High Rate of Revision Surgery After Limited Decompression of Lumbar Facet Cysts.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical treatment of lumbar facet cysts has long been debated. Some surgeons elect for limited decompression of such cysts while other surgeons elect for primary decompression and fusion over concerns for recurrence and instability. Previous studies have suggested the rate of revision surgery after facet cyst excision to be as low as 1%, whereas others have reported this rate to be markedly higher. In this study, we examined revision surgery rates and patient-reported outcomes and conducted a radiographic analysis to identify predictors of failure after limited decompression of lumbar facet cysts. METHODS: A retrospective review of the electronic medical records of patients treated at our institution using the Current Procedural Terminology code 63267 before January 2018 was conducted. The primary outcome measure was revision surgery at the index level for recurrence or instability or a minimum 2-year follow-up without revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures include radiographic assessments of preoperative and postoperative spondylolisthesis and patient-reported outcome measures. Using preoperative MRI studies, an analysis of facet angles at the surgical level was conducted and the presence, location, and amount of facet fluid were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 162 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 93 patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Of these, 19 had undergone a revision surgery at the index level for cyst recurrence or instability. The revision rate for this group was 20.4%. The median time to initial revision surgery was 2.2 years. The median time from index operation to last follow-up was 3.8 years. No differences were observed between the groups regarding the presence of preoperative spondylolisthesis, age, sex, body mass index, blood loss, or patient demographics. 60.2% of all procedures were done at the L4-5 level, but this level accounted for 73.7% of primary failures. A radiographic analysis showed facet angle >45° at L4-5 to be associated with risk of failure of primary decompression. The presence and absolute amount of fluid in the facets were not associated with risk of failure at the L4-5 level. DISCUSSION: Our revision rate of 20.4% is higher than what is commonly reported in the literature. The radiographic analysis shows that at the L4-5 level, a facet angle of >45° is associated with failure of primary decompression.

Considering Spine Surgery: A Web-Based Calculator for Communicating Estimates of Personalized Treatment Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of an informational web-based calculator for communicating estimates of personalized treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usability, effectiveness in communicating benefits and risks, and impact on decision quality of a calculator tool for patients with intervertebral disc herniations, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis who are deciding between surgical and nonsurgical treatments. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The decision to have back surgery is preference-sensitive and warrants shared decision making. However, more patient-specific, individualized tools for presenting clinical evidence on treatment outcomes are needed. METHODS: Using Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial data, prediction models were designed and integrated into a web-based calculator tool: http://spinesurgerycalc.dartmouth.edu/calc/. Consumer Reports subscribers with back-related pain were invited to use the calculator via email, and patient participants were recruited to use the calculator in a prospective manner following an initial appointment at participating spine centers. Participants completed questionnaires before and after using the calculator. We randomly assigned previously validated questions that tested knowledge about the treatment options to be asked either before or after viewing the calculator. RESULTS: A total of 1256 consumer reports subscribers and 68 patient participants completed the calculator and questionnaires. Knowledge scores were higher in the postcalculator group compared to the precalculator group, indicating that calculator usage successfully informed users. Decisional conflict was lower when measured following calculator use, suggesting the calculator was beneficial in the decision-making process. Participants generally found the tool helpful and easy to use. CONCLUSION: Although the calculator is not a comprehensive decision aid, it does focus on communicating individualized risks and benefits for treatment options. Moreover, it appears to be helpful in achieving the goals of more traditional shared decision-making tools. It not only improved knowledge scores but also improved other aspects of decision quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.