Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.

Background: There is considerable heterogeneity in findings and a lack of consensus regarding the interplay between osteoporosis and outcomes in patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather and analyze existing data on the effect of osteoporosis on radiographic, surgical, and clinical outcomes following surgery for lumbar degenerative spinal disease. Methods: A systematic review was performed to determine the effect of osteoporosis on the incidence of adverse outcomes after surgical intervention for lumbar degenerative spinal diseases. The approach focused on the radiographic outcomes, reoperation rates, and other medical and surgical complications. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed on the eligible studies. Results: The results of the meta-analysis suggested that osteoporotic patients experienced increased rates of adjacent segment disease (ASD; p=0.015) and cage subsidence (p=0.001) while demonstrating lower reoperation rates than non-osteoporotic patients (7.4% vs. 13.1%; p=0.038). The systematic review also indicated that the length of stay, overall costs, rates of screw loosening, and rates of wound and other medical complications may increase in patients with a lower bone mineral density. Fusion rates, as well as patient-reported and clinical outcomes, did not differ significantly between osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic patients. Conclusions Osteoporosis was associated with an increased risk of ASD, cage migration, and possibly postoperative screw loosening, as well as longer hospital stays, incurring higher costs and an increased likelihood of postoperative complications. However, a link was not established between osteoporosis and poor clinical outcomes.

Methods: This study included 1,095 patients (mean age, 44.29 years; range, 16–85 years) who underwent upright lumbar MRI. LDD was graded into five categories (I–V). Positive LDD was defined as grade III or greater. The prevalence and pattern of LDD were analyzed, and the correlations between age and total grade of LDD were evaluated. Results: The average number of LDD levels and the total grade of LDD increased with age. LDD moved cephalad with age. The rate of LDD increased rapidly during the decade before the prevalence of LDD and became >50%. In the single-level LDD group, the levels L5–S1 were the most common levels (60.3%). In the two-level group, L4–L5 and L5–S1 were the most common levels (53.5%). In the three-level group, L3–L4, L4–L5, and L5–S1 were the most common levels (55.7%). In the multilevel LDD group, contiguous multilevel disc degeneration (CMDD) was more common than the skipped level disc degeneration (SLDD). The levels L4–L5 were the most common levels in the CMDD group, and L5–S1 were the most common levels among SLDD. Conclusions LDD was found to correlate with age, and the specific patterns and rates of LDD depended on lumbar disc level and age. These LDD pattern data can be used before spinal procedures to predict the probability of natural LDD progression with age.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, case series. PURPOSE: To elucidate the prevalence of degenerative changes in the cervical and lumbar spine and estimate the degenerative changes in the cervical spine based on the degeneration of lumbar disc through a retrospective review of magnetic resonance (MR) images. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Over 50% of middle-aged adults show evidence of spinal degeneration. However, the relationship between degenerative changes in the cervical and lumbar spine has yet to be elucidated. METHODS: A retrospective review of positional MR images of 152 patients with symptoms related to cervical and lumbar spondylosis with or without a neurogenic component was conducted. The degree of intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) was assessed on a grade of 1–5 for each segment of the cervical and lumbar spine using MR T2-weighted sagittal images. The grades across all segments were summed to produce the degenerative disc score (DDS) for the cervical and lumbar spine. The patients were divided into two groups based on the IDD grade for each lumbar segment: normal (grades 1 and 2) and degenerative (grades 3–5). RESULTS: DDSs for the cervical and lumbar spine were positively correlated. Significant differences in cervical DDSs between the groups were observed in all lumbar segments. Although there were no significant differences in cervical DDSs among the degenerative lumbar segment, cervical DDSs at the L1–2 and L2–3 segments tended to be higher than those at the L3–4, L4–5, and L5–S degenerative segments. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that participants with degenerative changes in the upper lumbar segments are more likely to have a certain amount of cervical spondylosis. This information could be used to lower the incidence of a missed diagnosis of cervical spine disorders in patients presenting with lumbar spine symptomology.
Adult ; Diagnosis ; Humans ; Incidence ; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration ; Prevalence ; Retrospective Studies ; Spine ; Spondylosis

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a nationwide private insurance database. Chi-square analysis and linear regression models were utilized for outcome measures. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate any relationship between lumbar degenerative disc disease, diabetes, obesity and smoking tobacco. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Diabetes, obesity, and smoking tobacco are comorbid conditions known to individually have effect on degenerative disc disease. Most studies have only been on a small populous scale. No study has yet to investigate the combination of these conditions within a large patient cohort nor have they reviewed the combination of these conditions on degenerative disc disease. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of insurance billing codes within the nationwide Humana insurance database was performed, using PearlDiver software (PearlDiver, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN, USA), to identify trends among patients diagnosed with lumbar disc degenerative disease with and without the associated comorbidities of obesity, diabetes, and/or smoking tobacco. Patients billed for a comorbidity diagnosis on the same patient record as the lumbar disc degenerative disease diagnosis were compared over time to patients billed for lumbar disc degenerative disease without a comorbidity. There were no sources of funding for this manuscript and no conflicts of interest. RESULTS: The total number and prevalence of patients (per 10,000) within the database diagnosed with lumbar disc degenerative disease increased by 241.4% and 130.3%, respectively. The subsets of patients within this population who were concurrently diagnosed with either obesity, diabetes, tobacco use, or a combination thereof, was significantly higher than patients diagnosed with lumbar disc degenerative disease alone (p <0.05 for all). The number of patients diagnosed with lumbar disc degenerative disease and smoking rose significantly more than patients diagnosed with lumbar disc degenerative disease and either diabetes or obesity (p <0.05). The number of patients diagnosed with lumbar disc degenerative disease, smoking and obesity rose significantly more than the number of patients diagnosed with lumbar disc degenerative disease and any other comorbidity alone or combination of comorbidities (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes, obesity and cigarette smoking each are significantly associated with an increased diagnosis of lumbar degenerative disc disease. The combination of smoking and obesity had a synergistic effect on increased rates of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Patient education and preventative care is a vital goal in prevention of degenerative disc disease within the general population.
Cohort Studies ; Comorbidity ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Diagnosis ; Financial Management ; Humans ; Insurance ; Linear Models ; Obesity* ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Patient Education as Topic ; Prevalence ; Retrospective Studies ; Smoke ; Smoking* ; Spine* ; Tobacco ; Tobacco Products* ; Tobacco Use

There has been a conscious effort to address osteoporosis in the aging population. As bisphosphonate and intermittent parathyroid hormone (PTH) therapy become more widely prescribed to treat osteoporosis, it is important to understand their effects on other physiologic processes, particularly the impact on spinal fusion. Despite early animal model studies and more recent clinical studies, the impact of these medications on spinal fusion is not fully understood. Previous animal studies suggest that bisphosphonate therapy resulted in inhibition of fusion mass with impeded maturity and an unknown effect on biomechanical strength. Prior animal studies demonstrate an improved fusion rate and fusion mass microstructure with the use of intermittent PTH. The purpose of this study was to determine if bisphosphonates and intermittent PTH treatment have impact on human spinal fusion. A systematic review of the literature published between 1980 and 2015 was conducted using major electronic databases. Studies reporting outcomes of human subjects undergoing 1, 2, or 3-level spinal fusion while receiving bisphosphonates and/or intermittent PTH treatment were included. The results of relevant human studies were analyzed for consensus on the effects of these medications in regards to spinal fusion. There were nine human studies evaluating the impact of these medications on spinal fusion. Improved fusion rates were noted in patients receiving bisphosphonates compared to control groups, and greater fusion rates in patients receiving PTH compared to control groups. Prior studies involving animal models found an improved fusion rate and fusion mass microstructure with the use of intermittent PTH. No significant complications were demonstrated in any study included in the analysis. Bisphosphonate use in humans may not be a deterrent to spinal fusion. Intermittent parathyroid use has shown early promise to increase fusion mass in both animal and human studies but further studies are needed to support routine use.
Aging ; Animals ; Consensus ; Diphosphonates ; Humans* ; Lumbar Vertebrae ; Models, Animal ; Osteoporosis ; Parathyroid Hormone ; Spinal Fusion*