The Impact of Comorbidity Burden on Postoperative PROMIS Physical Function Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVEPatient-reported outcomes are commonly used to evaluate treatment efficacy. Inefficiencies in standard measurement tools often prove to be a barrier to data collection. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to overcome these limitations. This tool implements computer-adaptive testing, which enables the assessment of physical function in fewer questions than those required for “static” metrics. In spine surgery patients, moderate to strong correlations with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores have been reported for PROMIS. However, to date, data regarding the efficacy of this tool for patients undergoing minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have been limited.METHODSA prospectively maintained registry of patients who have undergone primary 1- or 2-level MIS TLIF was reviewed retrospectively. Patients with incomplete PROMIS data were excluded. Changes in PROMIS physical function scores 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months after surgery were analyzed using paired t-tests. PROMIS scores were compared with traditional outcome measures, including SF-12 physical function, ODI, and visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg scores. Correlations were tested using the Pearson correlation coefficient, and the strength of association was interpreted as follows: small, 0.1 ≤ |r| < 0.3; moderate, 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5; and large, |r| ≥ 0.5. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.RESULTSSeventy-four patients were included in this analysis after the exclusion of those without PROMIS scores. The mean preoperative PROMIS score was 35.92 ± 6.98. Significant improvements were demonstrated in PROMIS scores 12 weeks (41.33, p < 0.001) and 6 months (43.58, p < 0.001) after surgery. PROMIS scores demonstrated a significant correlation with SF-12, ODI, and VAS leg scores (p < 0.05). Strong associations with PROMIS scores were observed for SF-12 (r = 0.650 to 0.854), ODI (r = −0.525 to −0.831), and 6-month VAS back (r = −0.693) scores.CONCLUSIONSPhysical function as measured by PROMIS improves significantly 12 weeks and 6 months after MIS TLIF. In addition, PROMIS scores have strong correlations with SF-12 and ODI scores. These results suggest that PROMIS scores can be used as a valid assessment of physical function in MIS TLIF patients. Further work is required to determine the full benefits of this measure in other spine populations.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive midline lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2019.6.spine1965 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 32 (1) ◽

pp. 31-35

Author(s):

Mladen Djurasovic ◽

Jeffrey L. Gum ◽

Charles H. Crawford ◽

Kirk Owens ◽

Morgan Brown ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Smoking Status ◽

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Direct Costs ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Related Quality ◽

Health Related

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.

Download Full-text