Trends in Short Construct Lumbar Fusions Over the Past Decade at a Single Institution

Study Design. Retrospective cohort Objective. (1) To compare the rates of fusion techniques over the last decade; (2) to identify whether surgeon experience affects a surgeon’s preferred fusion technique; (3) to evaluate differences in complications, readmissions, mortality, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) based on fusion technique. Summary of Background Data. Database studies indicate the number of lumbar fusions have been steadily increasing over the last two decades; however, insufficient granularity exists to detect if surgeons’ preferences are altered based on additive surgical experience. Methods. A retrospective review of continuously collected patients undergoing lumbar fusion at a single urban academic center was performed. Rates of lumbar fusion technique: posterolateral decompression fusion (PLDF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion + PLDF (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion + PLDF (LLIF) were recorded. Inpatient complications, 90-day readmission, and inpatient mortality were compared with χ2 test and Bonferroni correction. The Δ 1-year PROMs were compared with the analysis of variance. Results. Of 3938 lumbar fusions, 1647 (41.8%) were PLDFs, 1356 (34.4%) were TLIFs, 885 (21.7%) were ALIFs, and 80 (2.0%) were lateral lumbar interbody fusions. Lumbar fusion rates increased but interbody fusion rates (2012: 57.3%; 2019: 57.6%) were stable across the study period. Surgeons with <10 years of experience performed more PLDFs and less ALIFs, whereas surgeons with >10 years’ experience used ALIFs, TLIFs, and PLDFs at similar rates. Patients were more likely to be discharged home over the course of the decade (2012: 78.4%; 2019: 83.8%, P<0.001). No differences were observed between the techniques in regard to inpatient mortality (P=0.441) or Δ (postoperative minus preoperative) PROMs. Conclusions. Preferred lumbar fusion technique varies by surgeon preference, but typically remains stable over the course of a decade. The preferred fusion technique did not correlate with differences in PROMs, inpatient mortality, and patient complication rates. Levels of Evidence. 3—treatment.

[1]  C. Kepler,et al.  Revision Lumbar Fusions Have Higher Rates of Reoperation and Result in Worse Clinical Outcomes Compared to Primary Lumbar Fusions. , 2022, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[2]  Zhi Shan,et al.  Poor Bone Quality, Multilevel Surgery, and Narrow and Tall Cages Are Associated with Intraoperative Endplate Injuries and Late-onset Cage Subsidence in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review , 2021, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  A. Vaccaro,et al.  Discharge Disposition and Clinical Outcomes After Spine Surgery. , 2021, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[4]  M. Scheyerer,et al.  Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2021, Asian spine journal.

[5]  A. Vaccaro,et al.  271. Surgical technique and patient-reported outcomes in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis , 2020 .

[6]  M. Stienen,et al.  Trends in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the United States , 2019, Clinical spine surgery.

[7]  A. Machado,et al.  Can We Justify It? Trends in the Utilization of Spinal Fusions and Associated Reimbursement. , 2019, Neurosurgery.

[8]  A. Vaccaro,et al.  Fusion Technique Does Not Affect Short-Term Patient Reported Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease. , 2019, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[9]  Sohail K. Mirza,et al.  Trends in Lumbar Fusion Procedure Rates and Associated Hospital Costs for Degenerative Spinal Diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015 , 2019, Spine.

[10]  L. Hutzler,et al.  Lack of Cost Savings for Lumbar Spine Fusions After Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative: A Consequence of Increased Case Complexity , 2019, Spine.

[11]  A Major Shift in the Pattern of Lumbar Spinal Fusion in the United States , 2018, The Back Letter.

[12]  A. Schoenfeld,et al.  Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes , 2018, European Spine Journal.

[13]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach , 2017, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[14]  S. Yi,et al.  Comparison of Outcomes of Anterior, Posterior, and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery at a Single Lumbar Level with Degenerative Spinal Disease. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[15]  R. Iorio,et al.  Bundled Payments: Our Experience at an Academic Medical Center. , 2016, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[16]  R. Molinari,et al.  National Trends in the Surgical Management of Adult Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: 1998 to 2011 , 2015, Spine.

[17]  R. Mobbs,et al.  Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. , 2015, Journal of spine surgery.

[18]  R. Mobbs,et al.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion – systematic review and meta-analysis , 2015, British journal of neurosurgery.

[19]  R. Iorio Strategies and tactics for successful implementation of bundled payments: bundled payment for care improvement at a large, urban, academic medical center. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  T. Witham,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of interbody fusions versus posterolateral fusions in 137 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. , 2015, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[21]  A. Kaye,et al.  Comparison of the different surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion , 2015, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[22]  H. Yoshihara,et al.  National trends in the surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative disc disease: United States, 2000 to 2009. , 2015, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[23]  F. Schwab,et al.  Comparison of complications, costs, and length of stay of three different lumbar interbody fusion techniques: an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. , 2014, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[24]  T. Albert,et al.  National Trends in the Use of Fusion Techniques to Treat Degenerative Spondylolisthesis , 2014, Spine.

[25]  L. Kanim,et al.  National trends in revision spinal fusion in the USA: patient characteristics and complications. , 2014, The bone & joint journal.

[26]  X. Weng,et al.  A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis , 2013, European Spine Journal.

[27]  Patrick C. Hsieh,et al.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[28]  R. Deyo,et al.  United States Trends in Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Conditions , 2005, Spine.

[29]  P. Newman,et al.  Degenerative spondylolisthesis. , 1975, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.