Literature DB >> 26020842

Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: An Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database.

Robert P Norton1, Kristina Bianco, Christopher Klifto, Thomas J Errico, John A Bendo.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate national trends, risks, and benefits of surgical interventions for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The surgical management of DS continues to evolve whereas the most clinically and cost-effective treatment is debated. With an aging US population and growing restraints on a financially burdened health care system, a clear understanding of national trends in the surgical management of DS is needed.
METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried for patients with DS undergoing lumbar fusions from 2001 to 2010, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis and procedure codes. Analyses compared instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF), posterolateral fusion with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF + PLF), PLF with posterior interbody fusion (P/TLIF + PLF), anterior instrumented interbody fusion (ALIF), and posterior interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation (P/TLIF). Clinical data were analyzed representing the initial acute phase care after surgery.
RESULTS: There were 48,911 DS surgical procedures identified, representing 237,383 procedures. The percentage of patients undergoing PLF, ALIF + PLF, or ALIF increased whereas the percentage of P/TLIF or P/TLIF + PLF decreased over time. Total charges were less (P < 0.001), average length of hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.01), and average age was older (P < 0.01) for patients who underwent PLF compared with any other procedure. Type of procedure varied on the basis of the geographic region of the hospital, teaching versus nonteaching hospital, and size of hospital (P < 0.01). Patients who had P/TLIF + PLF or ALIF had a higher risk of mortality than patients who had PLF (odds ratios: 5.02, 2.22, respectively). Patients were more likely to develop a complication if they had ALIF + PLF, P/TLIF + PLF, ALIF, and P/TLIF than if they had PLF (odds ratios: 1.45, 1.23, 1.49, 1.12, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Variation in the surgical management of DS related to patient demographics, hospital charges, length of hospital stay, insurance type, comorbidities, and complication rates was found within the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. During the acute phase of care immediately after surgery, PLF procedures were found to reduce length of hospital stay, hospital charges, and postoperative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26020842     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000987

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Degenerative spondylolisthesis: contemporary review of the role of interbody fusion.

Authors:  Joseph F Baker; Thomas J Errico; Yong Kim; Afshin Razi
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-11-25

Review 2.  Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Peter B Derman; Todd J Albert
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

3.  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

4.  National utilization and inpatient safety measures of lumbar spinal fusion methods by race/ethnicity.

Authors:  Angel M Reyes; Jeffrey N Katz; Andrew J Schoenfeld; James D Kang; Elena Losina; Yuchiao Chang
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 5.  Current Status of Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Toshiyuki Takahashi; Junya Hanakita; Yasufumi Ohtake; Yusuke Funakoshi; Yuki Oichi; Taigo Kawaoka; Mizuki Watanabe
Journal:  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 6.  Lower complication and reoperation rates for laminectomy rather than MI TLIF/other fusions for degenerative lumbar disease/spondylolisthesis: A review.

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2018-03-07

7.  Repeat decompression and fusions following posterolateral fusion versus posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylosis: a national database study.

Authors:  Moon Soo Park; Young-Su Ju; Seong-Hwan Moon; Tae-Hwan Kim; Jae Keun Oh; Jin Kyu Lim; Chi Heon Kim; Chun Kee Chung; Ho Guen Chang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-20       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Elie Massaad; Nida Fatima; Ali Kiapour; Muhamed Hadzipasic; Ganesh M Shankar; John H Shin
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2020-03-31

9.  Additive-manufactured Ti-6Al-4 V/Polyetheretherketone composite porous cage for Interbody fusion: bone growth and biocompatibility evaluation in a porcine model.

Authors:  Pei-I Tsai; Meng-Huang Wu; Yen-Yao Li; Tzu-Hung Lin; Jane S C Tsai; Hsin-I Huang; Hong-Jen Lai; Ming-Hsueh Lee; Chih-Yu Chen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Comparison between modified facet joint fusion and posterolateral fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Zhimin Li; Zheng Li; Xin Chen; Xiao Han; Kuan Li; Shugang Li
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.