PriMera Scientific Surgical Research and Practice (ISSN: 2836-0028)

Case Report

Volume 2 Issue 6

The Safety and Efficacy of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions in the Outpatient Setting

Hunter F Pharis, Daniel T DeGenova, Braden J Passias, Taylor J Manes*, Grace Parizek and Daryl R Sybert

November 27, 2023

View PDF

Abstract

Background: Outpatient surgical procedures have shown reduced costs, improved patient outcomes, and decreased postoperative complications. Interest in moving orthopedic and neurosurgical spine procedures to the outpatient setting has grown in recent years because of these factors. Studies investigating open posterior lumbar interbody fusions (PLIF) in the outpatient setting are sparse.

Methods: Patients who underwent an open PLIF with pedicle screw and rod construct from 2014 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Outpatient procedures were defined by patient discharge being on the same day of procedure, without admittance to an inpatient ward. Pertinent demographic, clinical, radiographic, and surgical data were collected and analyzed.

Results: The current study included 36 outpatient PLIF cases with 94.4% of the study cohort undergoing a single level PLIF. The average Oswestry Disability Index Score improved by 20.4 points from preoperative measurements (p = 0.0002) and the Visual Analog Scale Score improved by 27.2 points (p = 0.0001). Postoperative fusion rate was 94.4%. One intraoperative complication occurred (2.78%), and four post-operative complications occurred (11.11%). There were no subsequent admissions throughout the postoperative follow up period; however, two of the 36 patients (5.56%) did require reoperation, both in an outpatient setting.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that open posterior lumbar interbody fusions performed in an outpatient setting can be performed safely and effectively, with a significant reduction in VAS and ODI pain scores.

Keywords: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; Outpatient lumbar fusion; Same-day discharge; Spinal fusion; Open surgery

References

  1. Martin BI., et al. “Trends in Lumbar Fusion Procedure Rates and Associated Hospital Costs for Degenerative Spinal Diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44.5 (2019): 369-376.
  2. Mundell BF., et al. “Does patient selection account for the perceived cost savings in outpatient spine surgery? A meta-analysis of current evidence and analysis from an administrative database”. J Neurosurg Spine 29.6 (2018): 687-695.
  3. de Kunder SL., et al. “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Spine J 17.11 (2017): 1712-1721.
  4. Cuéllar JM, Lanman TH and Rasouli A. “The Safety of Single and Multilevel Cervical Total Disc Replacement in Ambulatory Surgery Centers”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 45.8 (2020): 512-521.
  5. Snowden R, Fischer D and Kraemer P. “Early outcomes and safety of outpatient (surgery center) vs inpatient based L5-S1 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion”. J Clin Neurosci 73 (2020): 183-186.
  6. Chin KR, Coombs AV and Seale JA. “Feasibility and patient-reported outcomes after outpatient single-level instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in a surgery center: preliminary results in 16 patients”. Spine 40.1 (2015): E36-42.
  7. Arshi A., et al. “Outpatient Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Population-Based Analysis of Trends and Complication Rates”. Spine 43.22 (2018): 1559-1565.
  8. Boddapati V., et al. “Are outpatient three- and four-level anterior cervical discectomies and fusion safe?”. Spine J 21.2 (2021): 231-238.
  9. Makanji H., et al. “Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes”. Eur Spine J 27.8 (2018): 1868-1876.
  10. Diedrich O., et al. “Die dorsale lumbale interkorporelle Fusion mit Cages (PLIF) und transpedikulärer Stabilisierung [The posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages (PLIF) and transpedicular stabilization]”. Zentralbl Neurochir 62.3 (2001): 106-13.
  11. Mikhail CM., et al. “Recoup From Home? Comparison of Relative Cost Savings for ACDF, Lumbar Discectomy, and Short Segment Fusion Performed in the Inpatient Versus Outpatient Setting”. Global Spine J 11.1 (2021): 56S-65S.
  12. Schlesinger S., et al. “Thirty-Day Outcomes from Standalone Minimally Invasive Surgery-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Patients in an Ambulatory Surgery Center vs. Hospital Setting”. Cureus 12.9 (2020): e10197.
  13. Asher AL., et al. “Defining the minimum clinically important difference for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: insights from the Quality Outcomes Database”. Neurosurg Focus 44.1 (2018): E2. Neurosurg Focus 44.4 (2018): E15.
  14. Olsen MF., et al. “Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain”. BMC Med 15.1 (2017): 35.
  15. DiPaola CP and Molinari RW. “Posterior lumbar interbody fusion”. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16.3 (2008): 130-9.
  16. Yun DJ., et al. “Salvage Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Pseudoarthrosis After Posterior or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of 10 Patients”. World Neurosurg 111 (2018): e746-e755.
  17. Asil K and Yaldiz C. “Retrospective Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of PLIF and TLIF Techniques in Patients Who Underwent Lumbar Spinal Posterior Stabilization”. Medicine (Baltimore) 95.17 (2016): e3235.
  18. Ntoukas V and Müller A. “Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion”. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53.1 (2010): 21-4.
  19. Cheng H., et al. “Prolonged Operative Duration Increases Risk of Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review”. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 18.6 (2017): 722-735.