scholarly journals Comparison of Opioid Consumption Patterns of Three Interbody Fusion Surgical Techniques

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110677
Author(s):  
Taryn E. LeRoy ◽  
Andrew Moon ◽  
Matthew Chilton ◽  
Marissa Gedman ◽  
Jessica P. Aidlen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Opioid Consumption ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Cortical Screw ◽  
Chi Square Analysis

Study Design Retrospective review. Objectives With increased awareness of the opioid crisis in spine surgery, the focus postoperatively has shifted to managing surgical site pain while minimizing opioid use. Numerous studies have compared outcomes and fusion status of different interbody fusion techniques; however, there is limited literature evaluating opioid consumption postoperatively between techniques. The aim of this study was to assess in-house and postoperative opioid consumption across 3 surgical techniques. Methods Patients were stratified by technique: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and cortical screw (CS) instrumentation with interbody fusion. Age, ASA, BMI, depression, preoperative opioid use, EBL, and OR time were recorded and compared across surgical groups using Welch’s ANOVA and chi-square analysis. Total morphine equivalent dose (MED) was tabulated for both in-house consumption and postoperative prescriptions and was compared across surgical techniques using Welch’s ANOVA analysis, Mann Whitney U tests, and linear regression. Results Two hundred and thirty nine patients underwent one- or two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion between 2016 and 2020. One hundred and twenty one patients underwent CS instrumentation, 95 underwent PLIF, and 83 underwent MIS-TLIF. There was a significantly higher percentage of patients who had a history of depression and preoperative opioid consumption in the CS group ( P = .001, P = .009). CS instrumentation required significantly less total post-op opioids per kilogram bodyweight compared to MIS-TLIF and PLIF surgeries ( P = .029). Conclusions Patients who underwent CS instrumentation required less opioids postoperatively. CS instrumentation may be associated with less postoperative pain due to the less invasive approach, however, patient education and prescriber practice also play a role in postoperative opioid consumption.

scholarly journals Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0245963
Author(s):  
Inge J. M. H. Caelers ◽  
Suzanne L. de Kunder ◽  
Kim Rijkers ◽  
Wouter L. W. van Hemert ◽  
Rob A. de Bie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Introduction The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. Methods Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Results Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low. Conclusions This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results. Trial registration Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoxin Fan ◽  
Xinbo Wu ◽  
Shunzhi Yu ◽  
Qi Sun ◽  
Xiaofei Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

The aim of this study was to directly compare the clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in three-level lumbar spinal stenosis. This retrospective study involved a total of 60 patients with three-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent MIS-TLIF or PLIF from January 2010 to February 2012. Back and leg visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scale were used to assess the pain, disability, and health status before surgery and postoperatively. In addition, the operating time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were also recorded. There were no significant differences in back VAS, leg VAS, ODI, SF-36, fusion condition, and complications at 12-month follow-up between the two groups (P>0.05). However, significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay were observed in MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). Moreover, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had significantly lower back VAS than those in PLIF group at 6-month follow-up (P<0.05). Compared with PLIF, MIS-TLIF might be a prior option because of noninferior efficacy as well as merits of less blood loss and quicker recovery in treating three-level lumbar spinal stenosis.

scholarly journals Mimickers in Spine: Migrated Cages Causing Radiculopathy

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 21-27
Author(s):  
Saurav Narayan Nanda ◽  
Mantu Jain ◽  
Sudarsan Behera ◽  
Manisha Gaikwad
Keyword(s):  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Promising Result ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Neurological Complications ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Cage Migration ◽  
Spine Disorders

The procedure of interbody fusion has become an established treatment for many spine disorders. This arthrodesis can be achieved by hardware (fusion cage) through many approaches. Initially, posterior lumbar interbody fusion was popularized but had some serious neurological complications related to insertion as well as the migration of the cage. Gradually, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was introduced, which proved safer as it involves minimal cord handling, and also migration, if any, remains asymptomatic. We had two patients who were operated for interbody fusion using TLIF technique with subsequent posterior migration of the banana-shaped fusion cage 4–6 month after the index surgery. Both patients presented with radiculopathy mimicking a prolapsed intervertebral disc. These were evaluated and operated with the removal of the migrated cages and revision with bigger-size cages with adequate bone grafting. At the 1-year follow-up, both had remission of symptoms, and radiographs showed no subsequent migration. TLIF procedure is an established procedure to achieve arthrodesis in varying spine disorders with promising result. However, there are only a few reports describing cage migration after the procedure and these have been asymptomatic. Revision surgery is contemplated in the setting of neurological compression or instability. A bigger fusion cage in a compressive mode with adequate bone grafting is used to achieve arthrodesis. The principles of interbody fusion must be followed, and utmost precautions must be taken to prevent this unfortunate complication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document