Literature DB >> 24126076

Revision rates and complication incidence in single- and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures: an administrative database study.

Anand Veeravagu1, Tyler Cole1, Bowen Jiang1, John K Ratliff2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The natural history of cervical degenerative disease with operative management has not been well described. Even with symptomatic and radiographic evidence of multilevel cervical disease, it is unclear whether single- or multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures produce superior long-term outcomes.
PURPOSE: To describe national trends in revision rates, complications, and readmission for patients undergoing single and multilevel ACDF. STUDY
DESIGN: Administrative database study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Between 2006 and 2010, 92,867 patients were recorded for ACDF procedures in the Thomson Reuters MarketScan database. Restricting to patients with >24 months follow-up, 28,777 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 12,744 (44%) underwent single-level and 16,033 (56%) underwent multilevel ACDFs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Revision rates and postoperative complications.
METHODS: We used the MarketScan database from 2006 to 2010 to select ACDF procedures based on Current Procedural Terminology coding at inpatient visit. Outcome measures were ascertained using either International Classification of Disease version 9 or Current Procedural Terminology coding.
RESULTS: Perioperative complications were more common in multilevel procedures (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.6; p<.0001). Single-level ACDF patients had higher rates of postoperative cervical epidural steroid injections (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.8-1.0; p=.01). Within 30 days after index procedure, the multilevel ACDF cohort was 1.6 times more likely to have undergone revision (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4; p=.02). At 2 years follow-up, revision rates were 9.13% in the single-level ACDF cohort and 10.7% for multilevel ACDFs (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3; p<.0001). In a multivariate analysis at 2 years follow-up, patients from the multilevel cohort were more likely to have received a surgical revision (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; p=.001), to be readmitted into the hospital for any cause (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; p=.007), and to have suffered complications (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5; p=.0003).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we report rates of adverse events and the need for revision surgery in patients undergoing single versus multilevel ACDFs. Increasing number of levels fused at the time of index surgery correlated with increased rate of reoperations. Multilevel ACDF patients requiring additional surgery more often underwent more extensive revision surgeries.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACDF; Complications; Database study; MarketScan; Outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24126076     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.474

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  46 in total

1.  Cervical cages placed bilaterally in the facet joints from a posterior approach significantly increase foraminal area.

Authors:  Kris Siemionow; Piotr Janusz; Pawel Glowka
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Clinical outcomes of locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Victor M Lu; Ralph J Mobbs; Bernard Fang; Kevin Phan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Propensity-matched Analysis of Outcomes and Hospital Charges for Anterior Versus Posterior Cervical Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

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

4.  Anterior multiple cervical corpectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Roberto Bassani; Claudio Lamartina; Giovanni Casero; Pedro Berjano
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Multi- versus single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparing sagittal alignment, early adjacent segment degeneration, and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Bryce A Basques; Philip K Louie; Jeremy Mormol; Jannat M Khan; Kamran Movassaghi; Justin C Paul; Arya Varthi; Edward J Goldberg; Howard S An
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Cervical endplate bone density distribution measured by CT osteoabsorptiometry and direct comparison with mechanical properties of the endplate.

Authors:  Takeshi Hara; Yukoh Ohara; Eiji Abe; Kaosu Takami; Alejandro A Espinoza Orías; Hajime Arai; Nozomu Inoue
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction: review article.

Authors:  John D Koerner; Christopher K Kepler; Todd J Albert
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-07-25

8.  Effectiveness of cervical zero profile integrated cage with and without supplemental posterior Interfacet stabilization.

Authors:  Robert M Havey; Kenneth R Blank; Saeed Khayatzadeh; Muturi G Muriuki; Suguna Pappu; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 2.063

9.  Load-sharing through elastic micro-motion accelerates bone formation and interbody fusion.

Authors:  Eric H Ledet; Glenn P Sanders; Darryl J DiRisio; Joseph C Glennon
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  A prospective, randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion.

Authors:  Hao-Xuan Zhang; Yuan-Dong Shao; Yu Chen; Yong Hou; Lei Cheng; Meng Si; Lin Nie
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.