OBJECTIVE: One of the principal goals of minimally invasive surgery has been to speed postoperative recovery. In this case series, the authors used an endoscopic technique for interbody fusion combined with percutaneous screw fixation to obviate the need for general anesthesia. METHODS: The first 10 consecutive patients treated with a minimum of 1 year's follow-up were included in this series. The patients were all treated using endoscopic access through Kambin's triangle to allow for neural decompression, discectomy, endplate preparation, and interbody fusion. This was followed by percutaneous pedicle screw and connecting rod placement using liposomal bupivacaine for long-acting analgesia. No narcotics or regional anesthetics were used during surgery. RESULTS: All patients underwent the procedure successfully without conversion to open surgery. The patients' average age was 62.2 ± 9.0 years (range 52–78 years). All patients had severe disc height collapse, and 60% had a Grade I spondylolisthesis. The mean operative time was 113.5 ± 6.3 minutes (range 105–120 minutes), and blood loss was 65 ± 38 ml (range 30–190 ml). The mean length of hospital stay was 1.4 ± 1.3 nights. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Comparison of preoperative and final clinical metrics demonstrated that the Oswestry Disability Index improved from 42 ± 11.8 to 13.3 ± 15.1; the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary improved from 47.6 ± 3.8 to 49.7 ± 5.4; the SF-36 Mental Component Summary decreased from 47 ± 3.9 to 46.7 ± 3.4; and the EQ-5D improved from 10.7 ± 9.5 to 14.2 ± 1.6. There were no cases of nonunion identified radiographically on follow-up imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic fusion under conscious sedation may represent a feasible alternative to traditional lumbar spine fusion in select patients. Larger clinical series are necessary to validate that clinical improvements are sustained and that arthrodesis rates are successful when compared with open surgery. This initial experience demonstrates the possible utility of this procedure.

Object: Adult degenerative scoliosis can be a cause of intractable pain, decreased mobility, and reduced quality of life. Surgical correction of this problem frequently leads to substantial clinical improvement, but advanced age, medical comorbidities, osteoporosis, and the rigidity of the spine result in high surgical complication rates. Minimally invasive surgery is being applied to this patient population in an effort to reduce the high complication rates associated with adult deformity surgery. Methods: A retrospective study of 23 patients was undertaken to assess the clinical and radiographic results with minimally invasive surgery for adult thoracolumbar deformity surgery. All patients underwent a lateral interbody fusion followed by posterior percutaneous screw fixation and possible minimally invasive surgical transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion if fusion near the lumbosacral junction was necessary. A mean of 3.7 intersegmental levels were treated (range 2–7 levels). The mean follow-up was 13.4 months. Results: The mean preoperative Cobb angle was 31.4°, and it was corrected to 11.5° at follow-up. The mean blood loss was 477 ml, and the operative time was 401 minutes. The mean visual analog scale score improvement for axial pain was 3.96. Clear evidence of fusion was seen on radiographs at 84 of 86 treated levels, with no interbody pseudarthroses. Complications included 2 returns to the operating room, one for CSF leakage and the other for hardware pullout. There were no wound infections, pneumonia, deep venous thrombosis, or new neurological deficits. However, of all patients, 30.4% experienced new thigh numbness, dysesthesias, pain, or weakness, and in one patient these new symptoms were persistent. Conclusions: The minimally invasive surgical treatment of adult deformities is a promising method for reducing surgical morbidity. Numerous challenges exist, as the surgical technique does not yet allow for all correction maneuvers used in open surgery. However, as the techniques are advanced, the applicability of minimally invasive surgery for this population will likely be expanded and will afford the opportunity for reduced complications.

OBJECTIVE: Over the past decade, Enhancing Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been implemented throughout the world across multiple surgical disciplines. However, to date no spinal surgery equivalent has been described. In this report the authors review the development and implementation of a “fast track” surgical approach for lumbar fusion. METHODS: The first 42 consecutive cases in which patients were treated with the new surgical procedure were reviewed. A combination of endoscopic decompression, expandable cage deployment, and percutaneous screw placement were performed with liposomal bupivacaine anesthesia to allow the surgery to be performed without general endotracheal anesthesia. RESULTS: In all cases the surgical procedure was performed successfully without conversion to an open operation. The patients' mean age (± SD) was 66.1 ± 11.7 years, the male/female ratio was 20:22, and a total of 47 levels were treated. The mean operative time was 94.6 ± 22.4 minutes, the mean intraoperative blood loss was 66 ± 30 ml, and the mean hospital length of stay was 1.29 ± 0.9 nights. Early follow-up showed a significant improvement in the mean Oswestry Disability Index score (from 40 ± 13 to 17 ± 11, p = 0.0001). Return to the operating room was required in 2 cases due to infection and in 1 case due to cage displacement. An iterative quality improvement program demonstrated areas of improvement, including steps to minimize infection, improve postoperative analgesia, and reduce cage osteolysis. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS programs for improving spinal fusion surgery are possible and necessary. This report demonstrates a first foray to apply these principles through 1) a patient-focused approach, 2) reducing the stress of the operation, and 3) an iterative improvement process.

Object: Minimally invasive spine (MIS) procedures are increasingly being recognized as equivalent to open procedures with regard to clinical and radiographic outcomes. These techniques are also believed to result in less pain and disability in the immediate postoperative period. There are, however, little data to assess whether these procedures produce their intended result and even fewer objective data to demonstrate that they are cost effective when compared with open surgery.Methods: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of hospital charges for 1- and 2-level MIS and open posterior interbody fusion for lumbar spondylotic disease, disc degeneration, and spondylolisthesis treated at a single academic medical center. Patients presenting with bilateral neurological symptoms were treated with open surgery, and those with unilateral symptoms were treated with MIS. Overall hospital charges and surgical episode–related charges, length of stay (LOS), and discharge status were obtained from the hospital finance department and adjusted for multi-/single-level surgeries.Results: During a 14-month period, 74 patients (mean age 55 years) were treated. The series included 59 single-level operations (75% MIS and 25% open), and 15 2-level surgeries (53% MIS and 47% open). The demographic profile, including age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, were similar between the 4 groups. The mean LOS for patients undergoing single-level surgery was 3.9 and 4.8 days in the MIS and open cases, respectively (p = 0.017). For those undergoing 2-level surgery, the mean LOS was 5.1 for MIS versus 7.1 for open surgery (p = 0.259). With respect to hospital charges, single-level MIS procedures were associated with an average of $70,159 compared with $78,444 for open surgery (p = 0.027). For 2-level surgery, mean charges totalled $87,454 for MIS versus $108,843 for open surgery (p = 0.071). For single-level surgeries, 5 and 20% of patients undergoing MIS and open surgery, respectively, were discharged to inpatient rehabilitation. For 2-level surgeries, the rates were 13 and 29%, respectively.Conclusions: While hospital setting, treatment population, patient selection, and physician expectation play major roles in determining hospital charges and LOS, this pilot study at an academic teaching hospital shows trends for quicker discharge, reduced hospital charges, and lower transfer rates to inpatient rehabilitation with MIS. However, larger multicenter studies are necessary to validate these findings and their relevance across diverse US practice environments.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) programs have been widely adopted throughout the world, but not in spinal surgery. In this report, we review the implementation of a “fast track” surgery for lumbar fusion and its effect on acute care hospitalization costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a “fast track” surgery methodology results in acute care cost savings. METHODS: Thirty-eight consecutive ERAS patients were compared with patients undergoing conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Differences between these groups included the use of endoscopic decompression, injections of liposomal bupivacaine, and performing the surgery under sedation in the ERAS® group. RESULTS: Patients had similar medical comorbidities (2.02 vs 2 for ERAS® and comparator groups, respectively; P = .458). Body mass index was similar (26.5 vs 27.0; P = .329). ERAS® patients were older (65 vs 59 yr, P = .031). Both groups had excellent clinical results with an improvement of 23% and 24%, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss was less (68 ± 31 cc vs 231 ± 73, P < 0.001). Length of stay was also less with ERAS® surgery, at a mean of 1.23 ± 0.8 d vs 3.9 ± 1.1 d (P = 0.009). When comparing ERAS® surgery to standard minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, the total cost for the acute care hospitalization was $19 212 vs $22 656, respectively (P < 0.001). This reflected an average of $3444 in savings, which was a 15.2% reduction. CONCLUSION: ERAS® programs for spinal fusion surgery have the potential to reduce the costs of acute care. This is made possible by leveraging less invasive interventions to minimize soft tissue damage.

Study Design Case-control study. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the levels of psychological distress in patients with back pain who expressed claustrophobia at the time of their magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, compared with sex and age-matched normal controls who did not exhibit claustrophobia. The secondary aim was to document the level of disability and intervention rates in this group. Summary of Background Data Psychosocial factors influence the outcomes of low back pain treatment with psychological distress being associated with poorer surgical outcomes in patients with low back pain. Up to 14% of patients experience claustrophobia during MRI scans requiring sedation to complete the scan. The effect of claustrophobia on back pain disability and outcomes has not been previously reported. Methods Twenty females and 13 males all requiring MRI scan under sedation for claustrophobia (group 1) were compared with an age and sex-matched cohort that had MRI scan without sedation (group 2). Both groups were drawn from a chronic back clinic. Average age in both groups was 54 years (range, 27 to 79 y). Both groups had standard conservative therapy, together with psychometric evaluation: Zung Depression Index and Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire. Disability was measured by Oswestry Disability Index. Primary outcome measures were intervention rates (surgery, injections, and physiotherapy sessions) and prevalence of psychological distress. Results Mean Zung Depression Index in group 1 was significantly higher than in group 2 (59.5 vs. 28.9, P<0.05) as was the mean Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire score (13.3 vs. 9.2, P<0.05.) Prevalence of psychological distress was higher in group 1 (75.8% vs. 18.2%, P<0.05). Oswestry Disability Index was the same in both groups (50% vs. 48%). Group 1 had 13 interventions (13 patients=39.4%) compared with 26 in group 2 (26 patients=78.8%) (P< 0.05). Twenty-two patients (66.7%) in group 1 were discharged after their MRI scan with no intervention compared with 7 patients (21.2%) in group 2 (P<0.05). Conclusions Claustrophobic patients with back pain showed higher levels of depression than nonclaustrophobic patients, with a higher rate of psychological distress. Disability, however, was not higher. The majority of claustrophobic patients did not require surgical intervention. The reasons for this are unclear and require further investigation. Claustrophobia requiring sedation for MRI scans may be a proxy for psychological distress in these patients and psychometric testing is advised during assessment to help with surgical decision making.