Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques

Authors: Xuan Wang, Benny Borgman, Simona Vertuani, Jonas Nilsson

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chronic low back pain is a common health problem for adult workers and causes an enormous economic burden. With the improvement of minimally invasive surgical techniques (MIS) in spinal fusion and the development of fusion devices, more lumbar operations are today being performed through a less invasive technique. When compared with open surgeries (OS), MIS has demonstrated better clinical outcomes including operation time, blood loss, complication rates and length of hospital stay. The aim of this review was to identify and summarize evidence on the time to return to work and the duration of post-operation narcotic use for patients who had lumbar spinal fusion operations using MIS and OS techniques.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed including studies identified from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, and the Centre for Review and Dissemination (CRD) (January 2004–April 2014) for publications reporting on time to return to work and post-operation narcotic use after MIS or OS lumbar spinal fusion surgeries.

Results

Out of a total of 36 included studies, 28 reported on the time to return to work and 17 on the narcotic use after MIS or OS. Four studies described the time to return to work directly comparing MIS and OS. Three studies, from the US, directly compared the duration of narcotic use between MIS- transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and OS-TLIF. In addition to the time to return to work, 23 studies reported on the rate of return to work and the employment rate before and after surgery, and two Swedish studies presented sick leave data.

Conclusions

There is a gap of good quality data describing the time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion operations using MIS or OS techniques. However, the current systematic literature review indicates that patients who have lumbar spinal fusion operations, with the MIS procedure, generally return to work after surgery more quickly and require less post-operation narcotics for pain control compared to patients who have OS.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Dionne CE, Dunn KM, Croft PR. Does back pain prevalence really decrease with increasing age? A systematic review. Age Ageing. 2006;35(3):229–34.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, Woolf A, Bain C, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):968–74.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Guo HR, Tanaka S, Halperin WE, Cameron LL. Back pain prevalence in US industry and estimates of lost workdays. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(7):1029–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Katz JN. Lumbar disc disorders and low-back pain: socioeconomic factors and consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 2):21–4.PubMed
6.
Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(8):794–810.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Abdu W, Herkowitz H, Andersson G, et al. Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(24):2061–8.CrossRef
8.
Koenig L, Dall TM, Gu Q, Saavoss J, Schafer MF. How does accounting for worker productivity affect the measured cost-effectiveness of lumbar discectomy? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(4):1069–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Phillips FM, Slosar PJ, Youssef JA, Andersson G, Papatheofanis F. Lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(7):E409–22.CrossRef
10.
Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R. Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(26):2273–81.CrossRef
11.
12.
Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(13):1385–9.CrossRef
13.
Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA. An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12(6):694–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Wang MY, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt MJ. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25(6):324–8.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(8):1741–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1727–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Sidhu GS, Henkelman E, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Hilibrand A, Anderson DG, et al. Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1792–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg. 2012;78(1–2):178–84.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Higgins JP, Green S: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org 2010.
20.
21.
Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(8):479–84.PubMed
22.
Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, et al. Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion for degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2013;
23.
Kim J-S, Kim D-H, Lee S-H, Park C-K, Hwang J-H, Cheh G, 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. In: World Neurosurgery. Vol. 73. 5th ed. New York: Elsevier Inc.; 2010. p. 565–71.
24.
Kim JS, Kang BU, Lee SH, Jung B, Choi YG, Jeon 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. 2009;22(2):114–21.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Rouben D, Casnellie M, Ferguson M. Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(5):288–96.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Robertson PA, Jackson SA. Prospective assessment of outcomes improvement following fusion for low back pain. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17(3):183–8.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Takahashi T, Hanakita J, Minami M, Honda F, Kuraishi K. Surgical outcome and postoperative work status of lumbar discogenic pain following transforaminal interbody fusion. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2011;51(2):101–7.CrossRef
28.
Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF, Peloza JH. Lumbar disc arthroplasty with maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(25):E1600–11.CrossRef
29.
Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson D, Nordwall A. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish lumbar spine study: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(4):421–34.CrossRef
30.
Fritzell P, Berg S, Borgstrom F, Tullberg T, Tropp H. Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(7):1001–11.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Eckman WW, Hester L, McMillen M. Same-day discharge after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a series of 808 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1806–12.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Eckman WW, Hester LG, McMillen M. Unilateral minimally invasive Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion (MITLIF): results of 670 cases discharged the day of surgery. The Spine Journal. 2012;12(9):S119.
33.
Zeilstra DJ, Miller LE, Block JE. Axial lumbar interbody fusion: a 6-year single-center experience. In: Clinical interventions in aging. Vol. 8. Auckland: Dove Medical Press Ltd.; 2013. p. 1063–9.
34.
35.
Kim J-S, Choi WG, Lee S-H. Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. In: Spine Journal. Vol. 10. 5th ed. New York: Elsevier Inc.; 2010. p. 404–9.
36.
Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B, Olerud C, Tropp H. Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(10):1512–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Corenman DS, Gillard DM, Dornan GJ, Strauch EL. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2-augmented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain secondary to the homogeneous diagnosis of discogenic pain syndrome: two-year outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(20):E1269–77.CrossRef
38.
Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(14):1565–75.CrossRef
39.
Fayssoux R, Goldfarb NI, Vaccaro AR, Harrop J. Indirect costs associated with surgery for low back pain-a secondary analysis of clinical trial data. Popul Health Manag. 2010;13(1):9–13.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, Bitan FD, Cappuccino A, Geisler FH, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J. 2009;9(5):374–86.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Bochicchio M, Frati A, Rea G, Familiari P, Raco A, Nardi PV. Minimally invasive posterior interspinous and interlaminar fusion device for one level fusion in degenerative lumbar disease: Mid term clinical, and radiological evaluation and complications report. European Spine Journal. 2013;22(4):932.
42.
Bochicchio M, Bakaloudis G, Astolfi S, Nardi PV. Minimally invasive technique with transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and interspinous/interlaminar arthrodesis (IFD). Mid term radiologic and clinical evaluation: Fusion rate? Complications? Real advantages? European Spine Journal. 2013;22(4):907.
43.
Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforminal lumbar interbody fusion. The Spine Journal. 2011;11(10):S102–S103.
44.
Buttermann GR, Thorson TM, Mullin WJ. Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study. In: European spine Journal. Vol. 23. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2014. p. 347–55.
45.
Froholdt A, Reikeraas O, Holm I, Keller A, Brox JI. No difference in 9-year outcome in CLBP patients randomized to lumbar fusion versus cognitive intervention and exercises. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(12):2531–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
47.
Potter BK, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(4):337–46.
48.
Rodriguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven-Aliaga E, Herrera A, Vicente J, Sunen E, et al. Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion. In: European spine Journal. Vol. 18. 8th ed. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2009. p. 1194–201.
49.
Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, et al. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(2):98–105.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Cheng JS, Park P, Le H, Reisner L, Chou D, Mummaneni PV. Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference? Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(2):E6.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(1):123–9.CrossRef
52.
Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord. Tech. 2005;18(Suppl):S1–6.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Parker SL, Lerner J, McGirt MJ. Effect of minimally invasive technique on return to work and narcotic use following transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion: a review. Prof Case Manag. 2012;17(5):229–35.CrossRefPubMed
54.
55.
Macefield RC, Boulind CE, Blazeby JM. Selecting and measuring optimal outcomes for randomised controlled trials in surgery. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2014;399(3):263–72.CrossRef
56.
Brotis AG, Paterakis KN, Tsiamalou PM, Fountas KN, Hahjigeorgiou GM, Karavelis A. Instrumented posterior lumbar fusion outcomes for lumbar degenerative disorders in a southern European, semirural population. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(7):444–50.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Gillard DM, Corenman DS, Dornan GJ. Failed less invasive lumbar spine surgery as a predictor of subsequent fusion outcomes. Int Orthop. 2014;38(4):811–5.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Shi Q, Sinden K, MacDermid JC, Walton D, Grewal R. A systematic review of prognostic factors for return to work following work-related traumatic hand injury. J Hand Ther. 2014;27(1):55–62. quiz 62CrossRefPubMed
59.
Kleim BD, Malviya A, Rushton S, Bardgett M, Deehan DJ. Understanding the patient-reported factors determining time taken to return to work after hip and knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(12):3646–52.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8(1):8–20.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Mokhtar SA, McCombe PF, Williamson OD, Morgan MK, White GJ, Sears WR. Health-related quality of life: a comparison of outcomes after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis with large joint replacement surgery and population norms. Spine J. 2010;10(4):306–12.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Pekkanen L, Neva MH, Kautiainen H, Dekker J, Piitulainen K, Wahlman M, et al. Disability and health-related quality of life in patients undergoing spinal fusion: a comparison with a general population sample. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Reme SE, Tangen T, Moe T, Eriksen HR. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in sick listed chronic low back pain patients. Eur J Pain. 2011;15(10):1075–80.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Martell BA, O'Connor PG, Kerns RD, Becker WC, Morales KH, Kosten TR, et al. Systematic review: opioid treatment for chronic back pain: prevalence, efficacy, and association with addiction. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(2):116–27.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Wenger M, Sapio N, Markwalder TM. Long-term outcome in 132 consecutive patients after posterior internal fixation and fusion for grade I and II isthmic spondylolisthesis. In: Journal of neurosurgery spine. Vol. 2. 3rd ed; 2005. p. 289–97.
Metadata
Title
A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques
Authors
Xuan Wang
Benny Borgman
Simona Vertuani
Jonas Nilsson
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2398-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Perceptions of quality across the maternal care continuum in the context of a health financing intervention: Evidence from a mixed methods study in rural Malawi

Research article

Got spirit? The spiritual climate scale, psychometric properties, benchmarking data and future directions

Research article

Migrant’s access to preventive health services in five EU countries

Research article

Description of inter-institutional referrals after admission for labor and delivery: a prospective population based cohort study in rural Maharashtra, India

Research article

Comparison of methods to identify long term care nursing home residence with administrative data

Research article

The choice that matters: the relative influence of socioeconomic status indicators on chronic back pain- a longitudinal study