• Int J Spine Surg · Jan 2014

    Validation and analysis of a multi-site MIS Prospective Registry through sub-analysis of an MIS TLIF Subgroup.

    • Joseph A Sclafani, Kamshad Raiszadeh, Ramin Raiszadeh, Paul Kim, Todd Doerr, Farhan Siddiqi, Ivan LaMotta, Paul Park, Cary Templin, Sandeep Gill, Kevin Liang, and Choll W Kim.
    • Spine Institute of San Diego, Minimally Invasive Spine Center of Excellence.
    • Int J Spine Surg. 2014 Jan 1;8.

    Study DesignRetrospective analysis of multi-site, prospectively collected database.ObjectiveTo assess the validity and utility of a prospective spine registry by sub-analysis of patients treated with MIS TLIF.BackgroundThe MIS registry is a large-scale, multi-center series of prospectively collected clinical information on outcomes, complications, and adverse events for minimally invasive spine procedures for the treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions.MethodsAnalysis was performed on the MIS Prospective Registry database. A subgroup of patients treated by MIS TLIF technique was identified. Statistical analyses were performed on pre and post-operative data collected using validated health related quality of life outcome tools. Missing 1-year patient follow-up data was obtained through progressive correspondence modalities.ResultsData analysis was performed on 98 MIS TLIF patients (56 female, 42 male) with a median age of 64.5 years (range 25-91 years) which were extracted from a total registry population of 478 patients. The one year follow-up rate was 87%. A total of 64 single-level, 23 two-level, 3 three-level, and 3 combined TLIFs staged with an MIS lateral procedure were included. The primary surgical indications were spondylolisthesis (27%), central stenosis (25%), foraminal stenosis (14%), post-laminectomy syndrome (14%) and degenerative scoliosis (6%). The peri-operative blood transfusion rate was 3%. Complications included intraoperative dural tear (n = 3), deep wound infection (n = 2), superficial dehiscence/cellulitis (n = 2). There was a 4% re-operation rate at the 1 year post-operative time point. Half of patients were discharged within 2 days (range 1-11 days, mean 2.97 days, median 2 days). All patients that were discharged on the first post-operative day (n = 14) underwent a single-level MIS TLIF procedure and had significantly lower pre-op disability index score than those discharged on POD 3-5 (43.7 ± 15.5 vs. 56.0 ± 18.3, p = 0.04). Average ODI scores in the subgroup of patients that had reached the one year postoperative time point were 46.5 pre-op (n = 46), and 26.2 at 1 year post-op (n = 40, p = 0.0001). There was significant improvement in VAS scores: pre-operative (back = 6.7, leg = 5.4, n = 46), and 1 year post-operative (back = 3.2, leg = 1.7, n = 40, p = 0.0001). Patients with pre-operative ODI scores greater than 50 demonstrated significant improvement starting at the 6 week post-operative time point (24 point improvement, n = 46, p < 0.001). A pre-operative ODI between 35-50 showed significant improvement starting at 3 months (15.5 point improvement, n = 29, p = 0.05). Patients with a pre-operative ODI score less than 35 had an initial period of increased disability with a trend towards significant improvement by 3 months post-op (n = 20).ConclusionsInitial findings of the MIS Prospective Registry show patients can be enrolled in a relatively short time period and patient based questionnaires can successfully be obtained through a combination of clinic follow-up appointments and remote correspondence. Outcomes of the MIS Registry MIS TLIF subgroup were consistent with previously published MIS TLIF studies. Sub-analysis of data collected through level-specific patient diagnosis and treatment modalities permits outcome analysis of a wide breadth of spinal conditions and interventions.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.