BACKGROUND: Although anterior (ACDF) and posterior cervical fusion (PCDF) are relatively common procedures and both are associated with certain complications, the relative frequency and severity of these complications is unclear. Since for some patients either approach might be reasonable it is important to know the relative perioperative risks for decision-making. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to: (1) characterize the patient population undergoing ACDF and PCDF; (2) compare perioperative complication rates; (3) determine independent risk factors for adverse perioperative events; and (4) aid in surgical decision-making in cases in which clinical equipoise exists between anterior and posterior cervical fusion procedures. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was used and entries for ACDF and PCDF between 1998 and 2006 were analyzed. Demographics and complication rates were determined and regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for mortality after ACDF and PCDF. RESULTS: ACDF had a shorter length of stay and their procedures were more frequently performed at nonteaching institutions. The incidence of complications and mortality was 4.14% and 0.26% among patients undergoing ACDF and 15.35% and 1.44% for patients undergoing PCDF, respectively. When controlling for overall comorbidity burden and other demographic variables, PCDF was associated with a twofold increased risk of a fatal outcome compared with ACDF. Pulmonary, circulatory, and renal disease were associated with the highest odds for in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PCDF procedures were associated with higher perioperative rates of complications and mortality compared with ACDF surgeries. Despite limitations, these data should be considered in cases in which clinical equipoise exists between both approaches. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Although anterior (ACDF) and posterior cervical fusion (PCDF) are relatively common procedures and both are associated with certain complications, the relative frequency and severity of these complications is unclear. Since for some patients either approach might be reasonable it is important to know the relative perioperative risks for decision-making. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to: (1) characterize the patient population undergoing ACDF and PCDF; (2) compare perioperative complication rates; (3) determine independent risk factors for adverse perioperative events; and (4) aid in surgical decision-making in cases in which clinical equipoise exists between anterior and posterior cervical fusion procedures. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was used and entries for ACDF and PCDF between 1998 and 2006 were analyzed. Demographics and complication rates were determined and regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for mortality after ACDF and PCDF. RESULTS:ACDF had a shorter length of stay and their procedures were more frequently performed at nonteaching institutions. The incidence of complications and mortality was 4.14% and 0.26% among patients undergoing ACDF and 15.35% and 1.44% for patients undergoing PCDF, respectively. When controlling for overall comorbidity burden and other demographic variables, PCDF was associated with a twofold increased risk of a fatal outcome compared with ACDF. Pulmonary, circulatory, and renal disease were associated with the highest odds for in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS:PCDF procedures were associated with higher perioperative rates of complications and mortality compared with ACDF surgeries. Despite limitations, these data should be considered in cases in which clinical equipoise exists between both approaches. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Satyajit Marawar; Federico P Girardi; Andrew A Sama; Yan Ma; Licia K Gaber-Baylis; Melanie C Besculides; Stavros G Memtsoudis Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Zoher Ghogawala; Jean-Valery Coumans; Edward C Benzel; Lauren M Stabile; Fred G Barker Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Marjorie C Wang; Leighton Chan; Dennis J Maiman; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Beril Gok; Gregory S McLoughlin; Daniel M Sciubba; Mathew J McGirt; Kaisorn L Chaichana; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Ali Bydon; Ziya L Gokaslan; Timothy F Witham Journal: Neurol Res Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Joseph E Tanenbaum; Daniel Lubelski; Benjamin P Rosenbaum; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Clin Spine Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: Joseph E Tanenbaum; Vincent J Alentado; Jacob A Miller; Daniel Lubelski; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Akash A Shah; Sai K Devana; Changhee Lee; Amador Bugarin; Elizabeth L Lord; Arya N Shamie; Don Y Park; Mihaela van der Schaar; Nelson F SooHoo Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-08-15 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Syed K Mehdi; Joseph E Tanenbaum; Vincent J Alentado; Jacob A Miller; Daniel Lubelski; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Joseph E Tanenbaum; Jacob A Miller; Vincent J Alentado; Daniel Lubelski; Benjamin P Rosenbaum; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Joseph E Tanenbaum; Daniel Lubelski; Benjamin P Rosenbaum; Nicolas R Thompson; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Joseph E Tanenbaum; Stephanie T Kha; Edward C Benzel; Michael P Steinmetz; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Spine J Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Gregory Wyatt Poorman; John Y Moon; Samantha R Horn; Cyrus Jalai; Peter L Zhou; Olivia Bono; Peter G Passias Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2018-08-03