Literature DB >> 25681596

An Assessment of the Key Predictors of Perioperative Complications in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Undergoing Surgical Treatment: Results from a Survey of 916 AOSpine International Members.

Lindsay Tetreault1, Aria Nouri1, Anoushka Singh2, Mike Fawcett3, Anick Nater4, Michael G Fehlings5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgery for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy is typically accompanied by complication rates between 11% and 38%. By determining clinical and surgical predictors of complications, clinicians can identify high-risk patients and plan accordingly. We conducted a survey of the AOSpine community to identify key predictors of postoperative complications.
METHODS: Members of AOSpine International were invited to participate. The survey was divided into 3 sections. The first and second sections focused on key clinical and imaging risk factors. The third section was designed to determine whether rates of complications differ depending on surgical approach, procedure, number of stages, and use of fusion. Results from the entire sample and from each geographic region were analyzed.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 916 participants. The presence of comorbidities was ranked as the most important clinical predictor of complications. Most respondents believed that patients with diabetes are at a higher risk of cardiac complications (69.75%) and wound infections (95.0%) than patients without diabetes. Regarding surgical technique, 40% of respondents reported higher complication rates in posterior surgery compared with anterior surgery, whereas 30% believed there is no difference. The types of complications vary significantly between approaches. However, rates of dysphagia, wound infection, dural tear, and C5 radiculopathy are similar among posterior techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey summarizes surgeons' perceptions of the most important clinical, imaging, and surgical risk factors for postoperative complications. Knowledge of these predictors allows clinicians to identify high-risk patients and institute prevention plans.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Postoperative complications; Prediction; Spine; Surgery; Survey

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25681596     DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.01.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World Neurosurg        ISSN: 1878-8750            Impact factor:   2.104


  10 in total

1.  Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up.

Authors:  Daniel J Blizzard; Adam M Caputo; Charles Z Sheets; Mitchell R Klement; Keith W Michael; Robert E Isaacs; Christopher R Brown
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Anterior vs Posterior Approach in Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Nationwide Propensity-Matched Analysis of Complications, Outcomes, and Narcotic Use.

Authors:  Ravi S Nunna; Syed Khalid; Ryan G Chiu; Rown Parola; Richard G Fessler; Owoicho Adogwa; Ankit I Mehta
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02

Review 3.  Degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  So Kato; Michael Fehlings
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-09

4.  Diabetes as an Independent Predictor for Extended Length of Hospital Stay and Increased Adverse Post-Operative Events in Patients Treated Surgically for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Authors:  Nancy Worley; John Buza; Cyrus M Jalai; Gregory W Poorman; Louis M Day; Shaleen Vira; Shearwood McClelland; Virginie Lafage; Peter G Passias
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-04-03

5.  Risk factors for surgical site infection after instrumented fixation in spine trauma.

Authors:  Kevin Cooper; Chad A Glenn; Michael Martin; Julie Stoner; Ji Li; Timothy Puckett
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 1.961

6.  Using a machine learning approach to predict outcome after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  Zamir G Merali; Christopher D Witiw; Jetan H Badhiwala; Jefferson R Wilson; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Risk Factors for Pseudarthrosis After Surgical Site Infection of the Spine.

Authors:  Douglas A Hollern; Barrett I Woods; Neil V Shah; Gregory D Schroeder; Christopher K Kepler; Mark F Kurd; I David Kaye; Paul W Millhouse; Bassel G Diebo; Carl B Paulino; Alan S Hilibrand; Alexander R Vaccaro; Kris E Radcliff
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12-31

8.  Comparison of 2 Zero-Profile Implants in the Treatment of Single-Level Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Preliminary Clinical Study of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty versus Fusion.

Authors:  Sheng Shi; Shuang Zheng; Xin-Feng Li; Li-Li Yang; Zu-De Liu; Wen Yuan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Signal intensity ratio on magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic factor in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy.

Authors:  Tae Hyun Kim; Yoon Ha; Jun Jae Shin; Yong Eun Cho; Ji Hae Lee; Woo Ho Cho
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  The Impact of Older Age on Functional Recovery and Quality of Life Outcomes after Surgical Decompression for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Results from an Ambispective, Propensity-Matched Analysis from the CSM-NA and CSM-I International, Multi-Center Studies.

Authors:  Jamie R F Wilson; Jetan H Badhiwala; Fan Jiang; Jefferson R Wilson; Branko Kopjar; Alexander R Vaccaro; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 4.241

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.