Patient Frailty Influences Outcome After Open, But Not Minimally Invasive, Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Case Series of 115 Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Disease.
Journal
Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.)
ISSN: 2332-4260
Titre abrégé: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101635417
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2023
01 06 2023
Historique:
received:
17
04
2022
accepted:
22
12
2022
pmc-release:
10
03
2024
medline:
17
5
2023
pubmed:
11
3
2023
entrez:
10
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
For transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), there are equally good open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options. To determine if frailty has a differential effect on outcome for open vs MIS TLIF. We performed a retrospective review of 115 TLIF surgeries (1-3 levels) for lumbar degenerative disease performed at a single center; 44 MIS transforaminal interbody fusions and 71 open TLIFs were included. All patients had at least a 2-year follow up, and any revision surgery during that time was recorded. The Adult Spinal Deformity Frailty Index (ASD-FI) was used to separate patients into nonfrail (ASD-FI < 0.3) and frail (ASD-FI > 0.3) cohorts. The primary outcome variables were revision surgery and discharge disposition. Univariate analyses were performed to reveal associations in demographic, radiographic, and surgical data with the outcome variables. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess independent predictors of outcome. Frailty uniquely predicted both reoperation (odds ratio 8.1, 95% CI 2.5-26.1, P = .0005) and discharge to a location other than home (odds ratio 3.9, 95% CI 1.2-12.7, P = .0239). Post hoc analysis indicated that frail patients undergoing open TLIF had a higher revision surgery rate (51.72%) compared with frail patients undergoing MIS-TLIF (16.7%). Nonfrail patients undergoing open and MIS TLIF had a revision surgery rate of 7.5% and 7.7%, respectively. Frailty was associated with increased revision rate and increased probability to discharge to a location other than home after open transforaminal interbody fusions, but not MIS transforaminal interbody fusions. These data suggest that patients with high frailty scores may benefit from MIS-TLIF procedures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
For transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), there are equally good open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options.
OBJECTIVE
To determine if frailty has a differential effect on outcome for open vs MIS TLIF.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of 115 TLIF surgeries (1-3 levels) for lumbar degenerative disease performed at a single center; 44 MIS transforaminal interbody fusions and 71 open TLIFs were included. All patients had at least a 2-year follow up, and any revision surgery during that time was recorded. The Adult Spinal Deformity Frailty Index (ASD-FI) was used to separate patients into nonfrail (ASD-FI < 0.3) and frail (ASD-FI > 0.3) cohorts. The primary outcome variables were revision surgery and discharge disposition. Univariate analyses were performed to reveal associations in demographic, radiographic, and surgical data with the outcome variables. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess independent predictors of outcome.
RESULTS
Frailty uniquely predicted both reoperation (odds ratio 8.1, 95% CI 2.5-26.1, P = .0005) and discharge to a location other than home (odds ratio 3.9, 95% CI 1.2-12.7, P = .0239). Post hoc analysis indicated that frail patients undergoing open TLIF had a higher revision surgery rate (51.72%) compared with frail patients undergoing MIS-TLIF (16.7%). Nonfrail patients undergoing open and MIS TLIF had a revision surgery rate of 7.5% and 7.7%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Frailty was associated with increased revision rate and increased probability to discharge to a location other than home after open transforaminal interbody fusions, but not MIS transforaminal interbody fusions. These data suggest that patients with high frailty scores may benefit from MIS-TLIF procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36897093
doi: 10.1227/ons.0000000000000665
pii: 01787389-202306000-00001
pmc: PMC10586842
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
565-571Informations de copyright
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.
Références
Reid DB, Daniels AH, Ailon T, et al. Frailty and health-related quality of life improvement following adult spinal deformity surgery. World Neurosurg. 2018;112:e548-554.
Miller EK, Neuman BJ, Jain A, et al. An assessment of frailty as a tool for risk stratification in adult spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43(6):e3.
Miller EK, Vila-Casademunt A, Neuman BJ, et al. External validation of the adult spinal deformity (ASD) frailty index (ASD-FI). Eur Spine J. 2018;27(9):2331-2338.
Miller EK, Lenke LG, Neuman BJ, et al. External validation of the adult spinal deformity (ASD) frailty index (ASD-FI) in the Scoli-RISK-1 patient database. Spine. 2018;43(20):1426-1431.
Pierce KE, Passias PG, Daniels AH, et al. Baseline frailty status influences recovery patterns and outcomes following alignment correction of cervical deformity. Neurosurgery. 2021;88(6):1121-1127.
Lakomkin N, Zuckerman SL, Stannard B, et al. Preoperative risk stratification in spine tumor surgery: a comparison of the modified Charlson index, frailty index, and ASA score. Spine. 2019;44(13):e782-787.
Agarwal N, Goldschmidt E, Taylor T, et al. Impact of frailty on outcomes following spine surgery: a prospective cohort analysis of 668 patients. Neurosurgery. 2021;88(3):552-557.
Charest-Morin R, Street J, Zhang H, et al. Frailty and sarcopenia do not predict adverse events in an elderly population undergoing non-complex primary elective surgery for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Spine J. 2018;18(2):245-254.
Moses ZB, Oh SY, Fontes RBV, Deutsch H, O’Toole JE, Fessler RG. The modified frailty index and patient outcomes following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery for single-level degenerative spine disease. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021:35(2):163-169.
Benton JA, Ramos RDLG, Gelfand Y, et al. Prolonged length of stay and discharge disposition to rehabilitation facilities following single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for acquired spondylolisthesis. Surg Neurol Int. 2020;11:411.
Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(5):624-627.
Terman SW, Yee TJ, Lau D, Khan AA, La Marca F, Park P. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(6):644-652.
Adogwa O, Carr K, Thompson P, et al. A prospective, multi-institutional comparative effectiveness study of lumbar spine surgery in morbidly obese patients: does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion result in superior outcomes? World Neurosurg. 2015;83(5):860-866.
Lau D, Khan A, Terman SW, Yee T, La Marca F, Park P. Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in obese patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(2):e10.
Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, Qing Li C, Jie Zheng W, Liu J. Comparison of the clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Spine Surg. 2014;27(4):202-206.
Tan JH, Liu G, Ng R, Kumar N, Wong HK, Liu G. Is MIS-TLIF superior to open TLIF in obese patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(8):1877-1886.
Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, Venable GT, Rossi NB, Foley KT. Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(6):847-874.
Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(5):1017-1030.
Qin R, Liu B, Zhou P, et al. Minimally invasive versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-level spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2019;122:180-189.
Serban D, Calina N, Tender G. Standard versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized study. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7236970.
Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(10):1780-1784.
Ames CP, Smith JS, Scheer JK, et al. Impact of spinopelvic alignment on decision making in deformity surgery in adults. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(6):547-564.
Safaee MM, Oh T, Pekmezci M, Clark AJ. Radiation exposure with hybrid image-guidance-based minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;48:122-127.
Laverdière C, Georgiopoulos M, Ames CP, et al. Adult spinal deformity surgery and frailty: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2021;12(4):689-699.
Hammad A, Wirries A, Ardeshiri A, Nikiforov O, Geiger F. Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):229.
Ge DH, Stekas ND, Varlotta CG, et al. Comparative analysis of two transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques: open TLIF: versus: Wiltse MIS TLIF. Spine. 2019;44(9):e555-560.
Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, Park P. Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(4):e4.
Cheng JS, Park P, Le H, Reisner L, Chou D, Mummaneni PV. Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference? Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(2):E6.
Rouben D, Casnellie M, Ferguson M. Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up. Clin Spine Surg. 2011;24(5):288-296.
Challier V, Boissiere L, Obeid I, et al. One-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and posterior approach: is transforaminal lateral interbody fusion mandatory? A randomized Controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine. 2017;42(8):531-539.
Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud RY. Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1727-1737.
Riew KD, Yang JJ, Chang DG, et al. What is the most accurate radiographic criterion to determine anterior cervical fusion? Spine J. 2019;19(3):469-475.