Literature DB >> 24704499

Comparison of revision surgeries for one- to two-level cervical TDR and ACDF from 2002 to 2011.

Sreeharsha V Nandyala1, Alejandro Marquez-Lara1, Steven J Fineberg1, Kern Singh2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) provide comparable outcomes for degenerative cervical pathology. However, revisions of these procedures are not well characterized.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to examine the rates, epidemiology, perioperative complications, and costs between the revision procedures and to compare these outcomes with those of primary cases. STUDY
DESIGN: This study is a retrospective database analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 3,792 revision and 183,430 primary cases from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2002 to 2011 were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of revision cases, patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), in-hospital costs, mortality, and perioperative complications.
METHODS: Patients who underwent revision for either one- to two-level cervical TDR or ACDF were identified. SPSS v.20 was used for statistical analysis with χ(2) test for categorical data and independent sample t test for continuous data. The relative risk for perioperative complications with revisions was calculated in comparison with primary cases using a 95% confidence interval. An alpha level of less than 0.05 denoted statistical significance.
RESULTS: There were 3,536 revision one- to two-level ACDFs and 256 revision cervical TDRs recorded in the NIS database from 2002 to 2011. The revision cervical TDR cohort demonstrated a significantly greater LOS (3.18 vs. 2.25, p<.001), cost ($16,998 vs. $15,222, p=.03), and incidence of perioperative wound infections (13.6 vs. 5.3 per 1,000, p<.001) compared with the ACDF revision cohort (p<.001). There were no differences in mortality between the revision surgical cohorts. Compared with primary cases, both revision cohorts demonstrated a significantly greater LOS and cost. Furthermore, patients who underwent revision demonstrated a greater incidence and risk for perioperative wound infections, hematomas, dysphagia, and neurologic complications relative to the primary procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a significantly greater incidence of perioperative wound infection, LOS, and costs associated with a TDR revision compared with a revision ACDF. We propose that these differences are by virtue of the inherently more invasive nature of revising TDRs. In addition, compared with primary cases, revision procedures are associated with greater costs, LOS, and complications including wound infections, dysphagia, hematomas, and neurologic events. These additional risks must be considered before opting for a revision procedure.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; Cervical total disc replacement; Costs; Dysphagia; Infection; Outcomes; Revision

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24704499     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.037

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


  12 in total

1.  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

2.  Higher reoperation rate following cervical disc replacement in a retrospective, long-term comparative study of 715 patients.

Authors:  Martin Skeppholm; Thomas Henriques; Tycho Tullberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Current Concepts of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.

Authors:  David Turkov; Alan Job; Cesar Iturriaga; Rohit B Verma
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

4.  Insurance status and reportable quality metrics in the cervical spine fusion population.

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

Review 5.  Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes.

Authors:  María Aragonés; Eduardo Hevia; Carlos Barrios
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Reoperation After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhao-Ming Zhong; Shi-Yuan Zhu; Jing-Shen Zhuang; Qian Wu; Jian-Ting Chen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Shihua Zou; Junyi Gao; Bin Xu; Xiangdong Lu; Yongbin Han; Hui Meng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  National outcomes following single-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Jamal Shillingford; Joseph Laratta; Nathan Hardy; Comron Saifi; Joseph Lombardi; Andrew J Pugely; Ronald A Lehman; K Daniel Riew
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-12

9.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes using third-generation bioactive glass as a bone graft substitute for multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion-a retrospective case series study.

Authors:  Gilberto Gomez; L Erik Westerlund
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-06

Review 10.  Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Review of Single-Level, Multilevel, and Hybrid Procedures.

Authors:  Joseph L Laratta; Jamal N Shillingford; Comron Saifi; K Daniel Riew
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-05-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.