Patients With Poor Baseline Mental Health May Experience Significant Improvements in Pain and Disability After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2019 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Graham Seow-Hng Goh ◽  
Ming Han Lincoln Liow ◽  
William Yeo ◽  
Zhixing Marcus Ling ◽  
Wai-Mun Yue ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822091271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham S. Goh ◽  
Ming Han Lincoln Liow ◽  
Wai-Mun Yue ◽  
Seang-Beng Tan ◽  
John Li-Tat Chen

Study design: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objectives: Few studies have described the relationship between mental health and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after minimally invasive spine surgery. Prior studies on open surgery included small cohorts with short follow-ups. Methods: Patients undergoing primary minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for degenerative pathology were retrospectively reviewed and stratified by Short Form (SF-36) Mental Component Summary (MCS): low MCS (<50, n = 436) versus high MCS (≥50, n = 363). PROMs assessed were back pain, leg pain, North American Spine Society Neurogenic Symptoms, Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36 Physical Component Summary, and MCS. Satisfaction, expectation fulfilment, and return to work (RTW) rates also were recorded at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 2 years. Results: Preoperative MCS was 39.4 ± 8.6 and 58.5 ± 5.4 in the low and high MCS groups, respectively ( P < .001). The low MCS group had significantly poorer preoperative PROMs and longer lengths of stay. Despite this, both groups achieved comparable PROMs from 3 months onward. The mean MCS was no longer significantly different by 3 months ( P = .353). The low MCS group had poorer satisfaction ( P = .022) and expectation fulfilment ( P = .020) at final follow-up. RTW rates were initially lower in the low MCS group up to 3 months ( P = .034), but the rates converged from 6 months onward. Conclusions: Despite poorer PROMs preoperatively, patients with poor baseline mental health still achieved comparable results from 3 months up to 2 years after MIS-TLIF. Preoperative optimization of mental health should still be pursued to improve satisfaction and prevent delayed RTW after surgery.


Spine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. E236-E243
Author(s):  
Joon S. Yoo ◽  
Nadia M. Hrynewycz ◽  
Thomas S. Brundage ◽  
Franchesca A. Mogilevsky ◽  
Holly C. Shah ◽  
...  

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 88-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Bakhsheshian ◽  
Ryan Khanna ◽  
Winward Choy ◽  
Cort D. Lawton ◽  
Alex T. Nixon ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document