and the associated cost/cost-effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of a prospective adult thoracolumbar deformity database. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 1,541 patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (ODI), cost per QALY.
METHOD(S): Operative adult spinal deformity patients (scoliosis >20degree, SVA>5cm, PT>25degree, or TK>60degree) with an UIV at L1 or below and available baseline (BL) and 2-year (2Y) radiographic and HRQL data were included. "Matched" and "unmatched" alignment refers to the age-adjusted alignment criteria. PJK prophylaxis was defined by usage of cement, hooks or tethers. PJF was defined as PJK with reoperation. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, accounting for additional costs of prophylaxis when applicable, through estimates from Medicare pay scales for services within a 30-day window, including estimates regarding costs of postoperative complications, outpatient healthcare encounters, revisions and medical related readmissions. QALY was calculated using SF6D.
RESULT(S): A total of 738 ASD patients or below met inclusion criteria (59.9yrs+/-14.0, 79%F, BMI: 27.7 kg/m2 +/-6.0, CCI: 1.8 +/-1.7). Surgically, patients had a mean level fused of 11.1+/-4.4, LOS of 7.9 days+/-4.4, EBL of 1577 mL, operative time of 377 min, with 63% undergoing an osteotomy. Forty percent of patients had PJK prophylaxis. Controlling for age, CCI, BL osteoporosis, levels fused, usage of 3CO, UIV, BL SVA and BL PI-LL, patients who were matched postoperatively in PT, SVA, or PI-LL had lowered PJF rates (OR:.5, 95% CI:.28-.86, p=.01) with prophylaxis. Among those unmatched in either SVA, PILL, or PT by 6W, prophylaxis significantly reduced the rates of PJK and PJF as well (p <0.05). ANCOVA controlling for age, CCI, BL osteoporosis, levels fused, usage of 3CO, UIV, BL SVA and BL PI-LL shows patients with ideal age-adjusted alignment and prophylaxis resulted in a lower cost per QALY by 2Y ($399,948 vs $514,228, p <.001). Similarly, in unmatched patients, prophylaxis resulted in a substantially lower cost per QALY by 2Y ($466,409 vs 672, 024, p <.001), primarily due to decreased costs of reoperation and greater improvements in QALY among prophylaxis cohorts.
CONCLUSION(S): Despite additional surgical cost, optimization of radiographic realignment in conjunction with utilization of proximal junctional failure prophylactic techniques achieves ideal cost utility, predominately due to the minimization of mechanical failure related reoperations. Even among those not achieving optimal alignment, junctional prophylactic measures improved cost utility, emphasizing its critical role of minimization of junctional failures to achieve cost efficiency in adult spinal deformity surgery. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Indirect decompression technique may be limited in that it does not include direct removal of the offending intervertebral disc or osteophyte protruding into the canal. PURPOSE: This study evaluates resolution of radiculopathy and perioperative complications in lumbar fusion with indirect or direct decompression techniques. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of large single center academic institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 116 single-level lumbar fusion patients with preoperative radiculopathy from 2012 to 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Resolution of radiculopathy, visual analog scores (VAS), perioperative complications, motor scores.
METHOD(S): Patients 18 years of age diagnosed with preoperative radiculopathy undergoing single-level lumbar fusion with up to two-year follow-up were grouped by indirect and direct decompression. Direct decompression group included TLIF with or without direct decompression procedure as well as ALIF and LLIF with direct decompression procedure. Indirect decompression group included ALIF and LLIF without direct decompression procedure. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for differences in age between groups. Outcome measures were compared between groups using means comparison tests. Logistic regression analysis was used to correlate decompression type with symptom resolution over time.
RESULT(S): A total of 116 patients were included in this analysis: 58 direct decompression (mean 53.9y, 67.2% female) and 58 indirect decompression (mean 54.6y, 61.4% female). Direct decompression patients experienced greater blood loss relative to indirect decompression patients (242.4 +/- 128.5 vs 171.79 +/- 143.9 mL, p=0.007). Additionally, direct decompressionpatients experienced full resolution of radiculopathy at 3 months postop at a greater rate than those in the indirect decompression group (OR: 4.742, [1.97-11.41]; 53.1% vs 13.73%, p=0.002). At 6 months, direct decompression patients demonstrated a significantly larger reduction in VAS score 6 months postop (-2.889 +/- 2.3 vs -0.897 +/- 4.3, p=0.044). With regard to motor function, direct decompression patients had improved motor score with respect to the L5 dermatome at 6 months compared to indirect decompression patients (DELTAmotor score from baseline: 0.1714 +/- 0.453 vs -0.024 +/- 0.154, p=0.019).
CONCLUSION(S): Patients who underwent direct decompression experienced significantly greater resolution of preoperative lower extremity radiculopathy at 3 months compared with those who underwent ID alone. At 6 and 12 months, no differences were noted between the two groups. There were no differences in complication rates. At 6 months postop, direct decompression patients had greater improvement in preoperative motor deficit than ID patients. In particularly debilitated patients, these findings may influence surgeons to perform a direct decompression to achieve more rapid resolution of radiculopathy symptoms. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Sacralization of L5 is a condition that affects 15% of the population. Because of the increased L5 articulations to the sacrum, it is unclear how pelvic incidence and spinopelvic parameters should be measured. PURPOSE: Determine whether patients with L5 sacralization should be radiographically measured with relation to the L5 or S1 vertebrae. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: Prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity database. OUTCOME MEASURES: ODI, SF36 PCS, radiographic spinopelvic parameters.
METHOD(S): Linear regression modeling was used to determine normative TPA and PI-LL based on PI and age in a database of asymptomatic subjects. In an adult spinal deformity database, patients with radiographic evidence of L5 sacralization, had PI, LL and TPA measured from the superior endplate S1 and then also from L5. Patients with instrumentation below L4 at baseline were excluded. The differences in TPA and PI-LL from normative were calculated in the sacralization cohort relative to L5 and S1 and correlated to ODI. Patients were grouped based on PI-LL Schwab modifier (0, +, ++) utilizing their L5 PI-LL and S1 PI-LL. Baseline ODI and SF36 PCS were compared across and within groups and their respective SRS Schwab class.
RESULT(S): Among 1,179 ASD patients, 276 (23.4%) had transitional anatomy, 176 with sacralized L5 (14.9%) and 100 (8.48%) with lumbarization of S1. The 176 with sacralized L5 were analyzed. PI (24.5 +/- 11.0 vs 55.7 +/- 12.0, p=0.001), TPA (11.2 +/- 12.0 vs 20.3 +/- 12.5, p=0.001) and PI-LL (0.67 +/- 21.1 vs 11.4 +/- 20.8, p=0.001) measured utilizing the L5 superior endplate were significantly smaller than those who were measured relative to S1. When measured from S1, 76 (43. %) of patients were SRS Schwab 0, 45 (25.6%) were Class +, and 55 (31.3%) were class ++ compared to 124 (70.5%), 22 (12.5%), and 30 (17.0%) measured from L5 respectively. There were significant differences in ODI and PCS as the Schwab grade increased regardless of L5 or S1 measurement. The L5 group had higher PCS functional scores for Schwab 0 and ++ relative to same grades in the S1 group. Offset from normative TPA (0.5 +/- 11.1 vs 9.6 +/- 10.8, p=0.001) and PI-LL (0.67 +/- 21.1 vs 11.4 +/- 20.8, p=0.001) were smaller when measuring from L5. Moreover, S1 measurements were more correlated with disability by ODI (TPA offset from normative, S1: R=0.326 vs L5: R=0.285; PI-LL Offset from normative, S1: R=0.318 vs L5: R=0.274).
CONCLUSION(S): Measuring the PI at L5 in sacralized anatomy results in underestimating the PILL Schwab grade in a percentage of patients and less correlation with HRQLs. Patients with sacralized L5s should have spinopelvic parameters measured relative to S1. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Reducing fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure in the operating room is beneficial for the patient and surgical team. Placement of an interbody device during lateral transpsoas approach is traditionally carried out using anterior-posterior and lateral fluoroscopy. In this setting, 3-dimensional computed tomography (CT)-based spinal navigation of cage and pedicle screw/rod placement for LLIF procedure may result in decreased radiation exposure compared with fluoroscopically-guided LLIF. We sought to present our experience with the use of CT-based spinal navigation for the LLIF procedure and evaluate rates of intraoperative complications and radiation exposure. PURPOSE: To determine if computer-navigation guided LLIF will have equivalent outcomes with decreased radiation dose compared to fluoroscopy-guided LLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single-center retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 250 patients over 18 years of age who underwent LLIF with <4 levels fused (age: 61.4 +/- 10.8 yrs, BMI: 29.7 +/- 6.1 7 kg/m2). OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraoperative and 90-day complications, radiation exposure and cage placement.
METHOD(S): Patients were separated into two groups: fluoroscopy-guided LLIF (n=224), and navigated LLIF (n=26). Cage placement was assessed on postoperative radiographs by dividing the disc space into quarters, anterior to posterior.
RESULT(S): In terms of operative characteristics, fluoroscopy dosage was significantly greater in the fluoroscopically-guided LLIF cohort (55.1 +/- 57.4 mGy vs 34.0 +/- 24.9 mGy, p=0.002). There were no significant differences between fluoroscopically-guided LLIFs and navigated LLIFs in overall intraoperative complication rate (4% Fluoro vs 0% Nav, p=0.3), rate of durotomy (2.2 % Fluoro vs 0% Nav, p=0.44), or estimated blood loss (322 +/- 330.3 cc Flouro vs 299.5 +/- 198.6 cc Nav, p=0.6). The rate of postoperative complications (26.8% Fluoro vs 26.9% Nav), neurologic complications (5.4% Fluoro vs 3.8% Nav), surgical site infections (1.3% Fluoro vs 3.8% Nav), mechanical complications (1.8% Fluoro vs 0% Nav) was not significantly different. There was no significant difference in the rate of unplanned return to the operating room within 90 days (1.8% Fluoro vs 0% Nav). Cage placement was similar between the two groups (p=0.29).
CONCLUSION(S): We report an average radiation exposure with navigated LLIFs of 34.0 mGy, significantly lower than the 55.1 mGy in the fluoroscopically-guided LLIF group. The length of stay and perioperative complication rate was equivalent between the groups. These data support the use of CT-based navigation for placement of the cage and pedicle screws/rod construct for LLIF procedure. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Thoracic decompensation (TD) represents a distinct radiographic complexity from proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). Few studies exist on the occurrence of TD following adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery. PURPOSE: To assess the incidence of TD following ASD-corrective surgery in comparison with the occurrence of PJK. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 689 ASD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: ASD, TD, PJK, thoracic compensation.
METHOD(S): ASD patients with complete baseline (BL) and two-year (2Y) followup were included. Patients were divided into groups: those who developed TD: T4-T12 >54.2degree and those who developed PJK. Further analysis assessed outcomes among patients with both TD and PJK (TDPJK). Thoracic compensation was defined as expected thoracic kyphosis minus BL thoracic kyphosis. Means comparison tests and multivariable logistic regression analysis assessed differences between patient groups.
RESULT(S): A total of 373 patients met inclusion criteria. Patient breakdown by radiographic outcome was: TD (N=31), PJK (N=223) and TDPJK (N=119). Age, gender, and ASD-mFI were similar between TD and PJK patients. TD patients were more likely to be osteoporotic than PJK patients, p < 0.05. Procedures on TD patients were less invasive and utilized a shorter construct (9.3 vs 11.5 levels; both p < 0.05). TD patients had significantly greater cervical lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, and lumbar lordosis than PJK patients at BL and 2Y follow-up, all p < 0.05. Thoracic compensation was significantly associated with TD (OR 1.07 [CI 1.04-1.09], p < 0.001) controlling for age, ASD-mFI, and invasiveness. TDPJK had the highest complication rate (84.9%), significantly greater than PJK patients (70.9%), and TD patients (61.3%), both p < 0.05. PJK patients were 78.7% less likely to develop PJF than TDPJK patients (OR 0.213 [CI 0.101-0.453], p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION(S): Patients who developed thoracic decompensation were more likely to present with osteoporosis, but had less invasive procedures and levels fused than patients with proximal junctional kyphosis. The tradeoff between fusing too much resulting in proximal junctional kyphosis and fusing too little predisposing to thoracic decompensation can serve as the basis of future studies to determine optimal construct length to balance these two risks. Thoracic compensation was predictive of postoperative thoracic decompensation in adult spinal deformity-correction. Patients who developed TDPJK had the highest rate of complications and greater odds of junctional failure. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Previous literature has demonstrated the advantages of lateral single position surgery (L-SPS) in the perioperative period; however, 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively. PURPOSE: Evaluate the feasibility and safety of L-SPS technique against the conventional FLIP. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multi-center retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary AP (ALIF or LLIF) fusions with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 with minimum 2-year followup at three institutions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch and segmental lumbar lordosis.
METHOD(S): Patients were grouped as L-SPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2 years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 442 pts met inclusion, including 352 L-SPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs. 56.9; p= < 0.001) and smoking status (7% vs. 16%; p=0.023) between the L-SPS and FLIP groups. No differences between L-SPS and FLIP were noted in gender (57.4% female vs 57.8% female, p=1.000), BMI (30.0kg/m2 vs 29.3kg/m2; p=0.318). No differences were noted in number of levels fused between L-SPS and FLIP (1.45vs 1.50; p=0.533), proportion including ALIF (38% vs 39%; p=0.809), or the proportion of surgeries including L5-S1 (38%vs 31%; p=0.222). Perioperative outcomes: L-SPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p < 0.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p < 0.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs. 3.61 days; p < 0.001) compared to FLIP. L-SPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9% vs 34.4%; p=0.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in remaining surgical site, neurological, or medical complications between groups. Reoperation: N=no differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%L-SPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=0.125), 90-day (5.1%L-SPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=0.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.441). The most common reason for return to OR was Adjacent Segment Disease, (L-SPS 3.1% vs. FLIP 7.8%; p=0.067). Pseudarthrosis rates were similar between groups (0.0%L-SPS vs. 1.1%FLIP; p=0.204). Radiological Outcomes: no significant differences were noted in rates of radiological fusion (94.3% L-SPS vs 97.8%FLIP; p=0.266) or subsidence (6.9%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.260). There were no differences noted between L-SPS and FLIP in change in LL from Baseline to 1-year (3.5 vs 2.8; p=0.466) and post-op to 1yr (-0.18 vs -0.51; p=0.777), or in PI-LL from Baseline to 1-year (-3.5 vs -3.2; p=0.835) and from post-op to 1-year (0.71 vs 0.71; 0.998).
CONCLUSION(S): L-SPS improves safety, improves operative efficiency and reduces complications in the perioperative period while maintaining similar efficacy of AP fusion at 2-year followup in treating degenerative lumbar spinal conditions. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Complexity and potential risk to the patient in the perioperative period have led to circumferential spine fusion surgery often being performed in a staged fashion, whether in the same admission or split admission. There is no established protocol or clear evidence that this is beneficial to the patient. Previous studies of this topic have tended to favor same-day surgery to staged surgery with decreased blood loss, length of stay and cost. Multiple factors can potentially contribute to morbidity for these patients, including multiple insults activating inflammatory response and repeated exposures to anesthetics. PURPOSE: To determine if there is a difference in complication profile between staged vs same-day circumferential, multi-approach thoracolumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective single-center cohort assessment for adult patients undergoing multiple approach thoracolumbar fusion surgery from January 2012 to December 2021 in an academic center. PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients who underwent anterior or lateral approaches for the purpose of disc preparation and fusion and subsequently had a posterior approach for screws were included. The same-day group had both parts performed under the same anesthetic vs the staged group who had separate anesthetics on separate days in a planned fashion OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: complication rate at 90 days.
Secondary Outcomes: complication profile - readmission, reoperation, DVT/PE, Ileus, delayed extubation, infection. Surgical characteristics - length of stay, operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates. Demographic characteristics -ages, sex, BMI, diabetes, smoking habits.
METHOD(S): A retrospective single-center cohort assessment for adult patients undergoing multiple approach thoracolumbar fusion surgery from January 2012 to December 2021. Patients who underwent anterior or lateral approaches for the purpose of disc preparation and fusion and subsequently had a posterior approach for screws were included. The same-day group had both parts performed under the same anesthetic vs the staged group who had separate anesthetics on separate days in a planned fashion. Statistical comparison of demographic data (ages, sex, BMI, diabetes, smoking habits), complication rates (readmission, reoperation, DVT/PE, Ileus, delayed extubation, infection) and surgical characteristics (operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates) was made between the two groups.
RESULT(S): A total of 1039 patients (918 same-day vs 121 staged) underwent circumferential thoracolumbar spine surgery from 2012 to 2021. The groups differed slightly in demographics with the staged group being slightly older (56.7 yrs same-day vs 59.6 yrs staged, p < 0.05) and had a higher incidence of smoking (6.6% same-day vs 22.3% staged, p < 0.001). The average time between stages was 2.5 days (SD 2.15). The total operative time was significantly longer in the staged group (354 min same-day vs 523 min staged, p < 0.001). The overall complication rate was not significantly different between the two groups (22.0% same-day vs 29.8% staged, p=0.748). Analysis of specific complications demonstrated an increase in DVT/PE (1.4% same-day vs 11.6% staged, p < 0.001) and postoperative ileus (4.2% same-day vs 15.7% staged, p < 0.001) in the staged group. The length of hospital admission was longer in the staged group (4.6 days same-day vs 7.7 days staged, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION(S): Staging circumferential surgery did not demonstrate statistical increase in complications at 90 days. However, review of specific postoperative complications including DVT/PE and postoperative ileus demonstrated significant increase in the staged group compared to the same-day group. The staged patients had a significantly longer hospital stay and their total surgery time was significantly longer. These would ultimately contribute heavily to hospital costs. There were potential limitations in the comparison of the groups with the staged patients being older and more likely to smoke. The study group recommends considering if staging the surgery is required as it can lead to increase in DVT/PE and postoperative ileus with prolonged stay in hospital. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright