Nathani, Karim R

OBJECTIVE Hundreds of thousands of Americans undergo decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis annually. The mild (minimally invasive lumbar decompression) procedure was developed as a potentially less invasive alternative to open decompression; however, much of the evidence has been gathered from industry-sponsored studies. The present study sought to compare real-world clinical outcomes between the mild procedure and open decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS All patients who underwent the mild procedure at a single-institution, multisite, tertiary care center from 2005 to October 2024 were included. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to identify patients who underwent open decompression at the same institution, with age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities as covariates. Primary outcomes were change in pain on the numeric rating scale (NRS), surgical reoperation, and perioperative complications. For pain, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as a 30% improvement in NRS score. RESULTS A total of 175 patients who underwent the mild procedure (mean age 76.3 ± 8.7 years; 44.6% female) were matched to 175 patients treated with open decompression (mean age 75.4 ± 8.7 years; 44.0% female). Among patients with at least 60 days of follow-up, those treated with open decompression were more likely to achieve the MCID for pain (43.1% vs 22.2%, p < 0.001). Patients treated with mild were more likely to require reoperation (46.2% vs 29.3%, p = 0.008). Those who underwent the mild procedure experienced lower rates of durotomies (0% vs 2.9%, p = 0.024) but had higher rates of neurological deficits (6.3% vs 0.6%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS For patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis, those who underwent open decompression were more likely to achieve pain improvement and less likely to require reoperation compared with those who underwent the mild procedure.

OBJECTIVE The authors sought to determine how the temporal proximity of lumbar epidural spinal injection prior to surgery impacts clinical outcomes (e.g., 30-day readmission, postoperative complications, CSF leak) in patients undergoing lumbar decompression without fusion. METHODS The authors queried their institutional registry to identify patients who underwent elective lumbar decompression for spondylotic pathology between January 2019 and March 2022 at multiple centers within the same hospital network. Patients were divided into groups based on the time between their surgical date and the most recent preoperative spinal injection: group 1, patients with duration < 1 month; group 2, 1–3 months; and group 3, no spinal injection within 3 months. Primary outcomes of interest were the length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, rate of intraoperative CSF leak, and rates of reoperation and hospital readmission. For patients in groups 1 and 2, the authors also recorded the number of injections within 12 months prior to surgery to better understand the effect of multiple recent injections. The independent Student t-test and Pearson’s chi-square test were mainly performed for univariate analyses of the continuous and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS A total of 121 and 283 patients received a spinal injection at < 1 month and 1–3 months prior to surgery, respectively, and were separately matched in a 3:1 ratio with 2562 patients with no history of preoperative spinal injection within 3 months before surgery. Among the matched cohorts, patients who received spinal injections < 1 month before lumbar decompression had significantly higher risks of 30-day complication (7.4% vs 0.8%, OR 9.6, p < 0.001), 30-day readmission (5.8% vs 2.2%, OR 3.5, p = 0.049), and 90-day readmission (9.1% vs 2.8%, OR 3.5, p = 0.003) than patients with no history of spinal injection. However, compared with patients with no history of spinal injection, the patients who received spinal injections 1–3 months before surgery were not at higher risk for postoperative complications or readmission. The CSF leak rates were significantly different between the three patient cohorts (10.7% vs 6.7% vs 4.9% for the < 1 month, 1–3 months, and no injection cohorts, respectively; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Lumbar decompression within 1 month of preoperative spinal injection was associated with higher risks of readmission and postoperative complications, including CSF leak. However, with the exception of CSF leak, these risks were no longer observed when spinal injection occurred 1–3 months prior to lumbar decompression.

Study Design. In vitro study. Objective. The purpose of the present study was to utilize an idealized cervical spine model to determine whether the parallax effect or changes in the position of the spine relative to the x-ray generator influence intervertebral motion parameters on dynamic cervical spine radiographs. Summary of Background Data. The utility of flexion-extension radiographs in clinical practice remains in question due to poor reliability of the parameters utilized to measure motion. Materials and Methods. A cervical spine model with tantalum beads inserted into the tip of each spinous process was utilized to measure interspinous process distance (IPD) on plain radiographs. The model was then manipulated to alter the generator angle and generator distance, and the IPD was measured. The impact of individual and combined changes in these parameters on IPD was assessed. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent drivers of variability in IPD measurements. Results. Isolated changes in the generator distance and generator angle and combined changes in these parameters led to significant changes in the measured IPD at each intervertebral level in neutral, flexion, and extension, which, in many instances, exceeded an absolute change of >1 mm or >2 mm. Multivariate analysis revealed that generator distance and generator angle are both independent factors impacting IPD measurements that have an additive effect. Conclusions. In an idealized cervical spine model, small clinically feasible changes in spine position relative to the x-ray generator produced substantial variability in IPD measurements, with absolute changes that often exceeded established cutoffs for determining the presence of pathologic motion across a fused segment. This study further reinforces that motion assessment on dynamic radiographs is not a reliable method for determining the presence of an arthrodesis unless these sources of variability can be consistently eliminated. Level of Evidence. 3