Literature DB >> 17762814

Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology?

Brook I Martin1, Sohail K Mirza, Bryan A Comstock, Darryl T Gray, William Kreuter, Richard A Deyo.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of population-based hospital discharge registry from all nonfederal acute care hospitals in Washington State.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the cumulative incidence of second lumbar spine operation following an initial lumbar operation for degenerative conditions. We aimed to determine if the cumulative incidence of a second lumbar spine operation decreased in the 1990s following an increase in the rate of fusion surgery and the introduction of several newer fusion technologies. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Repeat lumbar spine operations are generally undesirable, implying persistent symptoms, progression of degenerative changes, or treatment complications. Improved technology is expected to improve alignment, healing, and instability, and to reduce repeat operations.
METHODS: Among the patients who had an inpatient lumbar decompression or lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spine disorders in 1990 to 1993 (n = 24,882) or in 1997 to 2000 (n = 25,209), we examined rates of subsequent lumbar spine surgery during a 4-year follow-up. We performed a Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the probability of a reoperation between the 2 cohorts, adjusting for age, sex, primary diagnosis, type of insurance, and comorbidity.
RESULTS: Among patients who underwent surgery for lumbar degenerative disease, more than twice as many had a fusion procedure in the 1997 to 2000 cohort (19.1%) compared with the 1990 to 1993 cohort (9.4%). However, the 4-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was higher in the 1997 to 2000 cohort compared with the 1990 to 1993 cohort (14.0% vs. 12.4%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.22, P < 0.001). Among fusion patients, those in the 1997 to 2000 cohort were approximately 40% more likely to undergo a reoperation within the first year when compared with fusion patients in the 1990 to 1993 cohort. There was no difference in reoperation probability beyond 1 year.
CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of fusion procedures and the introduction of new spinal implants between 1993 and 1997 did not reduce reoperation rates. Patients who had lumbar surgery for degenerative disease in the late 1990s were more likely to undergo a repeat operation within 4 years than patients who had surgery in the early 1990s.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17762814     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318145a56a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  49 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic discography: what is the clinical utility?

Authors:  David A Provenzano
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2012-02

2.  Survivorship analysis of 150 consecutive patients with DIAM™ implantation for surgery of lumbar spinal stenosis and disc herniation.

Authors:  Yoo-Joon Sur; Chae-Gwan Kong; Jong-Beom Park
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-10-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  [Spinal surgery in the elderly: does age have an influence on the complication rate?].

Authors:  R Sobottke; G Csécsei; T Kaulhausen; S Delank; J Franklin; E Aghayev; T Zweig; P Eysel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Clinical evaluation of a lumbar interspinous dynamic stabilization device (the Wallis system) with a 13-year mean follow-up.

Authors:  Jacques Sénégas; Jean-Marc Vital; Vincent Pointillart; Paolo Mangione
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 5.  Stem cells for spine surgery.

Authors:  Joshua Schroeder; Janina Kueper; Kaplan Leon; Meir Liebergall
Journal:  World J Stem Cells       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 5.326

Review 6.  Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption.

Authors:  Stephan N Salzmann; Nicolas Plais; Jennifer Shue; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

7.  ISASS Recommendations/Coverage Criteria for Decompression with Interlaminar Stabilization - Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity.

Authors:  Richard Guyer; Michael Musacchio; Frank P Cammisa; Morgan P Lorio
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-12-05

8.  Reoperation of decompression alone or decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases: a systematic review.

Authors:  Zhao Lang; Jing-Sheng Li; Felix Yang; Yan Yu; Kamran Khan; Louis G Jenis; Thomas D Cha; James D Kang; Guoan Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jwo-Luen Pao; Wein-Chin Chen; Po-Quang Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Four-year follow-up of surgical versus non-surgical therapy for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Jens Ivar Brox; Øystein P Nygaard; Inger Holm; Anne Keller; Tor Ingebrigtsen; Olav Reikerås
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2009-07-26       Impact factor: 19.103

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.