Effect of minimally invasive technique on return to work and narcotic use following transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion: a review.
ABSTRACT Low back pain is one of the most prevalent and disabling musculoskeletal conditions affecting the working population in the United States. Informed, shared decision making among patients, clinicians, and case managers about treatment options for chronic low back pain-including the role of spinal fusion where medically necessary-can have a meaningful impact on return to work, normal function, and economic outcomes. Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar spinal fusion, including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) have recently been introduced with the goal of smaller operative wounds, less tissue trauma, and faster postoperative recovery when compared with open fusion. Although similar long-term clinical outcomes have been reported for MIS TLIF and open TLIF, the relative merits with respect to workplace productivity have not been comprehensively investigated. Time to return to work and narcotic independence after MIS TLIF and open TLIF are important parameters that may affect overall workplace productivity, and as such are the focus of this study.
This study was performed via a review of the literature.
We performed a systematic literature review to identify all published articles that reported on the postoperative outcomes of patients, as assessed by return to work or narcotic independence status or both, following MIS TLIF or open TLIF. A cumulative comparison was made for all included MIS TLIF versus open TLIF surgeries.
Seventy-four published studies reported postoperative outcomes following MIS TLIF or open TLIF; only five (6.8%) studies directly described time to return to work or duration of narcotic use postoperatively or both, and were therefore included into the analysis of this review. Four studies in the published literature describe time to return to work following MIS TLIF or open TLIF, and two studies describe time to narcotic independence. Overall, the reviewed literature suggests that MIS TLIF may be associated with an accelerated time to narcotic independence and return to work versus open TLIF.
There are limited data regarding time to return to work and duration of postoperative narcotic use following TLIF for low back pain. The available data appear to suggest that MIS TLIF may be associated with accelerated return to work and narcotic independence compared with open TLIF. Further analysis will be necessary to quantify the impact of MIS TLIF on workplace productivity and the indirect costs borne by patients and employers. Such information will be of value to case managers, disability managers, employers, patients, and clinicians aligned on reducing morbidity and hastening return to normal function.
SourceAvailable from: Virginie Lafage[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Object It is hypothesized that minimally invasive surgical techniques lead to fewer complications than open surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD). The goal of this study was to analyze matched patient cohorts in an attempt to isolate the impact of approach on adverse events. Methods Two multicenter databases queried for patients with ASD treated via surgery and at least 1 year of follow-up revealed 280 patients who had undergone minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or a hybrid procedure (HYB; n = 85) or open surgery (OPEN; n = 195). These patients were divided into 3 separate groups based on the approach performed and were propensity matched for age, preoperative sagittal vertebral axis (SVA), number of levels fused posteriorly, and lumbar coronal Cobb angle (CCA) in an attempt to neutralize these patient variables and to make conclusions based on approach only. Inclusion criteria for both databases were similar, and inclusion criteria specific to this study consisted of an age > 45 years, CCA > 20°, 3 or more levels of fusion, and minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Patients in the OPEN group with a thoracic CCA > 75° were excluded to further ensure a more homogeneous patient population. Results In all, 60 matched patients were available for analysis (MIS = 20, HYB = 20, OPEN = 20). Blood loss was less in the MIS group than in the HYB and OPEN groups, but a significant difference was only found between the MIS and the OPEN group (669 vs 2322 ml, p = 0.001). The MIS and HYB groups had more fused interbody levels (4.5 and 4.1, respectively) than the OPEN group (1.6, p < 0.001). The OPEN group had less operative time than either the MIS or HYB group, but it was only statistically different from the HYB group (367 vs 665 minutes, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the duration of hospital stay among the groups. In patients with complete data, the overall complication rate was 45.5% (25 of 55). There was no significant difference in the total complication rate among the MIS, HYB, and OPEN groups (30%, 47%, and 63%, respectively; p = 0.147). No intraoperative complications were reported for the MIS group, 5.3% for the HYB group, and 25% for the OPEN group (p < 0.03). At least one postoperative complication occurred in 30%, 47%, and 50% (p = 0.40) of the MIS, HYB, and OPEN groups, respectively. One major complication occurred in 30%, 47%, and 63% (p = 0.147) of the MIS, HYB, and OPEN groups, respectively. All patients had significant improvement in both the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale scores after surgery (p < 0.001), although the MIS group did not have significant improvement in leg pain. The occurrence of complications had no impact on the ODI. Conclusions Results in this study suggest that the surgical approach may impact complications. The MIS group had significantly fewer intraoperative complications than did either the HYB or OPEN groups. If the goals of ASD surgery can be achieved, consideration should be given to less invasive techniques.Neurosurgical FOCUS 05/2014; 36(5):E15. DOI:10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS13534 · 2.14 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The application of percutaneous techniques for the management of thoracolumbar fractures is gaining popularity. Short-segment or long-segment percutaneous pedicle screw fixation can be used to treat a wide variety of thoracolumbar fractures in patients who are neurologically normal. This approach provides internal fixation, allowing the fracture to heal and sparing the motion segments above and below the fracture, as the instrumentation can be removed later.Neurosurgery clinics of North America 04/2014; 25(2):337-346. DOI:10.1016/j.nec.2013.12.011 · 1.54 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Object Medical care has been evolving with the increased influence of a value-based health care system. As a result, more emphasis is being placed on ensuring cost-effectiveness and utility in the services provided to patients. This study looks at this development in respect to minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) costs. Methods A literature review using PubMed, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) was performed. Papers were included in the study if they reported costs associated with minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). If there was no mention of cost, CEA, cost-utility analysis (CUA), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), quality, or outcomes mentioned, then the article was excluded. Results Fourteen studies reporting costs associated with MISS in 12,425 patients (3675 undergoing minimally invasive procedures and 8750 undergoing open procedures) were identified through PubMed, the CEA Registry, and NHS EED. The percent cost difference between minimally invasive and open approaches ranged from 2.54% to 33.68%-all indicating cost saving with a minimally invasive surgical approach. Average length of stay (LOS) for minimally invasive surgery ranged from 0.93 days to 5.1 days compared with 1.53 days to 12 days for an open approach. All studies reporting EBL reported lower volume loss in an MISS approach (range 10-392.5 ml) than in an open approach (range 55-535.5 ml). Conclusions There are currently an insufficient number of studies published reporting the costs of MISS. Of the studies published, none have followed a standardized method of reporting and analyzing cost data. Preliminary findings analyzing the 14 studies showed both cost saving and better outcomes in MISS compared with an open approach. However, more Level I CEA/CUA studies including cost/QALY evaluations with specifics of the techniques utilized need to be reported in a standardized manner to make more accurate conclusions on the cost effectiveness of minimally invasive spine surgery.Neurosurgical FOCUS 06/2014; 36(6):E4. DOI:10.3171/2014.4.FOCUS1449 · 2.14 Impact Factor