The Impact of Comorbidity Burden on Complications, Length of Stay, and Direct Hospital Costs After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 363-368
Author(s):  
Benjamin Khechen ◽  
Brittany E. Haws ◽  
Mundeep S. Bawa ◽  
Dil V. Patel ◽  
Kaitlyn L. Cardinal ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Ankur S. Narain ◽  
Brittany E. Haws ◽  
Nathaniel W. Jenkins ◽  
James M. Parrish ◽  
Andrew M. Block ◽  
...  

Neurosurgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (6) ◽  
pp. 847-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nickalus R. Khan ◽  
Aaron J. Clark ◽  
Siang Liao Lee ◽  
Garrett T. Venable ◽  
Nicholas B. Rossi ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)—or MI-TLIF—has been increasing in prevalence compared with open TLIF (O-TLIF) procedures. The use of MI-TLIF is an evolving technique with conflicting reports in the literature about outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of MI-TLIF in comparison with O-TLIF for early and late outcomes by using the Visual Analog Scale for back pain (VAS-back) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary end points include blood loss, operative time, radiation exposure, length of stay, fusion rates, and complications between the 2 procedures. METHODS: During August 2014, a systematic literature search was performed identifying 987 articles. Of these, 30 met inclusion criteria. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed by using both pooled and subset analyses based on study type. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that MI-TLIF reduced blood loss (P < .001), length of stay (P < .001), and complications (P = .001) but increased radiation exposure (P < .001). No differences were found in fusion rate (P = .61) and operative time (P = .34). A decrease in late VAS-back scores was demonstrated for MI TLIF (P < .001), but no differences were found in early VAS-back, early ODI, and late ODI. CONCLUSION: MI-TLIF is associated with reduced blood loss, decreased length of stay, decreased complication rates, and increased radiation exposure. The rates of fusion and operative time are similar between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF. Differences in long-term outcomes in MI-TLIF vs O-TLIF are inconclusive and require more research, particularly in the form of large, multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled trials.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsuan-Kan Chang ◽  
John Paul G Kolcun ◽  
Peng-Yuan Chang ◽  
Michael Y Wang

Abstract This video demonstrates the awake endoscopic minimally-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) used in our institution's developing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program. This technique relies on 6 key components, including (1) conscious sedation, (2) endoscopic visualization, (3) long-acting local anesthesia, (4) an expandable interbody device, (5) osteobiologics, and (6) percutaneous instrumentation. In joining these technologies, this procedure embodies the principles of minimally invasive surgery while achieving excellent clinical outcomes. We have previously described this procedure in detail, as well as its impact at our institution, including significant reductions in operative time, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, and hospital costs. The procedure depicted in this video involves the off-label use of bone morphogenetic protein-2 and the Spineology Optimesh allograft containment device. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The patient gave direct consent for the use of the video footage and associated information from this surgery for the making and publication of this surgical video.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. E291-E295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fady Y. Hijji ◽  
Ankur S. Narain ◽  
Brittany E. Haws ◽  
Benjamin Khechen ◽  
Krishna T. Kudaravalli ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Mladen Djurasovic ◽  
Jeffrey L. Gum ◽  
Charles H. Crawford ◽  
Kirk Owens ◽  
Morgan Brown ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEThe midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF.METHODSFrom a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D.RESULTSOf 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551).CONCLUSIONSCompared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document