Literature DB >> 24718058

Surgery for spinal stenosis: long-term reoperation rates, health care cost, and impact of instrumentation.

Shivanand P Lad1, Ranjith Babu, Beatrice Ugiliweneza, Chirag G Patil, Maxwell Boakye.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the complications, reoperation rates, and resource use after each of the surgical approaches for the treatment of spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are no uniform guidelines for which procedure (decompression, decompression with instrumentation, or decompression with noninstrumented fusion) to perform for the treatment of spinal stenosis. With no clear evidence for increased efficacy, the rate of instrumented fusions is rising.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent spinal stenosis surgery between 2002 and 2009 in the United States. Patients included (n = 12,657) were diagnosed with spinal stenosis without concurrent spondylolisthesis and had at least 2 years of preoperative enrollment. A total of 2385 patients with decompression only and 620 patients with fusion had follow-up data for 5 years or more.
RESULTS: Complication rates during the initial procedure hospitalization and at 90 days were significantly higher for those who underwent laminectomy with fusion than for those who underwent laminectomy alone, with reoperation rates not differing significantly between these groups. Long-term (≥5 yr) reoperation rates were similar for those undergoing decompression alone versus decompression with fusion (17.3% vs. 16.0%, P = 0.44). Those with instrumented fusions had a slightly higher rate of reoperation than patients with noninstrumented fusions (17.4% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.11) at more than 5 years. The total cost including initial procedure and hospital, outpatient, emergency department, and medication charges at 5 years was similar for those who received decompression alone and fusion. The long-term costs for instrumented and noninstrumented fusions were also similar, totaling $107,056 and $100,471, respectively.
CONCLUSION: For patients with spinal stenosis, if fusion is warranted, use of arthrodesis without instrumentation is associated with decreased costs with similar long-term complication and reoperation rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24718058     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000314

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  16 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.  Outcome of surgery for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: an observational study using the Swedish Spine register.

Authors:  Tian Cheng; Paul Gerdhem
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Comparative Study of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression versus Decompressive Laminectomy with Posterolateral Transpedicular Fixation for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis.

Authors:  Ahmed Reda Aldahshory; Hazem Mashaly; Shafik Tahseen El Molla; Ibrahim Abdelmohsen Ismaiel; Khaled Saoud
Journal:  Asian J Neurosurg       Date:  2020-05-29

4.  Influence of previous surgery on patient-rated outcome after surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Pascal Zehnder; Emin Aghayev; Tamas F Fekete; Daniel Haschtmann; Tim Pigott; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Management of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Analysis of a Questionnaire Study, Correlation With a National Sample, and Perioperative Outcomes of Treatment Options.

Authors:  Patawut Bovonratwet; Matthew L Webb; Nathaniel T Ondeck; Jonathan J Cui; Ryan P McLynn; Praveen Kadimcherla; David H Kim; Jonathan N Grauer
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-04-30

6.  Do intra-operative neurophysiological changes predict functional outcome following decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A prospective study.

Authors:  Krzysztof Piasecki; Gerit Kulik; Katarzyna Pierzchala; Etienne Pralong; Prashanth J Rao; Constantin Schizas
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-03

7.  The durability of minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: Long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Nagy Mekhail; Shrif Costandi; George Nageeb; Catherine Ekladios; Ogena Saied
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 3.079

8.  Racial Disparities in Elderly Patients Receiving Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Surgery.

Authors:  Doniel Drazin; Faris Shweikeh; Carlito Lagman; Beatrice Ugiliweneza; Maxwell Boakye
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-05-01

9.  Long-term clinical and radiological follow-up after laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Ana Rita Aleixo Laiginhas; Pedro Alberto Silva; Paulo Pereira; Rui Vaz
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2015-10-13

10.  Course and characteristics of work disability 3 years before and after lumbar spine decompression surgery- a national population-based study.

Authors:  Thomas E Dorner; Magnus Helgesson; Kerstin Nilsson; Konstantinos A Pazarlis; Annina Ropponen; Pia Svedberg; Ellenor Mittendorfer-Rutz
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-08-07       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.