Literature DB >> 20739917

Health-related quality of life improvements in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion as a revision surgery.

Mladen Djurasovic1, Steven D Glassman, Jennifer M Howard, Anne G Copay, Leah Y Carreon.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate health-related quality of life improvements in patients undergoing lumbar fusion to revise a previous lumbar spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal fusion is often used as a surgical intervention in patients who have previously undergone lumbar surgery. Prior studies suggest results that are inferiorto primary fusions. However, most of these studies are based on subjective surgeon evaluations, lack patient-reported outcomes, and include various diagnoses such as prior discectomy, adjacent level degeneration, and nonunion.
METHODS: From a single-center database, we identified 171 patients who underwent lumbar fusion to revise a previous lumbar spine surgery. All had prospectively collected outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up. The study group included 91 patients who had previous discectomy or laminectomy, 42 patients undergoing revision for adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and 38 patients undergoing revision for nonunion. All patients completed the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), MOS Short Form 36 (SF-36), and back and leg pain numerical rating scores before surgery and at 1 and 2 years after surgery. We compared mean changes in outcome measures and percentage of patients reaching the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold in the 3 groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify preoperative factors which could predict significant improvement.
RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements were noted in back pain, leg pain, and ODI in all 3 groups. Postdecompression and ASD patients demonstrated significant improvements in SF-36 PCS at 2 years, while nonunion patients did not. A total of 49% of postdecompression patients, 38% of ASD patients, and 29% of nonunion patients reached the MCID for ODI. About 46% of postdecompression patients, 40% of ASD patients, and 24% of nonunion patients reached the MCID for SF-36 PCS. Significant improvement from index surgery was the only factor which able to predict reaching the MCID for ODI, while worker's compensation and narcotic use predicted failure to reach the MCID for SF-36 PCS.
CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates that patients undergoing lumbar fusion as a revision of a prior lumbar surgery can expect only modest improvements in health-related quality of life. Postdecompression patients achieved moderate improvements in clinical outcome measures, whereas ASD and nonunion patients showed only modest improvements. Further investigation is needed to identify preoperative predictors that will assist the selection of patients who will benefit from revision lumbar fusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20739917     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cf1091

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


  9 in total

1.  Clinical Experiences of Non-fusion Dynamic Stabilization Surgery for Adjacent Segmental Pathology after Lumbar Fusion.

Authors:  Soo Eon Lee; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-02-03

2.  Comparison of clinical outcomes following minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion stratified by preoperative diagnosis.

Authors:  Kaveh Khajavi; Alessandria Shen; Madeline Lagina; Anthony Hutchison
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Optimizing the fusion level for lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: is the S-line a validated and reproducible tool to predict coronal decompensation?

Authors:  Tianyuan Zhang; Shibin Shu; Wenting Jing; Qi Gu; Zezhang Zhu; Zhen Liu; Yong Qiu; Xu Sun; Bin Wang; Hongda Bao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Distal junctional failure secondary to L5 vertebral fracture-a report of two rare cases.

Authors:  Jiong Hao Tan; Kimberly-Anne Tan; Hwee Weng Dennis Hey; Hee-Kit Wong
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-03

Review 5.  Fate of the adult revision spinal deformity patient: a single institution experience.

Authors:  Michael P Kelly; Lawrence G Lenke; Keith H Bridwell; Rashmi Agarwal; Jakub Godzik; Linda Koester
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Clinical relevance of occult infections in spinal pseudarthrosis revision.

Authors:  Marco D Burkhard; Ali Hassanzadeh; Octavian Andronic; Tobias Götschi; Ilker Uçkay; Mazda Farshad
Journal:  N Am Spine Soc J       Date:  2022-09-21

7.  Application of dual-trajectory screws in revision surgery for lumbar adjacent segment disease: a finite element study.

Authors:  Jincheng Wu; Dongmei Yang; Ye Han; Hanpeng Xu; Wangqiang Wen; Haoxiang Xu; Kepeng Li; Yong Liu; Jun Miao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-09-24       Impact factor: 2.677

8.  Outcomes of Revision Surgery Following Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comparative Analysis between Pseudarthrosis and Adjacent Segment Disease.

Authors:  Seung-Pyo Suh; Young-Hoon Jo; Hae Won Jeong; Won Rak Choi; Chang-Nam Kang
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2017-06-15

9.  Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?

Authors:  Ziyang Liang; Jianchao Cui; Jiarui Zhang; Jiahui He; Jingjing Tang; Hui Ren; Linqiang Ye; Xiaobing Jiang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 2.362

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.