National Trends in the Use of Fusion Techniques to Treat Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Study Design. Retrospective review. Objective. (1) To describe change in treatment patterns for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). (2) To report regional variation in treatment of DS. (3) To describe variation in surgeon-reported outcomes for DS based on treatment. Summary of Background Data. Spinal stenosis associated with DS is commonly treated with decompression and fusion but little is known about the optimal fusion technique. During a 6-month period, American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery step II candidates submit procedure lists; these lists have been stored in an electronic database since 1999. Methods. The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database was retrospectively queried to identify patients who underwent surgery for DS from 1999 to 2011. Included patients underwent uninstrumented fusion, fusion with posterior instrumentation, fusion using interbody device, or decompression without fusion. Utilization of these procedures was analyzed by year and geographic region. Results. The study period included 5639 cases; the annual number of cases doubled during the study period. The percentage of cases treated with interbody fusion (IF) increased significantly throughout the study period, from 13.6% (1999–2001) to 32% (2009–2011) (P < 0.001). The percentage of DS cases treated with posterolateral fusion peaked in 2003 then decreased as the rate of IF increased. In 2011, the rates of posterolateral fusion (40%) and posterolateral fusion with IF (37%) were nearly identical. The Northwest had the highest rate of IF (41%), >10% higher than any other region (P < 0.001) and more than 23% higher than the Southeast (P < 0.001). Conclusion. Despite little evidence guiding treatment strategy for DS, national treatment patterns have changed dramatically during the past 13 years. The rapid adoption of IF and substantial regional variation in treatment utilization patterns raises questions about drivers of change including perceptions about associated fusion rates, the importance of sagittal balance and differential reimbursement. Level of Evidence: 4

[1]  T. Albert,et al.  Restoration of lordosis and disk height after single‐level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion , 2012, Orthopaedic Surgery.

[2]  Joseph S. Cheng,et al.  Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[3]  J. Ha,et al.  The effect of a radiographic solid fusion on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2011, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[4]  M. Maltenfort,et al.  Comparison of ICD-9-based, retrospective, and prospective assessments of perioperative complications: assessment of accuracy in reporting. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[5]  Y. R. Rampersaud,et al.  Success and Failure of Minimally Invasive Decompression for Focal Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Patients With and Without Deformity , 2010, Spine.

[6]  V. Musahl,et al.  Practice Patterns for Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Meniscal Surgery in the United States , 2010, The American journal of sports medicine.

[7]  F. Lolli,et al.  Dynamic Stabilization for Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis in Elderly Patients , 2010, Spine.

[8]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Does Fusion Method Influence Outcome? Four-Year Results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial , 2009, Spine.

[9]  James N Weinstein,et al.  Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  Hao Xu,et al.  Surgical treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the Han nationality. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[11]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Fractures of the distal part of the radius. The evolution of practice over time. Where's the evidence? , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  George M. Wahba,et al.  Operative management of degenerative scoliosis: an evidence-based approach to surgical strategies based on clinical and radiographic outcomes. , 2007, Neurosurgery clinics of North America.

[14]  K. Malloy,et al.  A Critical Analysis of the Literature Regarding Surgical Approach and Outcome for Adult Low-Grade Isthmic Spondylolisthesis , 2005, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[15]  M. Mackay,et al.  1997 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective, Randomized Study Comparing Decompressive Laminectomy and Arthrodesis With and Without Spinal Instrumentation , 1997, Spine.

[16]  H N Herkowitz,et al.  Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. , 1991, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  L. Herron,et al.  L4-5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: The Results of Treatment by Decompressive Laminectomy without Fusion , 1989, Spine.