Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 98 items for

  • Refine by Access: all x
  • By Author: Park, Paul x
Clear All
Restricted access

Michael J. Strong, Julianne Santarosa, Timothy P. Sullivan, Noojan Kazemi, Jacob R. Joseph, Osama N. Kashlan, Mark E. Oppenlander, Nicholas J. Szerlip, Paul Park, and Clay M. Elswick

OBJECTIVE

In the era of modern medicine with an armamentarium full of state-of-the art technologies at our disposal, the incidence of wrong-level spinal surgery remains problematic. In particular, the thoracic spine presents a challenge for accurate localization due partly to body habitus, anatomical variations, and radiographic artifact from the ribs and scapula. The present review aims to assess and describe thoracic spine localization techniques.

METHODS

The authors performed a literature search using the PubMed database from 1990 to 2020, compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A total of 27 articles were included in this qualitative review.

RESULTS

A number of pre- and intraoperative strategies have been devised and employed to facilitate correct-level localization. Some of the more well-described approaches include fiducial metallic markers (screw or gold), metallic coils, polymethylmethacrylate, methylene blue, marking wire, use of intraoperative neuronavigation, intraoperative localization techniques (including using a needle, temperature probe, fluoroscopy, MRI, and ultrasonography), and skin marking.

CONCLUSIONS

While a number of techniques exist to accurately localize lesions in the thoracic spine, each has its advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, the localization technique deployed by the spine surgeon will be patient-specific but often based on surgeon preference.

Restricted access

Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Jakub Godzik, Paul Park, Kai-Ming Fu, Stacie Tran, Juan S. Uribe, Michael Y. Wang, Khoi D. Than, David O. Okonkwo, Adam S. Kanter, Pierce D. Nunley, Neel Anand, Richard G. Fessler, Dean Chou, Renaud Lafage, Robert K. Eastlack, and on behalf of the International Spine Study Group

OBJECTIVE

Traditional surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) is effective but may result in exposure-related morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can potentially minimize this morbidity; however, high-level evidence is lacking. This study presents the first prospective multicenter investigation of MIS approaches for ASD.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter study was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, with at least one of the following radiographic criteria: coronal Cobb (CC) angle ≥ 20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm, pelvic tilt (PT) > 25°, and thoracic kyphosis > 60°. Additional inclusion criteria were circumferential MIS, including interbody fusion (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF], lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF], or anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF]) with percutaneous posterior fixation on a minimum of 4 intervertebral levels. Radiographic and clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS], Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], and Scoliosis Research Society–22 [SRS-22]) were collected preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively; preoperative and postoperative values were compared using paired Student t-tests.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up were identified (75 of 111; 67.6%). The mean ± SD age was 68.8 ± 9.0 years, and 48 patients (64%) were female. Patients underwent a mean of 6.7 ± 2.9 levels of fusion with LLIF (85%), ALIF (55%), and TLIF (9%); the mean estimated blood loss was 547.6 ± 567.2 mL, and the mean length of stay was 7.0 ± 3.7 days. Significant improvements were observed in ODI (−19 ± 12.9, p < 0.001), SRS-22 (0.8 ± 0.66, p < 0.001), VAS back (−4.3 ± 2.8, p < 0.001), and VAS leg (−3.0 ± 3.2, p < 0.001) scores. Significant decreases in SVA (−26.4 ± 53.6 mm; p < 0.001), pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis (−11.3° ± 14.9°, p < 0.001), and CC angle (−12.1° ± 11.8°, p < 0.001) were also observed. Complications occurred in 39 patients (52%); 11 patients (15%) experienced major complications, and 16 patients (21%) required reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS approaches for ASD resulted in meaningful symptomatic improvement. The complication rates were similar to historic norms, with a fairly high reoperation rate at 1 year. Longer follow-up will be necessary to evaluate the durability of this approach in the treatment of ASD.

Restricted access

David T. Asuzu, Jonathan J. Yun, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Andrew K. Chan, Cheerag D. Upadhyaya, Domagoj Coric, Eric A. Potts, Erica F. Bisson, Jay D. Turner, Jack J. Knightly, Kai-Ming Fu, Kevin T. Foley, Luis Tumialan, Mark Shaffrey, Mohamad Bydon, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Paul Park, Scott Meyer, Anthony L. Asher, Oren N. Gottfried, Khoi D. Than, Michael Y. Wang, and Avery L. Buchholz

OBJECTIVE

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) results in significant morbidity. The duration of symptoms prior to surgical intervention may be associated with postoperative surgical outcomes and functional recovery. The authors’ objective was to investigate whether delayed surgical treatment for DCM is associated with worsened postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Data from 1036 patients across 14 surgical centers in the Quality Outcomes Database were analyzed. Baseline demographic characteristics and findings of preoperative and postoperative symptom evaluations, including duration of symptoms, were assessed. Postoperative functional outcomes were measured using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale. Symptom duration was classified as either less than 12 months or 12 months or greater. Univariable and multivariable regression were used to evaluate for the associations between symptom duration and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

In this study, 513 patients (49.5%) presented with symptom duration < 12 months, and 523 (50.5%) had symptoms for 12 months or longer. Patients with longer symptom duration had higher BMI and higher prevalence of anxiety and diabetes (all p < 0.05). Symptom duration ≥ 12 months was associated with higher average baseline NDI score (41 vs 36, p < 0.01). However, improvements in NDI scores from baseline were not significantly different between groups at 3 months (p = 0.77) or 12 months (p = 0.51). Likewise, the authors found no significant differences between groups in changes in mJOA scores from baseline to 3 months or 12 months (both p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical intervention resulted in improved mJOA and NDI scores at 3 months, and this improvement was sustained in both patients with short and longer initial symptom duration. Patients with DCM can still undergo successful surgical management despite delayed presentation.

Restricted access

Andrew K. Chan, Robert K. Eastlack, Richard G. Fessler, Khoi D. Than, Dean Chou, Kai-Ming Fu, Paul Park, Michael Y. Wang, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Pierce D. Nunley, Neel Anand, Juan S. Uribe, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Shay Bess, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Vivian P. Le, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and the International Spine Study Group

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have demonstrated the short-term radiographic and clinical benefits of circumferential minimally invasive surgery (cMIS) and hybrid (i.e., minimally invasive anterior or lateral interbody fusion with an open posterior approach) techniques to correct adult spinal deformity (ASD). However, it is not known if these benefits are maintained over longer periods of time. This study evaluated the 2- and 3-year outcomes of cMIS and hybrid correction of ASD.

METHODS

A multicenter database was retrospectively reviewed for patients undergoing cMIS or hybrid surgery for ASD. Patients were ≥ 18 years of age and had one of the following: maximum coronal Cobb angle (CC) ≥ 20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm, pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) ≥ 10°, or pelvic tilt (PT) > 20°. Radiographic parameters were evaluated at the latest follow-up. Clinical outcomes were compared at 2- and 3-year time points and adjusted for age, preoperative CC, levels operated, levels with interbody fusion, presence of L5–S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion, and upper and lower instrumented vertebral level.

RESULTS

Overall, 197 (108 cMIS, 89 hybrid) patients were included with 187 (99 cMIS, 88 hybrid) and 111 (60 cMIS, 51 hybrid) patients evaluated at 2 and 3 years, respectively. The mean (± SD) follow-up duration for cMIS (39.0 ± 13.3 months, range 22–74 months) and hybrid correction (39.9 ± 16.8 months, range 22–94 months) were similar for both cohorts. Hybrid procedures corrected the CC greater than the cMIS technique (adjusted p = 0.022). There were no significant differences in postoperative SVA, PI-LL, PT, and sacral slope (SS). At 2 years, cMIS had lower Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (adjusted p < 0.001), greater ODI change as a percentage of baseline (adjusted p = 0.006), less visual analog scale (VAS) back pain (adjusted p = 0.006), and greater VAS back pain change as a percentage of baseline (adjusted p = 0.001) compared to hybrid techniques. These differences were no longer significant at 3 years. At 3 years, but not 2 years, VAS leg pain was lower for cMIS compared to hybrid techniques (adjusted p = 0.032). Those undergoing cMIS had fewer overall complications compared to hybrid techniques (adjusted p = 0.006), but a higher odds of pseudarthrosis (adjusted p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

In this review of a multicenter database for patients undergoing cMIS and hybrid surgery for ASD, hybrid procedures were associated with a greater CC improvement compared to cMIS techniques. cMIS was associated with superior ODI and back pain at 2 years, but this difference was no longer evident at 3 years. However, cMIS was associated with superior leg pain at 3 years. There were fewer complications following cMIS, with the exception of pseudarthrosis.

Restricted access

Jacob K. Greenberg, Stephen Shelby Burks, Christopher F. Dibble, Saad Javeed, Vivek P. Gupta, Alexander T. Yahanda, Roberto J. Perez-Roman, Vaidya Govindarajan, Andrew T. Dailey, Sanjay Dhall, Daniel J. Hoh, Daniel E. Gelb, Adam S. Kanter, Eric O. Klineberg, Michael J. Lee, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Paul Park, Charles A. Sansur, Khoi D. Than, Jon J. W. Yoon, Michael Y. Wang, and Wilson Z. Ray

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques can effectively stabilize and decompress many thoracolumbar injuries with decreased morbidity and tissue destruction compared with open approaches. Nonetheless, there is limited direction regarding the breadth and limitations of MIS techniques for thoracolumbar injuries. Consequently, the objectives of this study were to 1) identify the range of current practice patterns for thoracolumbar trauma and 2) integrate expert opinion and literature review to develop an updated treatment algorithm.

METHODS

A survey describing 10 clinical cases with a range of thoracolumbar injuries was sent to 12 surgeons with expertise in spine trauma. The survey results were summarized using descriptive statistics, along with the Fleiss kappa statistic of interrater agreement. To develop an updated treatment algorithm, the authors used a modified Delphi technique that incorporated a literature review, the survey results, and iterative feedback from a group of 14 spine trauma experts. The final algorithm represented the consensus opinion of that expert group.

RESULTS

Eleven of 12 surgeons contacted completed the case survey, including 8 (73%) neurosurgeons and 3 (27%) orthopedic surgeons. For the 4 cases involving patients with neurological deficits, nearly all respondents recommended decompression and fusion, and the proportion recommending open surgery ranged from 55% to 100% by case. Recommendations for the remaining cases were heterogeneous. Among the neurologically intact patients, MIS techniques were typically recommended more often than open techniques. The overall interrater agreement in recommendations was 0.23, indicating fair agreement. Considering both literature review and expert opinion, the updated algorithm indicated that MIS techniques could be used to treat most thoracolumbar injuries. Among neurologically intact patients, percutaneous instrumentation without arthrodesis was recommended for those with AO Spine Thoracolumbar Classification System subtype A3/A4 (Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score [TLICS] 4) injuries, but MIS posterior arthrodesis was recommended for most patients with AO Spine subtype B2/B3 (TLICS > 4) injuries. Depending on vertebral body integrity, anterolateral corpectomy or mini-open decompression could be used for patients with neurological deficits.

CONCLUSIONS

Spine trauma experts endorsed a range of strategies for treating thoracolumbar injuries but felt that MIS techniques were an option for most patients. The updated treatment algorithm may provide a foundation for surgeons interested in safe approaches for using MIS techniques to treat thoracolumbar trauma.

Restricted access

Dean Chou, Virginie Lafage, Alvin Y. Chan, Peter Passias, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Robert K. Eastlack, Kai-Ming Fu, Richard G. Fessler, Munish C. Gupta, Khoi D. Than, Neel Anand, Juan S. Uribe, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Shay Bess, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Han Jo Kim, Justin S. Smith, Daniel M. Sciubba, Paul Park, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and the International Spine Study Group (ISSG)

OBJECTIVE

Circumferential minimally invasive spine surgery (cMIS) for adult scoliosis has become more advanced and powerful, but direct comparison with traditional open correction using prospectively collected data is limited. The authors performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected, multicenter adult spinal deformity data. The authors directly compared cMIS for adult scoliosis with open correction in propensity-matched cohorts using health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures and surgical parameters.

METHODS

Data from a prospective, multicenter adult spinal deformity database were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years, minimum 1-year follow-up, and one of the following characteristics: pelvic tilt (PT) > 25°, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) > 10°, Cobb angle > 20°, or sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm. Patients were categorized as undergoing cMIS (percutaneous screws with minimally invasive anterior interbody fusion) or open correction (traditional open deformity correction). Propensity matching was used to create two equal groups and to control for age, BMI, preoperative PI-LL, pelvic incidence (PI), T1 pelvic angle (T1PA), SVA, PT, and number of posterior levels fused.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients (77 underwent open procedures and 77 underwent cMIS) were included after matching for age, BMI, PI-LL (mean 15° vs 17°, respectively), PI (54° vs 54°), T1PA (21° vs 22°), and mean number of levels fused (6.3 vs 6). Patients who underwent three-column osteotomy were excluded. Follow-up was 1 year for all patients. Postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (p = 0.50), Scoliosis Research Society–total (p = 0.45), and EQ-5D (p = 0.33) scores were not different between cMIS and open patients. Maximum Cobb angles were similar for open and cMIS patients at baseline (25.9° vs 26.3°, p = 0.85) and at 1 year postoperation (15.0° vs 17.5°, p = 0.17). In total, 58.3% of open patients and 64.4% of cMIS patients (p = 0.31) reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI at 1 year. At 1 year, no differences were observed in terms of PI-LL (p = 0.71), SVA (p = 0.46), PT (p = 0.9), or Cobb angle (p = 0.20). Open patients had greater estimated blood loss compared with cMIS patients (1.36 L vs 0.524 L, p < 0.05) and fewer levels of interbody fusion (1.87 vs 3.46, p < 0.05), but shorter operative times (356 minutes vs 452 minutes, p = 0.003). Revision surgery rates between the two cohorts were similar (p = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

When cMIS was compared with open adult scoliosis correction with propensity matching, HRQOL improvement, spinopelvic parameters, revision surgery rates, and proportions of patients who reached MCID were similar between cohorts. However, well-selected cMIS patients had less blood loss, comparable results, and longer operative times in comparison with open patients.

Restricted access

Andrew K. Chan, Praveen V. Mummaneni, John F. Burke, Rory R. Mayer, Erica F. Bisson, Joshua Rivera, Brenton Pennicooke, Kai-Ming Fu, Paul Park, Mohamad Bydon, Steven D. Glassman, Kevin T. Foley, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Domagoj Coric, John J. Knightly, Michael Y. Wang, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Anthony L. Asher, Michael S. Virk, Panagiotis Kerezoudis, Mohammed A. Alvi, Jian Guan, Regis W. Haid, and Dean Chou

OBJECTIVE

Reduction of Meyerding grade is often performed during fusion for spondylolisthesis. Although radiographic appearance may improve, correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is rarely reported. In this study, the authors’ aim was to assess the impact of spondylolisthesis reduction on 24-month PRO measures after decompression and fusion surgery for Meyerding grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis with a minimum 24-month follow-up, and quantitative correlation between Meyerding slippage reduction and PROs was performed. Baseline and 24-month PROs, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)–back pain (NRS-BP), NRS-leg pain (NRS-LP), and satisfaction (North American Spine Society patient satisfaction questionnaire) scores were noted. Multivariable regression models were fitted for 24-month PROs and complications after adjusting for an array of preoperative and surgical variables. Data were analyzed for magnitude of slippage reduction and correlated with PROs. Patients were divided into two groups: < 3 mm reduction and ≥ 3 mm reduction.

RESULTS

Of 608 patients from 12 participating sites, 206 patients with complete data were identified in the QOD and included in this study. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics were similarly distributed between the cohorts except for depression, listhesis magnitude, and the proportion with dynamic listhesis (which were accounted for in the multivariable analysis). One hundred four (50.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm (mean 5.19, range 3 to 11), and 102 (49.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction < 3 mm (mean 0.41, range 2 to −2). Patients in both groups (slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm, and slippage reduction < 3 mm) reported significant improvement in all primary patient reported outcomes (all p < 0.001). There was no significant difference with regard to the PROs between patients with or without intraoperative reduction of listhesis on univariate and multivariable analyses (ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or satisfaction). There was no significant difference in complications between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvement was found in terms of all PROs in patients undergoing decompression and fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. There was no correlation with clinical outcomes and magnitude of Meyerding slippage reduction.

Restricted access

Mohamed Macki, Travis Hamilton, Seokchun Lim, Tarek R. Mansour, Edvin Telemi, Michael Bazydlo, Lonni Schultz, David R. Nerenz, Paul Park, Victor Chang, Jason Schwalb, and Muwaffak M. Abdulhak

OBJECTIVE

Despite a general consensus regarding the administration of preoperative antibiotics, poorly defined comparison groups and underpowered studies prevent clear guidelines for postoperative antibiotics. Utilizing a data set tailored specifically to spine surgery outcomes, in this clinical study the authors aimed to determine whether there is a role for postoperative antibiotics in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI).

METHODS

The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry was queried for all lumbar operations performed for degenerative spinal pathologies over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2019. Preoperative prophylactic antibiotics were administered for all surgical procedures. The study population was divided into three cohorts: no postoperative antibiotics, postoperative antibiotics ≤ 24 hours, and postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours. This categorization was intended to determine 1) whether postoperative antibiotics are helpful and 2) the appropriate duration of postoperative antibiotics. First, multivariable analysis with generalized estimating equations (GEEs) was used to determine the association between antibiotic duration and all-type SSI with adjusted odds ratios; second, a three-tiered outcome—no SSI, superficial SSI, and deep SSI—was calculated with multivariable multinomial logistical GEE analysis.

RESULTS

Among 37,161 patients, the postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours cohort had more men with older average age, greater body mass index, and greater comorbidity burden. The postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours cohort had a 3% rate of SSI, which was significantly higher than the 2% rate of SSI of the other two cohorts (p = 0.004). On multivariable GEE analysis, neither postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours nor postoperative antibiotics ≤ 24 hours, as compared with no postoperative antibiotics, was associated with a lower rate of all-type postoperative SSIs. On multivariable multinomial logistical GEE analysis, neither postoperative antibiotics ≤ 24 hours nor postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours was associated with rate of superficial SSI, as compared with no antibiotic use at all. The odds of deep SSI decreased by 45% with postoperative antibiotics ≤ 24 hours (p = 0.002) and by 40% with postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of all-type SSI was highest in the antibiotics > 24 hours cohort, which also had the highest proportions of risk factors, duration of antibiotics failed to predict all-type SSI. On multinomial subanalysis, administration of postoperative antibiotics for both ≤ 24 hours and > 24 hours was associated with decreased risk of only deep SSI but not superficial SSI. Spine surgeons can safely consider antibiotics for 24 hours, which is equally as effective as long-term administration for prophylaxis against deep SSI.

Restricted access

Alex S. Ha, Meghan Cerpa, Justin Mathew, Paul Park, Joseph M. Lombardi, Andrew J. Luzzi, Nathan J. Lee, Marc D. Dyrszka, Zeeshan M. Sardar, Ronald A. Lehman Jr., and Lawrence G. Lenke

OBJECTIVE

Lumbosacral fractional curves in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients often have sharp coronal curves resulting in significant pain and imbalance. Postoperative stretch neuropraxia after fractional curve correction can lead to discomfort and unsatisfactory outcomes. The goal of this study was to use radiographic measures to increase understanding of the relationship between postoperative stretch neuropraxia and fractional curve correction.

METHODS

In 62 ASD patients treated from 2015 to 2018, radiographic review was performed, including measurement of the distance between the lower lumbar neural foramen (L4 and L5) in the concavity and convexity of the lumbosacral fractional curve and the ipsilateral femoral heads (FHs; L4–FH and L5–FH) in pre- and postoperative anteroposterior spine radiographs. The largest absolute preoperative to postoperative change in distance between the lower lumbar neural foramen and the ipsilateral FH (ΔL4/L5–FH) was used for analysis. Chi-square analyses, independent and paired t-tests, and logistic regression were performed to study the relationship between L4/L5–FH and stretch neuropraxia for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 62 patients, 13 (21.0%) had postoperative stretch neuropraxia. Patients without postoperative stretch neuropraxia had an average ΔL4–FH distance of 16.2 mm compared to patients with stretch neuropraxia, who had an average ΔL4–FH distance of 31.5 mm (p < 0.01). Patients without postoperative neuropraxia had an average ΔL5–FH distance of 11.1 mm compared to those with stretch neuropraxia, who had an average ΔL5–FH distance of 23.0 mm (p < 0.01). Chi-square analysis showed that patients had a 4.78-fold risk of developing stretch neuropraxia with ΔL4–FH > 20 mm (95% CI 1.3–17.3) and a 5.17-fold risk of developing stretch neuropraxia with ΔL5–FH > 15 mm (95% CI 1.4–18.7). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the odds of developing stretch neuropraxia were 15:1 with a ΔL4–FH > 20 mm (95% CI 3–78) and 21:1 with a ΔL5–FH > 15 mm (95% CI 4–113).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel ΔL4/L5–FH distances are strongly associated with postoperative stretch neuropraxia in ASD patients. A ΔL4–FH > 20 mm and ΔL5–FH > 15 mm significantly increase the odds for patients to develop postoperative stretch neuropraxia.

Open access

Kevin Swong, Michael J. Strong, Jay K. Nathan, Timothy J. Yee, Brandon W. Smith, Paul Park, and Mark E. Oppenlander

BACKGROUND

Lumbar radiculopathy is the most common indication for lumbar discectomy, but residual postoperative radicular symptoms are common. Postoperative lumbar radiculopathy secondary to scar formation is notoriously difficult to manage, with the mainstay of treatment focused on nonoperative techniques. Surgical intervention for epidural fibrosis has shown unacceptably high complication rates and poor success rates.

OBSERVATIONS

Three patients underwent spinal arthrodesis without direct decompression for recurrent radiculopathy due to epidural fibrosis. Each patient previously underwent lumbar discectomy but subsequently developed recurrent radiculopathy. Imaging revealed no recurrent disc herniation, although it demonstrated extensive epidural fibrosis and scar in the region of the nerve root at the previous surgical site. Dynamic radiographs showed no instability. Two patients underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion, and one patient underwent anterior lumbosacral interbody fusion. Each patient experienced resolution of radicular symptoms by the 1-year follow-up. Average EQ visual analog scale scores improved from 65 preoperatively to 78 postoperatively.

LESSONS

Spinal arthrodesis via lumbar interbody fusion, without direct decompression, may relieve pain in patients with recurrent radiculopathy due to epidural fibrosis, even in the absence of gross spinal instability.