Back to Authors

Revella, Jan

Mayo Clinic

Sonoran Spine Research and Education Foundation

Citations 2

Does Interbody Support at L5-S1 Matter in Long Fusions to the Pelvis?
Lara, Nina , Lockwood, Donovan, Revella, Jan, Crandall, Dennis G. , Chang, Michael S. , Lara, Nina J, Chung, Andrew S.

Spine | January 13, 2021 | Volume: 46 | Issue: 15 | Pages: 1014-1019

10.1097/brs.0000000000003937 Get It

Study Design. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective. To determine if the addition of L5-S1 interbody support in long fusion deformity constructs is associated with superior long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. To compare the 5-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications between long fusion constructs with L5-S1 interbody support versus posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone. Summary of Background Data. Cadaveric biomechanical studies have suggested that an interbody fusion at L5-S1 is beneficial in long fusion constructs with sacropelvic fixation. However, there is limited data reflecting the superiority of interbody support augmentation in optimizing arthrodesis and deformity correction relative to PLF alone. Methods. Eighty-eight consecutive adults with spinal deformity who underwent at minimum T11-pelvis posterior pedicle screw instrumentation with 5-year follow-up were included. Two cohorts were compared based on technique used at the lumbosacral junction (L5-S1): (A) no interbody (PLF; n = 23), or (B) interbody support at L5-S1 (IB; n = 65). Radiographic measurements and clinical outcome measures were compared at multiple time points. Complications were recorded and compared. Results. No differences in baseline patient characteristics between cohorts. One nonunion occurred at L5-S1 in the PLF group (P = 0.091). Initial postop sagittal alignment was better in the IB group (PLF: 6.46 cm, IB: 2.48 cm, P = 0.007); however, this was not maintained over long-term follow-up. No significant differences in proximal junctional kyphosis (PLF: 7/23, IB: 9/65, P = 0.076). Proximal junctional failure was more frequent in the PLF group (PLF: 6/23, IB: 6/65, P = 0.043). No significant differences in complications were found. Both cohorts had improvement from baseline pain and functional scores. Conclusion. There is no absolute long-term advantage for lumbar interbody support in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing spinal arthrodesis to the pelvis. Level of Evidence: 3
Does Local Administration of Liposomal Bupivacaine Reduce Pain and Narcotic Consumption in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery?
Chung, Andrew S. , Crandall, Dennis G. , Revella, Jan, Adeniyi, Biodun, Chang, Yu, Chang, Michael S. , Chang, Yu‐Hui H., Chung, Andrew , Chang, Yu Hui H.

Global Spine Journal | June 22, 2020 | Volume: 11 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 896-902

10.1177/2192568220931053 Get It

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To determine if local administration of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) reduces postoperative pain scores and narcotic use in spinal deformity patients. Methods: Adult patients undergoing elective spinal fusion (7 or more levels) for scoliosis or kyphosis were selected for inclusion. Patients received either periincisional injections of combined liposomal and standard bupivacaine (n = 90, group L) or standard bupivacaine only (n = 69, group C). Perioperative pain scores (VAS [visual analogue scale]), opioid use, length of stay, functional outcome (ODI [Oswestry Disability Index]), and perioperative complications were recorded. No external funding was received for this study. Results: A total of 159 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age was 54.2 years of age). No significant baseline demographic differences were noted between the 2 groups. Group L experienced slight improvements in pain control on postoperative day (POD) 1 ( P = .02). No difference in pain scores were otherwise noted. Group L transitioned off of intravenous (IV) narcotics faster with 52.6% less IV use by POD3 ( P = .03). No differences in total narcotic consumption, perioperative complications, lengths of stay, and functional outcome scores were otherwise noted between the 2 cohorts. Conclusions: The use of LB in adult spinal deformity surgery does not appear to provide clinically important improvements in postoperative pain at the manufacturer’s recommended dosage. Furthermore, while patients receiving LB may transition more quickly off of IV narcotics, this does not appear to translate into an overall decrease in narcotic consumption, hasten return of bowel function, or decrease hospital lengths of stay. Future prospective randomized control trials are warranted. The use of varying dosages of LB may also help further clarify the true efficacy of LB in the setting of spinal deformity surgery.