scholarly journals Robotic-Assisted vs Nonrobotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Diogo Garcia ◽  
Oluwaseun O. Akinduro ◽  
Gaetano De Biase ◽  
Bernardo Sousa-Pinto ◽  
Daniel J. Jerreld ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. E73-E74
Author(s):  
Jason I Liounakos ◽  
Michael Y Wang

Abstract Minimally invasive spine surgery has the potential to reduce soft tissue destruction, blood loss, postoperative pain, and overall perioperative morbidity while accelerating recovery. Robotic guidance systems are relatively new tools in the minimally invasive surgeon's armamentarium, striving to increase accuracy of instrumentation placement, decrease complications, reduce radiation burden, and enhance surgical ergonomics in order to improve efficiency and maximize patient outcomes. We present the case of a 78-yr-old male with intractable lower back and bilateral lower extremity pain with multilevel degenerative spondylosis. The procedure performed was a L3-5 robotic-assisted endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) utilizing the Mazor X robotic guidance system (Medtronic) for both percutaneous pedicle screw placement, as well as trajectory localization for endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous interbody delivery. Previously, clinical and radiographic success has been published regarding the awake, endoscopic TLIF.1 We document the first use of robotic guidance for disc space localization and its combination with endoscopy to achieve interbody fusion, utilizing an expandable, allograft-filled mesh interbody device.2 This video demonstrates appropriate patient positioning, work flow for this unique technique, and the benefits of using robotic guidance to plan and execute percutaneous trajectories through Kambin's triangle. This procedure involves the off-label use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (Infuse™, Medtronic), OptiMesh® graft containment device (Spineology), and liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel®, Pacira).


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