Literature DB >> 24184652

Trends in the surgical treatment of lumbar spine disease in the United States.

William C Pannell1, David D Savin2, Trevor P Scott3, Jeffrey C Wang3, Michael D Daubs3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There is a lack of agreement among spine surgeons as to the best surgical treatment modality for many degenerative lumbar diseases. Although there are many studies examining trends in spinal surgery, specific studies reporting the variations in surgical treatment in the United States for these diseases are lacking.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze trends in lumbar spinal fusion methods for common lumbar pathologies in the United States. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: National insurance database review: 2004-2009. PATIENT SAMPLE: Data is taken from United Healthcare and represents more than 25 million patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: No outcomes were measured in this study.
METHODS: Using a private insurance database, we identified patients who underwent one of five types of instrumented single-level lumbar spinal fusion for the 10 most common primary diagnoses. Surgery rates were reviewed from 2004 to 2009 and were stratified according to patient age, patient gender, and region in the United States. Poisson regression analysis was performed to determine regional and demographic differences in treatment modality. The authors received no funds in support of this work.
RESULTS: A total of 23,986 patients met our search criteria. Of the five fusion types, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with posterolateral fusion (PLF) was the most common (45%), followed by PLF (19%), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF, 16%), PLIF (10%), and ALIF with PLF (9%). There was a significant increase in PLIF with PLF (p<.0001), PLIF (p<.0001), PLF (p=.012), ALIF (p<.0001), and ALIF with PLF (p<.0001) from 2004 to 2009. After controlling for gender, there were significant differences between regions for all fusion types (p<.0001). The likelihood of a posterior fusion increased with age. Anterior fusions were more common in the 30- to 49-year-old age range than in patents older than 50. For patients in age groups older than 30, there was an increased number who underwent a circumferential fusion or an ALIF (p<.022). Fusion types were significantly different between genders (p<.026). Both genders had an overall increase in the number of fusions (p<.001) over the time period studied.
CONCLUSIONS: There are large differences in the United States for surgical treatment methods for lumbar spine pathology. These differences are likely multifactorial, with both patient and surgeon traits playing a role. Illustrating these differences will hopefully lead to outcomes research to determine the indications, efficacy, and appropriateness of these surgical methods, an important step on the path toward standardization of care.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Demographics; Fusion; Lumbar; Primary; Single; Surgery; Trends

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24184652     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.014

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


  31 in total

1.  Variance in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Graft Selection based on Patient Demographics and Location within the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network Cohort.

Authors:  Darby A Houck; Matthew J Kraeutler; Armando F Vidal; Eric C McCarty; Jonathan T Bravman; Michelle L Wolcott
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.757

2.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF).

Authors:  Jeffrey L Gum; Deepak Reddy; Steven Glassman
Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech       Date:  2016-06-08

3.  Evolution of Design of Interbody Cages for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

4.  A retrospective review comparing two-year patient-reported outcomes, costs, and healthcare resource utilization for TLIF vs. PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Elliott Kim; Silky Chotai; David Stonko; Joseph Wick; Alex Sielatycki; Clinton J Devin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Utilization Patterns of Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Spinal Pain: a Retrospective Cohort Study in the US Fee-for-Service Medicare Population.

Authors:  Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Amol Soin; Dharam P Mann; Sanjay Bakshi; Vidyasagar Pampati; Alan D Kaye; Joshua A Hirsch
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2019-08-06

6.  Outcomes of direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) in an Australian cohort.

Authors:  Daniel B Scherman; Prashanth J Rao; Kevin Phan; Sean F Mungovan; Kenneth Faulder; Gordon Dandie
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-03

7.  Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach.

Authors:  Michael Conti Mica; Leonard I Voronov; Gerard Carandang; Robert M Havey; Bartosz Wojewnik; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-08-01

8.  Utilization of intraoperative neuromonitoring throughout the United States over a recent decade: an analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample.

Authors:  Joseph L Laratta; Jamal N Shillingford; Alex Ha; Joseph M Lombardi; Hemant P Reddy; Comron Saifi; Steven C Ludwig; Ronald A Lehman; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

9.  Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach.

Authors:  Michael Conti Mica; Leonard I Voronov; Gerard Carandang; Robert M Havey; Bartosz Wojewnik; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-31

10.  Navigating the learning curve of spinal endoscopy as an established traditionally trained spine surgeon.

Authors:  Nicholas A Ransom; Sohrab Gollogly; Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.