Shooshani, Tara

Study Design: A meta-analysis approach to a systematic review. Objective: Perform a systematic review to identify all reports directly comparing outcomes of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using static versus expandable interbody cages. Specifically focusing on periprocedural complications, intraoperative morbidity, and fusion outcomes. Summary of Background Data: Minimally invasive surgical techniques, particularly LLIF, have gained popularity for their potential to reduce muscle and soft tissue dissection, leading to faster postoperative recovery. LLIF has been associated with fewer complications compared with open posterior approaches. The introduction of expandable lumbar interbody devices aims to further reduce surgical difficulty and potential complications. However, concerns include a small graft window due to the expansion mechanism and higher costs. Methods: The Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases were systematically queried in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify articles comparing outcomes following LLIF using static and expandable interbodies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was employed to assess the risk of bias (ROB) in the selected studies. Extracted data underwent effect-size meta-analysis with the PyMARE library, using P<0.05 to define statistical significance. Results: Of the 77 identified articles, 4 studies comprising 283 patients (mean age: 67.1 y, 55.8% female) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 150 patients (53%) were treated with static interbodies compared with 133 (47%) receiving expandable interbodies. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to operative time (P=0.59), blood loss (P=0.89), length of stay (P=0.78), subsidence (P=0.49), 24-month mean disc height (P=0.11), 24-month mean ODI (P=0.58), or 24-month mean visual analog scale (VAS) back pain (P=0.81). The expandable group saw a trend toward improved fusion rates (97% vs. 92%, P=0.06). Conclusions: The present meta-analysis suggests the use of expandable (vs. static) interbodies in LLIF surgery may result in similar surgical morbidity, subsidence, and decompression. Further prospective comparative studies are merited to validate these results.

OBJECTIVE Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an FDA-approved antifibrinolytic that is seeing increased popularity in spine surgery owing to its ability to reduce intraoperative blood loss (IOBL) and allogeneic transfusion requirements. The present study aimed to summarize the current literature on these formulations in the context of short-segment instrumented lumbar fusion including ≥ 1-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHODS The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were queried for all full-text English studies evaluating the use of topical TXA (tTXA), systemic TXA (sTXA), or combined tTXA+sTXA in patients undergoing PLIF. The primary endpoints of interest were operative time, IOBL, and total blood loss (TBL); secondary endpoints included venous thromboembolic complication occurrence, and allogeneic and autologous transfusion requirements. Outcomes were compared using random effects. Comparisons were made between the following treatment groups: sTXA, tTXA, and sTXA+tTXA. Given that sTXA is arguably the standard of care in the literature (i.e., the most common route of administration that to this point has been studied the most), the authors compared sTXA versus tTXA and sTXA versus sTXA+tTXA. Study heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test, and grouped analysis using the Hedge’s g test was performed for measurement of effect size. RESULTS Forty-five articles were identified, of which 17 met the criteria for inclusion with an aggregate of 1008 patients. TXA regimens included sTXA only, tTXA only, and various combinations of sTXA and tTXA. There were no significant differences in operative time, TBL, or postoperative drainage between the sTXA and tTXA groups or between the sTXA and sTXA+tTXA groups. CONCLUSIONS The present meta-analysis suggested clinical equipoise between isolated sTXA, isolated tTXA, and combinatorial tTXA+sTXA formulations as hemostatic adjuvants/neoadjuvants in short-segment fusion including ≥ 1-level PLIF. Given the theoretically lower venous thromboembolism risk associated with tTXA, additional investigations using large cohorts comparing these two formulations within the posterior fusion population are merited. Although TXA has been shown to be effective, there are insufficient data to support topical or systemic administration as superior within the open PLIF population.