Less Invasive Decompression and Posterolateral Fusion Using Interlaminar Lumbar Instrumented Fusion (ILIF) with or Without Supplemental Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF)

Study Design: Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series. Objective: To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only one of the levels or at both. Methods: A total of 416 patients were identified who underwent 2-level PLF with a TLIF at either one of those levels (n = 183) or at both (n = 233) with greater than 1-year follow-up. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data was reviewed for each patient. These included age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charleston Comorbidity Index, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and patient-reported outcome measures. Results: Each cohort underwent 24 reoperations. Although the number of overall reoperations was not significantly different ( P > .05), among the reoperation types, there were significantly more reoperations for adjacent segment disease in the 2-level group compared to the 1-level group (19 vs 12, P = .04). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between the groups ( P > .05). Although both groups experienced significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index ( P < .001) and Short Form–12 health questionnaire ( P < .001), there were no differences between improvements for 1- versus 2-level cohorts. Conclusions: For patients undergoing 2-level PLF in the setting of a TLIF, using a TLIF at one versus both levels does not seem to influence reoperation rates or outcomes. However, reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease are increased in the setting of a 2-level PLF augmented by a 2-level TLIF.

Download Full-text

Utilization and Economic Impact of Posterolateral Fusion and Posterior/Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries in the United States

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/2192568218790557 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 185-190 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Comron Saifi ◽

Alejandro Cazzulino ◽

Joseph Laratta ◽

Akshay V. Save ◽

Jamal N. Shillingford ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Average Cost ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

The United States ◽

Posterolateral Fusion ◽

Annual Number ◽

Steady Increase ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

National Inpatient Sample

Study Design: Retrospective database study. Objective: To analyze the economic and age data concerning primary and revision posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) throughout the United States to improve value-based care and health care utilization. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for patients who underwent primary or revision PLF and PLIF/TLIF between 2011 and 2014. Age and economic data included number of procedures, costs, and revision burden. The National Inpatient Sample database represents a 20% sample of discharges from US hospitals weighted to provide national estimates. Results: From 2011 to 2014, the annual number of PLF and PLIF/TLIF procedures decreased 18% and increased 23%, respectively, in the Unites States. During the same period, the number of revision PLF decreased 19%, while revision PLIF/TLIF remained relatively unchanged. The average cost of PLF was lower than the average cost of PLIF/TLIF. The aggregate national cost for PLF was more than $3 billion, while PLIF/TLIF totaled less than $2 billion. Revision burden (ratio of revision surgeries to the sum of both revision and primary surgeries) remained constant at 8.0% for PLF while it declined from 3.2% to 2.9% for PLIF/TLIF. Conclusion: This study demonstrated a steady increase in PLIF/TLIF, while PLF alone decreased. The increasing number of PLIF/TLIF procedures may account for the apparent decline of PLF procedures. There was a higher average cost for PLIF/TLIF as compared with PLF. Revision burden remained unchanged for PLF but declined for PLIF/TLIF, implying a decreased need for revision procedures following the initial PLIF/TLIF surgery.

Download Full-text