Laminectomy alone versus fusion for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis in 426 patients from the prospective Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVEThe AANS launched the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospective longitudinal registry that includes demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data to measure the safety and quality of spine surgery. Registry data offer "real-world" insights into the utility of spinal fusion and decompression surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Using the QOD, the authors compared the initial 12-month outcome data for patients undergoing fusion and those undergoing laminectomy alone for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.METHODSData from 12 top enrolling sites were analyzed and 426 patients undergoing elective single-level spine surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis were found. Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month follow-up data were collected and compared, including baseline clinical characteristics, readmission rates, reoperation rates, and PROs. The PROs included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, and EuroQol-5 Dimensions health survey (EQ-5D) results.RESULTSA total of 342 (80.3%) patients underwent fusion, with the remaining 84 (19.7%) undergoing decompression alone. The fusion cohort was younger (60.7 vs 69.9 years, p < 0.001), had a higher mean body mass index (31.0 vs 28.4, p < 0.001), and had a greater proportion of patients with back pain as a major component of their initial presentation (88.0% vs 60.7%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in 12-month reoperation rate (4.4% vs 6.0%, p = 0.93) and 3-month readmission rates (3.5% vs 1.2%, p = 0.45). At 12 months, both cohorts improved significantly with regard to ODI, NRS back and leg pain, and EQ-5D (p < 0.001, all comparisons). In adjusted analysis, fusion procedures were associated with superior 12-month ODI (β -4.79, 95% CI -9.28 to -0.31; p = 0.04).CONCLUSIONSSurgery for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis-regardless of treatment strategy-was associated with significant improvements in disability, back and leg pain, and quality of life at 12 months. When adjusting for covariates, fusion surgery was associated with superior ODI at 12 months. Although fusion procedures were associated with a lower rate of reoperation, there was no statistically significant difference at 12 months. Further study must be undertaken to assess the durability of either surgical strategy in longer-term follow-up.

[1]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  Minimally invasive versus open fusion for Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database. , 2017, Neurosurgical focus.

[2]  D. Resnick,et al.  Randomized controlled trials for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: which patients benefit from lumbar fusion? , 2017, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[3]  Fredrik Borgström,et al.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Norma Terrin,et al.  Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Joseph S. Cheng,et al.  The efficacy of lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis: results from the NeuroPoint-SD registry: clinical article. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[6]  D. Chou,et al.  Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference? , 2013, Neurosurgical focus.

[7]  A. Guermazi,et al.  Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis: Prevalence and Association With Low Back Pain in the Adult Community-Based Population , 2009, Spine.

[8]  S. Dhall,et al.  Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. , 2008, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[9]  S. Berven,et al.  Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[10]  Brett Hanscom,et al.  Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  R. Deyo,et al.  Reoperation Rates Following Lumbar Spine Surgery and the Influence of Spinal Fusion Procedures , 2007, Spine.

[12]  P. Mummaneni,et al.  Current Treatment Strategies for the Painful Lumbar Motion Segment: Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion , 2005, Spine.

[13]  P. Mummaneni,et al.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique, Complications, and Early Results , 2001, Neurosurgery.

[14]  H. W. Meyerding Diagnosis and Roentgenologic Evidence in Spondylolisthesis , 1933 .

[15]  F. Harrell,et al.  The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): general overview and pilot-year project description. , 2013, Neurosurgical focus.

[16]  P. Huddleston Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and Pain Scales , 2009 .