Literature DB >> 22048092

Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis.

Richard A Deyo1, Brook I Martin, William Kreuter, Jeffrey G Jarvik, Heather Angier, Sohail K Mirza.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For carefully selected patients with lumbar stenosis, decompression surgery is more efficacious than nonoperative treatment. However, some patients undergo repeat surgery, often because of complications, the failure to achieve solid fusion following arthrodesis procedures, or persistent symptoms. We assessed the probability of repeat surgery following operations for the treatment of lumbar stenosis and examined its association with patient age, comorbidity, previous surgery, and the type of surgical procedure.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare claims. The index operation was performed in 2004 (n = 31,543), with follow-up obtained through 2008. Operations were grouped by complexity as decompression alone, simple arthrodesis (one or two disc levels and a single surgical approach), or complex arthrodesis (more than two disc levels or combined anterior and posterior approach). Reoperation rates were calculated for each follow-up year, and the time to reoperation was analyzed with proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: The probability of repeat surgery fell with increasing patient age or comorbidity. Aside from age, the strongest predictor was previous lumbar surgery: at four years the reoperation rate was 17.2% among patients who had had lumbar surgery prior to the index operation, compared with 10.6% among those with no prior surgery (p < 0.001). At one year, the reoperation rate for patients who had been managed with decompression alone was slightly higher than that for patients who had been managed with simple arthrodesis, but by four years the rates for these two groups were identical (10.7%) and were lower than the rate for patients who had been managed with complex arthrodesis (13.5%) (p < 0.001). This difference persisted after adjusting for demographic and clinical features (hazard ratio for complex arthrodesis versus decompression 1.56, 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 1.92). A device-related complication was reported at the time of 29.2% of reoperations following an initial arthrodesis procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of repeat surgery for spinal stenosis declined with increasing age and comorbidity, perhaps because of concern for greater risks. The strongest clinical predictor of repeat surgery was a lumbar spine operation prior to the index operation. Arthrodeses were not significantly associated with lower rates of repeat surgery after the first postoperative year, and patients who had had complex arthrodeses had the highest rate of reoperations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22048092      PMCID: PMC3490709          DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  21 in total

1.  Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna Tosteson; Emily Blood; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  A population-based study of reoperations after back surgery.

Authors:  R W Hu; S Jaglal; T Axcell; G Anderson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  United States' trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992-2003.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Jon D Lurie; Patrick R Olson; Kristen K Bronner; Elliott S Fisher
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  The accuracy of Medicare's hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain.

Authors:  E S Fisher; F S Whaley; W M Krushat; D J Malenka; C Fleming; J A Baron; D C Hsia
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program.

Authors:  Stephen F Jencks; Mark V Williams; Eric A Coleman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Using a national health care data base to determine surgical complications in community hospitals: lumbar discectomy as an example.

Authors:  L F Ramirez; R Thisted
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 4.654

7.  Analysis of automated administrative and survey databases to study patterns and outcomes of care.

Authors:  R A Deyo; V M Taylor; P Diehr; D Conrad; D C Cherkin; M Ciol; W Kreuter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; R A Lew; L J Grobler; J N Weinstein; G W Brick; A H Fossel; M H Liang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Brook I Martin; William Kreuter; David C Goodman; Jeffrey G Jarvik
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-04-07       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Procedural coding of spinal surgeries (CPT-4 versus ICD-9-CM) and decisions regarding standards: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Tom Faciszewski; Ron Jensen; Richard L Berg
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  48 in total

Review 1.  Effect of fusion following decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Lin Liang; Wei-Min Jiang; Xue-Feng Li; Heng Wang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-09-15

2.  Surgical outcomes of additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent segment disease after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Toshitada Miwa; Hironobu Sakaura; Tomoya Yamashita; Shozo Suzuki; Tetsuo Ohwada
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  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

4.  Evaluation and Prediction of Human Lumbar Vertebrae Endplate Mechanical Properties Using Indentation and Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Ravi R Patel; Andriy Noshchenko; R Dana Carpenter; Todd Baldini; Carl P Frick; Vikas V Patel; Christopher M Yakacki
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 2.097

5.  Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry.

Authors:  Everard Munting; Christoph Röder; Rolf Sobottke; Daniel Dietrich; Emin Aghayev
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Complications in TLIF spondylodesis-do they influence the outcome for patients? A prospective two-center study.

Authors:  Philipp Poppenborg; Ulf Liljenqvist; Georg Gosheger; Albert Schulze Boevingloh; Lukas Lampe; Sebastian Schmeil; Tobias L Schulte; Tobias Lange
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Interspinous spacers compared with decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Brook I Martin; Alex Ching; Anna N A Tosteson; Jeffrey G Jarvik; William Kreuter; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Patient characteristics associated with increased postoperative length of stay and readmission after elective laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Bryce A Basques; Arya G Varthi; Nicholas S Golinvaux; Daniel D Bohl; Jonathan N Grauer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  How do coverage policies influence practice patterns, safety, and cost of initial lumbar fusion surgery? A population-based comparison of workers' compensation systems.

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Gary M Franklin; Richard A Deyo; Thomas M Wickizer; Jonathan D Lurie; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 10.  The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.