PURPOSE: It is not uncommon for patients to undergo less invasive spine surgery (LISS) prior to succumbing to lumbar fusion; however, the effect of failed LISS on subsequent fusion outcomes is relatively unknown. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that patients who suffered failed LISS would afford inferior subsequent fusion outcomes when compared to patients who did not have prior LISS. METHODS: After IRB approval, registry from a spine surgeon was queried for consecutive patients who underwent fusion for intractable low back pain. The 47 qualifying patients were enrolled and split into two groups based upon a history for prior LISS: a prior surgery group (PSG) and a non-prior surgery group (nPSG). RESULTS: Typical postoperative outcome questionnaires, which were available in 80.9% of the patients (38/47) at an average time point of 40.4 months (range, 13.5-66.1 months), were comparatively analysed and failed to demonstrate significant difference between the groups, e.g. PSG v. nPSG: ODI--14.6 ± 10.9 vs. 17.2 ± 19.4 (P = 0.60); SF12-PCS--10.9 ± 11.0 vs. 8.7 ± 12.4 (p = 0.59); bNRS--3.0 (range -2-7) vs. 2.0 (range -3-8) (p = 0.91). Patient satisfaction, return to work rates, peri-operative complications, success of fusion and rate of revision surgery were also not different. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by size and retrospective design, the results of this rare investigation suggest that patients who experience a failed LISS prior to undergoing fusion will not suffer inferior fusion outcomes when compared to patients who did not undergo prior LISS.
PURPOSE: It is not uncommon for patients to undergo less invasive spine surgery (LISS) prior to succumbing to lumbar fusion; however, the effect of failed LISS on subsequent fusion outcomes is relatively unknown. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that patients who suffered failed LISS would afford inferior subsequent fusion outcomes when compared to patients who did not have prior LISS. METHODS: After IRB approval, registry from a spine surgeon was queried for consecutive patients who underwent fusion for intractable low back pain. The 47 qualifying patients were enrolled and split into two groups based upon a history for prior LISS: a prior surgery group (PSG) and a non-prior surgery group (nPSG). RESULTS: Typical postoperative outcome questionnaires, which were available in 80.9% of the patients (38/47) at an average time point of 40.4 months (range, 13.5-66.1 months), were comparatively analysed and failed to demonstrate significant difference between the groups, e.g. PSG v. nPSG: ODI--14.6 ± 10.9 vs. 17.2 ± 19.4 (P = 0.60); SF12-PCS--10.9 ± 11.0 vs. 8.7 ± 12.4 (p = 0.59); bNRS--3.0 (range -2-7) vs. 2.0 (range -3-8) (p = 0.91). Patient satisfaction, return to work rates, peri-operative complications, success of fusion and rate of revision surgery were also not different. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by size and retrospective design, the results of this rare investigation suggest that patients who experience a failed LISS prior to undergoing fusion will not suffer inferior fusion outcomes when compared to patients who did not undergo prior LISS.
Authors: Jeffrey G Jarvik; William Hollingworth; Patrick J Heagerty; David R Haynor; Edward J Boyko; Richard A Deyo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Leonardo Kapural; Bruce Vrooman; Sheryar Sarwar; Ljiljana Krizanac-Bengez; Richard Rauck; Christopher Gilmore; James North; Girgis Girgis; Nagy Mekhail Journal: Pain Med Date: 2012-12-28 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Steven D Glassman; Leah Y Carreon; Mladen Djurasovic; Mitchell J Campbell; Rolando M Puno; John R Johnson; John R Dimar Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Richard Kasch; Birger Mensel; Florian Schmidt; Sebastian Ruetten; Thomas Barz; Susanne Froehlich; Rebecca Seipel; Harry R Merk; Ralph Kayser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 3.240