Robert W Abdu1, William A Abdu2, Adam M Pearson2, Wenyan Zhao3, Jon D Lurie4, James N Weinstein5. 1. The University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine, Biddeford, ME. 2. Department of Orthopedics, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. 3. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH. 4. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH. 5. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health System, Lebanon, NH.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This study was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for and to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing revision disc excision surgery in SPORT. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Risk factors for reherniation and outcomes after revision surgery have not been well-studied. This information is critical for proper patient counseling and decision-making. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary discectomy in the SPORT intervertebral disc herniation cohort were analyzed to determine risk factors for undergoing revision surgery. Risk factors for undergoing revision surgery for reherniation were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis. Primary outcome measures consisted of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Sciatica Bothersomeness index (SBI), and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly to 4 years. RESULTS: Of 810 surgical patients, 74 (9.1%) received revision surgery for reherniation. Risk factors for reherniation included: younger age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96 [0.94-0.99]), lack of a sensory deficit (HR 0.61 [0.37-0.99]) lack of motor deficit (HR 0.54 [0.32-0.91]), and higher baseline ODI score (HR 1.02 [1.01-1.03]). The time-adjusted mean improvement from baseline to 4 years was less for the reherniation group on all outcome measures (Bodily Pain Index [BP] 39.5 vs. 44.9, P = 0.001; Physical Function Index [PF] 37.1 vs. 44.5, P < 0.001; ODI 33.9 vs. 38.3, P < 0.001; SBI 8.7 vs. 10.5, P < 0.001). At 4 years, only SBI (-9 vs. -11.4, P = 0.002) was significantly lower in the reherniation group. CONCLUSION: Younger patients with higher baseline disability without neurological deficit are at increased risk of undergoing revision surgery for reherniation. Those considering revision surgery for reherniation will likely improve significantly following surgery, but possibly not as much as with primary discectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
STUDY DESIGN: This study was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for and to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing revision disc excision surgery in SPORT. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Risk factors for reherniation and outcomes after revision surgery have not been well-studied. This information is critical for proper patient counseling and decision-making. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary discectomy in the SPORT intervertebral disc herniation cohort were analyzed to determine risk factors for undergoing revision surgery. Risk factors for undergoing revision surgery for reherniation were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis. Primary outcome measures consisted of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Sciatica Bothersomeness index (SBI), and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly to 4 years. RESULTS: Of 810 surgical patients, 74 (9.1%) received revision surgery for reherniation. Risk factors for reherniation included: younger age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96 [0.94-0.99]), lack of a sensory deficit (HR 0.61 [0.37-0.99]) lack of motor deficit (HR 0.54 [0.32-0.91]), and higher baseline ODI score (HR 1.02 [1.01-1.03]). The time-adjusted mean improvement from baseline to 4 years was less for the reherniation group on all outcome measures (Bodily Pain Index [BP] 39.5 vs. 44.9, P = 0.001; Physical Function Index [PF] 37.1 vs. 44.5, P < 0.001; ODI 33.9 vs. 38.3, P < 0.001; SBI 8.7 vs. 10.5, P < 0.001). At 4 years, only SBI (-9 vs. -11.4, P = 0.002) was significantly lower in the reherniation group. CONCLUSION: Younger patients with higher baseline disability without neurological deficit are at increased risk of undergoing revision surgery for reherniation. Those considering revision surgery for reherniation will likely improve significantly following surgery, but possibly not as much as with primary discectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Authors: Jennifer A Moliterno; Jared Knopman; Karishma Parikh; Jessica N Cohan; Q Daisy Huang; Grant D Aaker; Anastasia D Grivoyannis; Ashwin R Patel; Roger Härtl; John A Boockvar Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2010-06
Authors: Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; Tamara S Morgan; William A Abdu; Harry Herkowitz; James N Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Nancy J O Birkmeyer; James N Weinstein; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Jon D Lurie; Richard Deyo; John E Wennberg Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Garrett K Harada; Zakariah K Siyaji; G Michael Mallow; Alexander L Hornung; Fayyazul Hassan; Bryce A Basques; Haseeb A Mohammed; Arash J Sayari; Dino Samartzis; Howard S An Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Michelle A Cruz; Warren W Hom; Tyler J DiStefano; Robert Merrill; Olivia M Torre; Huizi A Lin; Andrew C Hecht; Svenja Illien-Junger; James C Iatridis Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Huizi Anna Lin; Devika M Varma; Warren W Hom; Michelle A Cruz; Philip R Nasser; Robert G Phelps; James C Iatridis; Steven B Nicoll Journal: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Date: 2019-04-17
Authors: Thomas A Kosztowski; David Choi; Jared Fridley; Michael Galgano; Ziya Gokaslan; Adetokunbo Oyelese; Albert Edward Telfeian Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2018-03