D Kojo Hamilton1, Adam S Kanter2, Bryan D Bolinger3, Gregory M Mundis4, Stacie Nguyen4, Praveen V Mummaneni5, Neel Anand6, Richard G Fessler7, Peter G Passias8, Paul Park9, Frank La Marca9, Juan S Uribe10, Michael Y Wang11, Behrooz A Akbarnia4, Christopher I Shaffrey12, David O Okonkwo2. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. dkojoh@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. 3. Geisinger Neurosurgery, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA. 4. San Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, La Jolla, CA, USA. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University of California San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 8. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Disease, New York, NY, USA. 9. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 10. Department of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 11. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 12. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques are gaining popularity in the treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD). The premise is that MIS techniques will lead to equivalent outcomes and a reduction in perioperative complications when compared with open techniques. Potential issues with MIS techniques are a limited capacity to correct lumbar lordosis, unknown long-term efficacy, and the potential need for revision surgery. This study compares reoperation rates and reasons for reoperation following MIS, hybrid, and open surgery for ASD through multicenter database analysis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospective multicenter ASD database comparing open and MIS correction techniques. Inclusion criteria were: age > 18 years with minimum 20° coronal lumbar Cobb angle, a minimum of three levels fused, and minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were propensity matched for preoperative sagittal vertebral axis (SVA), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), and number of levels fused. We included 189 patients from three propensity-matched subgroups of 63 patients each: (1) MIS: lateral or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) and percutaneous pedicle instrumentation, (2) Hybrid: MIS LIF with open posterior segmental fixation (PSF), and (3) OPEN: open posterior fixation ± osteotomies. RESULTS: With propensity matching, there were significant differences between groups in pre-op SVA or PI-LL (p > 0.05). The MIS group had significantly fewer levels fused (5.4) (0-14) than the OPEN group (7.4) (p = 0.002) (0-17). The rate of revision surgery was significantly different between the groups with a higher rate of revision (27 %) amongst the HYB group versus MIS = 11.1 %, and OPEN = 12.0 %. The most common reason for reoperation in the OPEN and HYB groups was a postoperative neurological deficit (7.9 and 11.1 %), respectively. The most common reason for reoperation in the MIS group was pseudoarthrosis (7.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation rates were not statistically different among the MIS, and OPEN surgical groups, but differed significantly on multivariate analysis with HYB group. The incidence of reoperations was twice as high in the Hybrid group compared to OPEN and MIS.
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques are gaining popularity in the treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD). The premise is that MIS techniques will lead to equivalent outcomes and a reduction in perioperative complications when compared with open techniques. Potential issues with MIS techniques are a limited capacity to correct lumbar lordosis, unknown long-term efficacy, and the potential need for revision surgery. This study compares reoperation rates and reasons for reoperation following MIS, hybrid, and open surgery for ASD through multicenter database analysis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospective multicenter ASD database comparing open and MIS correction techniques. Inclusion criteria were: age > 18 years with minimum 20° coronal lumbar Cobb angle, a minimum of three levels fused, and minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were propensity matched for preoperative sagittal vertebral axis (SVA), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), and number of levels fused. We included 189 patients from three propensity-matched subgroups of 63 patients each: (1) MIS: lateral or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) and percutaneous pedicle instrumentation, (2) Hybrid: MIS LIF with open posterior segmental fixation (PSF), and (3) OPEN: open posterior fixation ± osteotomies. RESULTS: With propensity matching, there were significant differences between groups in pre-op SVA or PI-LL (p > 0.05). The MIS group had significantly fewer levels fused (5.4) (0-14) than the OPEN group (7.4) (p = 0.002) (0-17). The rate of revision surgery was significantly different between the groups with a higher rate of revision (27 %) amongst the HYB group versus MIS = 11.1 %, and OPEN = 12.0 %. The most common reason for reoperation in the OPEN and HYB groups was a postoperative neurological deficit (7.9 and 11.1 %), respectively. The most common reason for reoperation in the MIS group was pseudoarthrosis (7.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation rates were not statistically different among the MIS, and OPEN surgical groups, but differed significantly on multivariate analysis with HYB group. The incidence of reoperations was twice as high in the Hybrid group compared to OPEN and MIS.
Authors: John M Rhee; Keith H Bridwell; Douglas S Won; Lawrence G Lenke; Chatupon Chotigavanichaya; Darrell S Hanson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Han Jo Kim; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Moon Soo Park; Kwang Sup Song; Chaiwat Piyaskulkaew; Tapanut Chuntarapas Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-04-20 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: D Kojo Hamilton; Justin S Smith; Charles A Sansur; Steven D Glassman; Christopher P Ames; Sigurd H Berven; David W Polly; Joseph H Perra; Dennis Raymond Knapp; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Richard E McCarthy; Christopher I Shaffrey Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jotham C Manwaring; Konrad Bach; Amir A Ahmadian; Armen R Deukmedjian; Donald A Smith; Juan S Uribe Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2014-03-14
Authors: Andy L Anderson; Terence E McIff; Marc A Asher; Douglas C Burton; R Christopher Glattes Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Andrea Zanirato; Marco Damilano; Matteo Formica; Andrea Piazzolla; Alessio Lovi; Jorge Hugo Villafañe; Pedro Berjano Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Martin H Pham; Vrajesh J Shah; Luis Daniel Diaz-Aguilar; Joseph A Osorio; Ronald A Lehman Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Robert K Eastlack; Ravi Srinivas; Gregory M Mundis; Stacie Nguyen; Praveen V Mummaneni; David O Okonkwo; Adam S Kanter; Neel Anand; Paul Park; Pierce Nunley; Juan S Uribe; Behrooz A Akbarnia; Dean Chou; Vedat Deviren Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2018-05-10