Sigita Burneikiene, MD; Alan T. Villavicencio, MD; Alexander Mason, MD; Sharad Rajpal, MD

Similar documents
Background Information

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis

Interspinous Fusion Devices. Midterm results. ROME SPINE 2012, 7th International Meeting Rome, 6-7 December 2012

Disclosures. The Value Agenda in Spine Care Steven D. Glassman, M.D. 10/14/16. AllinaHealthSystems 1. Introduction. Introduction.

EBM. Comparative outcomes of Minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion. Fellow 陳磊晏

ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study.

Thoracic or lumbar spinal surgery in patients with Parkinson s disease -A two-center experience of 32 cases-

A minimally invasive surgical approach reduces cranial adjacent segment degeneration in patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion

SWESPINE THE SWEDISH SPINE REGISTER 2010 REPORT

DEGENERATIVE SPONDYLOLISTHESIS

Does obesity affect outcomes after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A multicenter observational registry-based study

Responses to Key Questions for Washington State Health Care Authority Health Technology Assessment of Surgery for Symptomatic Lumbar Radiculopathy

All Posterior Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity

Spine Tango annual report 2012

Patient Information MIS TLIF. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques

Am I eligible for the TOPS study? Possibly, if you suffer from one or more of the following conditions:

DISCLOSURES. Goal of Fusion. Expandable Cages: Do they play a role in lumbar MIS surgery? CON 2/15/2017

5/19/2017. Interspinous Process Fixation with the Minuteman G3. What is the Minuteman G3. How Does it Work?

EuroSpine 2015 COPENHAGEN, DENMARK

Lumbar disc herniation

Patient Information MIS TLIF. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques

Top spine papers of 2016

Fusion and repeat discectomy following single level open lumbar discectomies. Survival analysis

2016 OPAM Mid-Year Educational Conference, sponsored by AOCOPM Thursday, March 10, 2016 C-1

Get back to: my life. Non-fusion treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis

Dingjun Hao, Baorong He, Liang Yan. Hong Hui Hospital, Xi an Jiaotong University College. of Medicine, Xi an, Shaanxi , China

ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study

Lumbar total disc replacement

3D titanium interbody fusion cages sharx. White Paper

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody

You Don t Understand This Stuff???

Lumbar Spinal Fusion Corporate Medical Policy

Lumbar Laminotomy DEFINING APPROPRIATE COVERAGE POSITIONS NASS COVERAGE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TASKFORCE

Comprehension of the common spine disorder.

ILIF Interlaminar Lumbar Instrumented Fusion. Anton Thompkins, M.D.

PROCEDURES WE PERFORM

OLIF: OBLIQUE LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION. Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD Rush University Medical Center Chicago, IL

5/27/2016. Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) vs. Supplemental Fixation. Disclosures. LLIF Approach

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F OPINION FILED JUNE 23, 2005

PARADIGM SPINE. Brochure. coflex-f Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Minimally Invasive Approaches: How to Choose

Degenerative L4-5 SPONDYLOLISTHESIS with Stenosis: Laminectomy and Postero-Lateral Fusion. Rick C. Sasso MD

U.S. MARKET FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE SPINAL IMPLANTS

The Fusion of. Strength, Design. Performance. and

Prospective Data Collection Provider Perspective

Interlaminar Decompression For Lumbar Stenosis: When is Less More?

Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan. Brigham and Women s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Objectives. Comprehension of the common spine disorder

Original Article Management of Single Level Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Decompression Alone or Decompression and Fusion

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

SWESPINE THE SWEDISH SPINE REGISTER THE 2011 REPORT

Coflex TM for Lumbar Stenosis with

Get to know the leader in minimally invasive spine surgery.

KEY WORDS lumbar spine; spinal surgery; surgical effectiveness; surgical outcomes; effective measures; long-term outcomes

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE

Post Operative Care Following Spinal Surgery For A Cervical Herniated Disc

Same Segment Early Recurrence in Surgery of Lumbar Canal Stenosis- Role of Dissectomy

Lumbar spinal canal stenosis Degenerative diseases F 08

Boulder Neurosurgical & Spine Associates 4743 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 202 Boulder, CO

The ABC s of LUMBAR SPINE DISEASE

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Departement of Neurosurgery A.O.R.N A. Cardarelli- Naples.

Patient Selection and Lumbar Operative Interventions

Related Policies None

INTERSPINOUS STABILIZATION-FUSION IN THE UNSTABLE SPINE.

/ 66 nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 n-ha/pa66

Long term prognosis of young adults after ACDF

Microendoscope-assisted posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a technical note

TD Tosteson 1,2, JD Lurie 2,6, K Mycek 4, D Peter 4, S Schwarz 5, W Zhao 2, K Spratt 6, EA Scherer1 1, L Pearson 2, S Mirza 3,6, J Weinstein 6

Original Policy Date

Minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion

Table of Contents: Part 1 General principles. Section 1: Introduction. 1. Past, present and future of interventional physiatry 2.

Spondylolytic spondylolisthesis:

Comparative Analysis of outcome in patients of Lumbar Canal Stenosis undergoing decompression with and without Instrumentation

Is unilateral pedicle screw fixation superior than bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis

Lumbar fusion serves to eliminate abnormal motion and

Spinal instability, spondylolisthesis,

Boulder Neurosurgical & Spine Associates 4743 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 202 Boulder, CO

Yoshinao Koike, Yoshihisa Kotani, Hidemasa Terao, Yoshiaki Hosokawa, Hideyuki Kobayashi, Yusuke Kameda, Hideaki Fukaya

Evidence based Practice Changes Spinal Injections

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE

Degenerative Disease of the Spine

Bilateral spondylolysis of inferior articular processes of the fourth lumbar vertebra: a case report

Matthew Colman, MD Assistant Professor, Spine Surgery and Musculoskeletal Oncology Rush University Medical Center ACDF

SpineFAQs. Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

MAS TLIF MAXIMUM ACCESS SURGERY TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION AN INTRODUCTION TO

DATE: 25 June 2015 CONTEXT AND POLICY ISSUES

Spine Center. at Stamford Hospital s Orthopedic Institute

Index. Note: Page numbers of article titles are in boldface type.

The ABC s of LUMBAR SPINE DISEASE

Original Article Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2015;7:

Spine: Base to Summit 2018 Beaver Creek, CO ǀ January 18-21, 2018 Program

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G DIANE THOMPSON, EMPLOYEE

Western Occupational & Environmental Medical Association-2011

Clinical Outcome in Lumbar Decompression Surgery for Spinal Canal Stenosis in the Aged Population

Lumbar degenerative spinemodalities

Axial Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion. Description

Two-year outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Transcription:

The Timing of Surgery and Symptom Resolu6on in Pa6ents Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenera6ve Disc Disease and Radiculopathy Sigita Burneikiene, MD; Alan T. Villavicencio, MD; Alexander Mason, MD; Sharad Rajpal, MD

Background Success rates of surgical interventions for lumbar disorders vary significantly depending on multiple factors Duration of symptoms (DOS)? Is there a cutoff time when decompression and fusion surgery becomes less effective in the conditions with chronic nerve compression symptomatology Objective: Analyze if the DOS has any effect on clinical outcomes and primarily resolution of radicular pain in patients undergoing TLIF for painful degenerative disc disease and stenosis with spondylolisthesis

Methods Prospective observational study was performed A total of 84 patients were enrolled No previous fusion surgeries One- to three-level TLIF surgery 15 patients (18%) lost to FU Clinical outcome measures Numeric pain scale (back and leg), SF-36 PCS, ODI, satisfaction survey FU: pre- and postoperatively at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months

Methods Statistical analysis To emphasize the change in clinical outcome scores, the relevant scores were calculated as the ratio of MCID values and change scores The change scores = baseline scores postoperative scores Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine relationship of the DOS and MCID ratio values while controlling for independent variables A comparison between groups: Surgery within < 24 months Surgery > 24 months

Results < 24 months > 24 months P value N 28 41 - Age 58.4 (37 77) 60.8 (38 77) 0.98 F/M 14/14 25/16 0.5* DOS (mos.) 7.8 (1.5 18) 122.4 (24 480) - Previous surgeries 5 (18%) 9 (22%) 0.8* Surgical Parameters TLIF levels 1.3 (1 3) 1.4 (1 3) One-level fusions 20 (71%) 26 (63%) Two-level fusions 7 (25%) 13 (32%) 0.5 Three-level fusions 1 (4%) 2 (5%) EBL (ml) 167 (30 500) 180 (25 750) 0.7 OR time (min) 168 (104-344) 168 (81 319) 0.9 LOS (days) 2.6 (0 10) 1.7 (0 8) Table 1. Selected demographic and Surgical Parameters

Results < 24 months > 24 months P value N 28 41 - Reoperations 3 (11%) 3 (7%) 0.7* Complications Wound infections 3 (10.7%) 1 (2.4%) Adj. level degeneration 3 (10.7%) 5 (12.2%) Durotomy 1 (3.6%) 2 (4.9%) Cage migration 1 (3.6%) - Pedicle fracture - 1 (2.4%) 0.6* Fusion 26 (92.9%) 37 (90.2%) 1.0* Table 2. Reoperations, Complications and Fusion Status

Results MCID < 24 months > 24 months P value Back pain 2.8 (-3.3 7.5) 3.4 (-0.8 8.3) 0.34 Reached MCID (%) 19 (68%) 36 (88%) - Leg pain 3.3 (0.6 6.3) 2.2 (-1.3 6.3) 0.032 Reached MCID (%) 25 (89%) 29 (71%) - ODI 1.4 (-1.6 3.9) 1.5 (-0.5 5.2) 0.6 Reached MCID (%) 19 (68%) 22 (54%) - SF-36 PCS 2.3 (-2.0 8.3) 2.4 (-2.0 6.7) 0.8 Reached MCID (%) 20 (71%) 32 (78%) - Satisfaction 79% (25 100) 86% (25 100) 0.14 Table 3. Clinical outcome MCID ratio scores

Results Multiple regression analyses Controlling for age, sex, previous surgeries, TLIF levels, complications, reoperations, fusion status DOS was significant predictor for: Better radiculopathy symptom resolution (p = 0.018) But not for: Back pain resolution (p = 0.27) Improvement in ODI scores(p = 0.10) SF-36 PCS scores (p = 0.19)

Discussion The optimal timing for MCD < 2 mos. (Hurme et al, 1987; Rothoerl et al, 2002) < 12 mos. (Ng et al, 2004; Nygaard et al, 2000; Silverplats et al, 2010; Woertgen et al, 1997) Spondylolisthesis and stenosis (SPORT study as- treated analysis, Radcliff et al, Spine 2011) Improvement in patients treated conservatively or surgically for spinal stenosis (< 12 mos. vs. > 12 mos.) No difference for patients with spondylolisthesis

Discussion Lumbar fusion outcomes in 388 injured Washington state workers compensation patients (Franklin et al, 1994) Shorter time from injury predicted better functional outcomes No correlations with duration of symptoms Decompression surgeries for spinal stenosis (Athiviraham et al, 2011; Yasar et al, 2009)

Conclusion A shorter duration of symptoms was found to be a statistically significant predictor for better resolution of radicular symptoms in patients undergoing TLIF for radiculopathy due to degenerative disc disease and stenosis with spondylolisthesis

Disclosures None of the authors have any potential conflict of interest