Spondylolysis, a defect in the pars intra-articularis, can lead to spondylosis, instability, and spondylolisthesis. This can be associated with lumbar back pain and/or lower extremity symptoms. The initial treatment of this condition is nonoperative with multiple modalities including physical therapy, activity modification, anti-inflammatory medications, and possibly injection.1 Surgery may be considered if there is lack of improvement with nonoperative options, progression of spondylolisthesis, or neurologic deficit.2,3
When surgery is considered for this condition, it is notable that there is no clear consensus regarding the optimal surgical approach for patients with spondylolysis with or without low-grade spondylolisthesis.2,4–6 Fusion options include transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior spinal fusion (PSF), circumferential combined anterior posterior fusion (AP fusion), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).5 Various studies and reviews have evaluated outcomes achieved with these varying surgical approaches.6–16
TLIF is preferred by some because it can be done through a single posterior approach. It has the further advantages of direct decompression of the foramen on the side of the approach and indirect elevation of both foramen by restoration of disc height with the interbody technique. It affords both posterior and interbody fusion surface areas and avoids an anterior approach to the spine.17–19
PSF alone can be done for low-grade spondylolisthesis, and as with other techniques may be coupled with a decompression.1,13 This avoids the anterior approach and more extensive interbody work of TLIF. Disadvantages include limited ability to reduce slips or restore lumbar lordosis, owing to lack of anterior column support. There is also concern of lesser fusion surface area.20
Other spine surgeons advocate for ALIF with posterior instrumented fusion (AP fusion) for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. For those facile with the anterior approach to the lumbar spine, AP fusion has the advantage of an anterior exposure for placement of a larger interbody device than can be achieved from posterior,21 greater restoration of lordosis, and indirect decompression of the foramen.2,4,22 Performing ALIF alone is an option,15,23,24 but many find that the addition of posterior instrumentation is beneficial in the setting of spondylolysis.25–27
As with any surgical decision, the question of relative advantages and risks must be considered. Recently published reviews5 and guideline articles2 have attempted to analyze and compare the clinical outcomes for surgical treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. The general conclusions were that clinical outcomes are similar among all surgical approaches, with conflicting evidence whether one approach is superior to another. In terms of cost-effectiveness, the North American Spine Society work group reported insufficient evidence to deem one surgical treatment method superior than another.2
If clinical outcomes are similar among surgical options for spondylolysis, knowledge of perioperative adverse event rates might be something to sway decision-making. The purpose of the present study was to compare the rates of perioperative adverse events among TLIF, PSF, AP fusion, and ALIF for patients with spondylolysis. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was utilized to perform a retrospective review of prospectively collected 30-day perioperative outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present study used deidentified data from the NSQIP database years 2010 to 2014. An exception was granted for studies using this dataset from the Human Investigation Committee at our institution.
NSQIP prospectively gathers patient data from 517 participating hospitals and records perioperative adverse events for 30 days after surgery, regardless of hospital discharge. In contrast to the data in administrative databases that are based on reimbursement claims and have been shown to be limited,28 inconsistent,29 and fraught with errors,30 the data in this database are chart-abstracted and prospectively collected by specially trained medical professionals and high-quality data is ensured by routine auditing.31
Cases of spondylolysis were identified using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Edition code 756.11 and 756.12. Cases treated with TLIF, PSF, AP fusion, or ALIF were then identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Cases treated with TLIF were identified by CPT code 22630 or 22633. Cases treated with PSF were identified by code 22612 or 22840. AP fusion cases were identified by code 22558 and included any one of 22612 or 22840. ALIF only cases were identified by code 22558 and excluding 22612 and 22840.
Single-level cases were isolated by excluding cases that had any of the CPT codes for additional levels: 22585, 22614, or 22632. Deformity cases were excluded by removing cases with CPT codes 22800, 22802, 22804, 22808, and 22810.
Patient Characteristics and Outcomes
Demographic variables directly available from the NSQIP database include patient’ age, sex, height, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and comorbid factors including diabetes (those who use any pharmacologic agent to control hyperglycemia) and smoking status (those who had smoked cigarettes in the year before admission for surgery). From these, body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight (in kilograms) divided by height squared (in centimeters). This was divided into categorical groups. ASA was used as a general health status marker.32 Diabetes33 and smoking status were used as additional controls for medical status. Operative and hospital data were additionally abstracted. These included operative time, hospital length of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmission rates.
The NSQIP database follows patients for the occurrence of individual adverse events during the first 30 postoperative days. The rate of each individual adverse outcome was determined as well as aggregated into three groups: total adverse events, serious adverse events, and minor adverse events. Serious adverse events were death, cardiac arrest, stroke/cerebrovascular accident, sepsis/septic shock, myocardial infarction, renal failure, pulmonary embolism, peripheral nerve injury, ventilator time >48 hours, unplanned intubation, or return to the operating room. Minor adverse events were deep wound infection, superficial wound infection, wound dehiscence, renal insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, or transfusion.
Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 13 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).
Fisher exact and Pearson χ 2 tests were used to compare demographics, comorbid factors, and perioperative adverse event rates as appropriate. To account for nonrandom treatment of patients, propensity score matching was used to minimize the effects of confounding related to differences in patient populations. Propensity scoring generates a single score based on the observed covariate data to effectively match patients from different treatment groups.34 In this case, each patient treated with ALIF was matched with a nearest neighbor control with regard to age, sex, BMI, ASA class, diabetes, and smoking status.
Once patients were matched with propensity scores, adverse event rates were compared among propensity score matched patients using Fisher exact and Pearson χ 2 tests. Of the individual adverse outcomes reported by NSQIP, 12 of those were found to have an occurrence in the study population. Statistical significance was set at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, but because the chance of finding one or more spurious significant differences in 12 tests is 49%, the level of significance for comparisons of adverse event rates for each of these 12 adverse events was adjusted to 0.004 according to Bonferroni correction.35
In total, 1077 patients were identified: 556 underwent TLIF, 327 underwent PSF, 108 underwent AP fusion, and 86 underwent ALIF (Table 1). The two ICD-9 codes utilized were evaluated and there were no differences among study groups before or after propensity score matching.
Demographic and comorbid factors are presented in Table 2. Patients who underwent TLIF tended to be older (P = 0.000) and with higher ASA class (P = 0.017), but after propensity score matching, the distribution of ages and ASA class in the compared groups were not statistically different (P = 0.993 and P = 0.861, respectively) (Table 2). The distributions of sex, obesity, diabetes, and smoking status were similar among groups before and after propensity score matching.
Operative times were slightly longer in the AP fusion group (20 minutes longer than TLIF, 34 minutes longer than PSF, and 31 minutes longer than ALIF), which remained statistically significant after propensity score matching (Table 3, P = 0.002). There were no differences in hospital length of stays and readmission rates among the separate treatment groups (Table 3).
Of the adverse events recorded in this database, 12 occurred at least once in one of the treatment groups. The individual adverse events that occurred are listed in Table 4. After the level of significance was adjusted according to Bonferroni correction, there were no differences among treatment groups in the rates of any of the individual adverse events before or after propensity score matching.
The individual adverse events were aggregated into three groups: total adverse events, serious adverse events, and minor adverse events. Table 5 shows the number of patients for each aggregated adverse event group. There were no differences for any of these aggregated adverse event groups (total, serious, or minor) before or after propensity matching.
Spondylolysis with or without spondylolisthesis can have a detrimental effect on a patient's life and contribute to significant morbidity. There are multiple surgical approaches to this problem including TLIF, PSF, AP fusion, and ALIF. There are many studies demonstrating the efficacy of a single surgical method in treating patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis.3,13–15,24–26 Comparisons between two surgical techniques have been performed, though with mostly retrospective cohort comparisons.6,8,10–12,23,27,36 Based on the data so far, meta-analyses have provided limited conclusions, with no technique showing superiority over another in terms of long-term clinical outcomes.2,4,5
In a recent systematic review of different fusion techniques for isthmic spondylolisthesis, Wang et al suggested that, although AP fusion has higher radiographic fusion rates and potentially superior clinical outcomes, this comes at the expense of longer operative time, greater blood loss, and increased perioperative complications.5 Owing to varying study methodology, however, the authors stated that it was difficult to make definitive recommendations for one treatment over another.
The analysis presented in the present study demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the rates of individual adverse events, total adverse events, serious adverse events, or minor adverse events among these surgical approaches evaluated. This was done with and without propensity score matching to account for potential differences in the likelihood that a given patient would be treated by a specific surgical method. This matching ended up being used for the increased likelihood that TLIF was more likely to be the chosen approach for older patients with higher ASA.
The findings here highlight the need to resolve the best treatment options to optimize outcomes while minimizing morbidity and costs, for the treatment of spondylolysis. It was thought that this study might find greater differences in adverse events in the perioperative period, among the surgical approaches, but this was not the case. With the importance of evidence-based medicine, consideration of longer-term outcomes may sway further decision-making. Other variables that might contribute to differences in outcomes include alignment and rate of union, which will need to be factored into the overall picture when choosing a treatment option.
There are limitations to this study. The identification of cases was based on diagnosis/procedural codes that have inherent limitation. As with all national database studies, variations in data collection and data-inclusion have been reported among the different national datasets.37,38 Furthermore, there are no orthopedic or spine-specific outcomes, and only 30 days of postoperative follow-up. With the above said, NSQIP is considered to have robust, validated data that is nationally representative and tracks patients for 30 days, which includes beyond their hospital stay.31,38
Thirukumaran et al 39 published a study in 2016 evaluating the trends in surgical management of spondylolisthesis using a different national database, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Their results showed a higher complication rate for combined anterior-posterior fusion surgeries. Previous articles have compared NIS and NSQIP databases, and have shown that the populations in the databases are different, as well as the recorded data.37,38,40 NIS is an administrative reimbursement database based on codes and claims submitted to payers, whereas NSQIP data are generated through risk-assessment nurses who retrospectively review patient charts. NIS data are limited to inpatient hospital stays, whereas NSQIP tracks patients for 30 days after surgery, including outpatient records. Given these differences and more, it has been said that administrative databases such as NIS may not be appropriate for evaluating the rates of adverse events.38
Overall, the present study found that TLIF, PSF, AP fusion, and ALIF for spondylolysis have similar adverse outcomes at 30-day follow-up based on retrospective review of 1077 cases in a prospectively collected national database. The only differences identified were in operative time, with the mean operative time of AP fusion 20 minutes longer than TLIF, 34 minutes longer than PSF, and 31 minutes longer than ALIF. Nonetheless, because perioperative adverse event rates were similar, these findings suggest that surgeon preference and long-term outcomes better inform the recommendation of one surgical approach or another.
- Options for treating lumbar spondylolysis include TLIF, PSF, AP fusion, and ALIF.
- Differences in 30-day perioperative adverse event rates among these surgical approaches have not previously been well characterized.
- After propensity score matching of patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, the present study found similar rates of adverse events among all groups, when treating this condition.
- There was a significantly increased operative time in the AP fusion group, but there were no differences in hospital length of stay or readmission rates.
- Because perioperative 30-day outcomes were found to be overall similar for lumbar spondylolysis, these findings suggest that surgeon preference and long-term outcomes are better used to determine the recommendation of one surgical approach over another for this condition.
1. Shah S, Mahmood F, Nagraju K. Herkowitz HN, Rothman RH, Simeone FA, et al. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Rothman-Simeone, the Spine
Saunders Elsevier, 5th ed.Philadelphia, PA: 2006.
2. Kreiner DS, Baisden J, Mazanec DJ, et al. Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine J
3. Moller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis—a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
4. Kwon BK, Albert TJ. Adult low-grade acquired spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: evaluation and management. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
5. Wang SJ, Han YC, Liu XM, et al. Fusion techniques for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Arch Orthopaed Trauma Surg
6. Barbanti Brodano G, Lolli F, Martikos K, et al. Fueling the debate: Are outcomes better after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or after posterolateral fusion (PLF) in adult patients with low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis? Evid Based Spine Care J
7. Jiang SD, Chen JW, Jiang LS. Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? Arch Orthopaed Trauma Surg
8. Kim JS, Kang BU, Lee SH, et al. Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech
9. Yang EZ, Xu JG, Liu XK, et al. An RCT study comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes with the use of PLIF or TLIF after instrumented reduction in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J
10. Ekman P, Moller H, Tullberg T, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
11. Kim JS, Kim DH, Lee SH. Comparison between instrumented mini-TLIF and instrumented circumferential fusion in adult low-grade lytic spondylolisthesis: can mini-TLIF with PPF Replace circumferential fusion? J Korean Neurosurg Soc
12. Kim JS, Kim DH, Lee SH, et al. Comparison study of the instrumented circumferential fusion with instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion as a surgical procedure for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg
13. McGuire RA, Amundson GM. The use of primary internal fixation in spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
14. Molinari RW, Sloboda JF, Arrington EC. Low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis treated with instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in U.S. servicemen. J Spinal Disord Tech
2005; 18 (suppl):S24–S29.
15. Cheng CL, Fang D, Lee PC, et al. Anterior spinal fusion for spondylolysis and isthmic spondylolisthesis. Long term results in adults. J Bone Joint Surg
16. Spruit M, van Jonbergen JP, de Kleuver M. A concise follow-up of a previous report: posterior reduction and anterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J
17. Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. Neurosurg Clin N Am
18. DiPaola CP, Molinari RW. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthopaed Surg
19. Moskowitz A. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthoped Clin North Am
20. Siemionow K, Muschler G. Herkowitz HN, Rothman RH, Simeone FA. Principles of bone fusion. Rothman-Simeone, the Spine
Saunders Elsevier, 6th ed.Philadelphia, PA: 2011.
21. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Daly D, et al. Approach-related complications of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: results of a combined spine and vascular surgical team. Global Spine J
22. Guyer R, Glenn J. Herkowitz HN, Rothman RH, Simeone FA. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Rothman-Simeone, the Spine
Saunders Elsevier, 6th ed.Philadelphia, PA: 2011.
23. Kim NH, Lee JW. Anterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion with transpedicular fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. A comparison of clinical results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
1999; 24:812–816. discussion 7.
24. Riouallon G, Lachaniette CH, Poignard A, et al. Outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults: a continuous series of 65 cases with an average follow-up of 6.6 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res
25. Wang JM, Kim DJ, Yun YH. Posterior pedicular screw instrumentation and anterior interbody fusion in adult lumbar spondylolysis or grade I spondylolisthesis with segmental instability. J Spinal Disord
26. Quirno M, Kamerlink JR, Goldstein JA, et al. Outcomes analysis of anterior-posterior fusion for low grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis
27. Swan J, Hurwitz E, Malek F, et al. Surgical treatment for unstable low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults: a prospective controlled study of posterior instrumented fusion compared with combined anterior-posterior fusion. Spine J
28. Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med
29. Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Engl J Med
30. Steinberg SM, Popa MR, Michalek JA, et al. Comparison of risk adjustment methodologies in surgical quality improvement. Surgery
2008; 144:662–667. discussion –7.
32. Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Hooper NM, et al. The relationship between the American Society Of Anesthesiologists physical rating and outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty: an analysis of theNew Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am
33. Buerba RA, Fu MC, Gruskay JA, et al. Obese Class III patients at significantly greater risk of multiple complications after lumbar surgery: an analysis of 10,387 patients in the ACS NSQIP database. Spine J
34. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for casual effects. Biometrika
35. Dunn OJ. Multiple comparisons among means. J Am Stat Assoc
36. Shim JH, Kim WS, Kim JH, et al. Comparison of instrumented posterolateral fusion versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation combined with anterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients with L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and foraminal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine
37. Bohl DD, Basques BA, Golinvaux NS, et al. Nationwide Inpatient Sample and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program give different results in hip fracture studies. Clin Orthopaed Relat Res
38. Bohl DD, Russo GS, Basques BA, et al. Variations in data collection methods between national databases affect study results: a comparison of the nationwide inpatient sample and national surgical quality improvement program databases for lumbar spine fusion procedures. J Bone Joint Surg
39. Thirukumaran CP, Raudenbush B, Li Y, et al. National trends in the surgical management of adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis: 1998 to 2011. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
40. Samuel AM, Lukasiewicz AM, Webb ML, et al. Do we really know our patient population in database research? A comparison of the femoral shaft fracture patient populations in three commonly used national databases. Bone Joint J