Moon Soo Park1, Young-Su Ju2, Seong-Hwan Moon3, Tae-Hwan Kim1, Jae Keun Oh4, Melvin C Makhni5, K Daniel Riew5. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Medical College of Hallym University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Medical College of Hallym University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Medical College of Hallym University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University, The Spine Hospital at NY-Presbyterian, Allen Hospital, New York, NY.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: National population-based cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reoperation rates of cervical spine surgery for cervical degenerative conditions utilizing a national population database. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is an inherently low incidence of reoperation after surgery for cervical degenerative disease. Therefore, it is difficult to sufficiently power studies to detect differences between reoperation rates of different cervical surgical procedures. National population-based databases provide large, longitudinally followed cohorts that may help overcome this challenge. METHODS: We used the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service national database to select our study population. We included patients with diagnosis of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myelopathy who underwent cervical surgeries from January 2009 to June 2014. We separated patients into three groups based on surgical procedures: discectomy or corpectomy with anterior fusion, laminoplasty, or laminectomy with posterior fusion. Age, sex, presence of diabetes, osteoporosis, associated comorbidities, number of operated cervical disc levels, and hospital types were considered potential confounding factors. Reoperation rates were analyzed over early and late periods. RESULTS: The reoperation rate over the entire follow-up period was 3.31%. Overall, the reoperation rate was significantly higher after laminectomy with posterior fusion or laminoplasty than after discectomy or corpectomy with anterior fusion. A similar pattern was seen during the late period. In the early period, rates were higher only after laminectomy with posterior fusion than after discectomy or corpectomy with anterior fusion. Sex, presence of diabetes, associated comorbidities, and hospital types were noted to be risk factors for reoperation. CONCLUSION: The reoperation rate was higher after laminectomy with posterior fusion or laminoplasty. Given clinical scenarios in which either anterior or posterior approaches can be utilized, risk of reoperation can be another variable to consider in surgical planning and patient education. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
STUDY DESIGN: National population-based cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reoperation rates of cervical spine surgery for cervical degenerative conditions utilizing a national population database. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is an inherently low incidence of reoperation after surgery for cervical degenerative disease. Therefore, it is difficult to sufficiently power studies to detect differences between reoperation rates of different cervical surgical procedures. National population-based databases provide large, longitudinally followed cohorts that may help overcome this challenge. METHODS: We used the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service national database to select our study population. We included patients with diagnosis of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myelopathy who underwent cervical surgeries from January 2009 to June 2014. We separated patients into three groups based on surgical procedures: discectomy or corpectomy with anterior fusion, laminoplasty, or laminectomy with posterior fusion. Age, sex, presence of diabetes, osteoporosis, associated comorbidities, number of operated cervical disc levels, and hospital types were considered potential confounding factors. Reoperation rates were analyzed over early and late periods. RESULTS: The reoperation rate over the entire follow-up period was 3.31%. Overall, the reoperation rate was significantly higher after laminectomy with posterior fusion or laminoplasty than after discectomy or corpectomy with anterior fusion. A similar pattern was seen during the late period. In the early period, rates were higher only after laminectomy with posterior fusion than after discectomy or corpectomy with anterior fusion. Sex, presence of diabetes, associated comorbidities, and hospital types were noted to be risk factors for reoperation. CONCLUSION: The reoperation rate was higher after laminectomy with posterior fusion or laminoplasty. Given clinical scenarios in which either anterior or posterior approaches can be utilized, risk of reoperation can be another variable to consider in surgical planning and patient education. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Authors: Anna Kotkansalo; Ville Leinonen; Merja Korajoki; Katariina Korhonen; Jaakko Rinne; Antti Malmivaara Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Austen David Katz; Dean Cosmo Perfetti; Alan Job; Max Willinger; Jeffrey Goldstein; Daniel Kiridly; Peter Olivares; Alexander Satin; David Essig Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-07-31