Literature DB >> 28248893

Risk Factors for Poor Patient-Reported Quality of Life Outcomes After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Analysis of 2-Year Follow-up.

Takahiro Makino1, Takashi Kaito1, Hiroyasu Fujiwara2, Hirotsugu Honda3, Yusuke Sakai1, Shota Takenaka1, Hideki Yoshikawa1, Kazuo Yonenobu4.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to identify risk factors for poor patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes, based on five categories (pain-related disorders, lumbar spine dysfunction, gait disturbance, social life dysfunction, and psychological disorders) of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at the 2-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many studies have been reported on patient QOL outcomes after lumbar surgery; however, few reports have focused on risk factors for poor postoperative QOL outcomes in terms of the various disabilities and dysfunctions after PLIF.
METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients (39 men and 61 women; mean age 69.6 [44-84] yr) who underwent single- or two-level PLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis and/or foraminal stenosis with a 2-year follow-up were included. The effectiveness of surgery in each category of the JOABPEQ was evaluated. Demographic and clinical data and radiographic parameters were reviewed. Risk factors for poor postoperative QOL outcomes in each category of the JOABPEQ were investigated by multivariate logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Older age and spinopelvic malalignment (preoperative high pelvic tilt or postoperative decrease in lumbar lordosis [=postoperative increase in the mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis]) were risk factors for poor postoperative QOL outcomes in all categories of the JOABPEQ, except for lumbar spine dysfunction. In contrast, increase in number of PLIF segments, non-union, and radiographic adjacent segment degeneration were risk factors for poor postoperative QOL outcomes in lumbar spine dysfunction and gait disturbance.
CONCLUSION: The risk factors for poor QOL outcomes after PLIF differed among the five categories of the JOABPEQ. In particular, surgery-related factors (e.g., increase in number of PLIF segments, nonunion, and radiographic adjacent segment degeneration) had a negative effect on the improvement of lumbar spine dysfunction and gait disturbance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28248893     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002137

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


  14 in total

1.  The association between Roussouly sagittal alignment type and risk for adjacent segment degeneration following short-segment lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Zhe Qu; Bin Deng; Xiao Gao; Bin Pan; Wei Sun; Hu Feng
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 2.562

2.  Factors important in bone union after posterior lumbar interbody fusion using the cortical bone trajectory technique.

Authors:  Yoshihide Yanai; Keitaro Matsukawa; Takashi Kato; Yoshiyuki Yato
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12

3.  Impact of Early Intervertebral Osseous Union After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion on Health-Related Quality of Life.

Authors:  Hiroki Ushirozako; Tomohiko Hasegawa; Shigeto Ebata; Tetsuro Ohba; Hiroki Oba; Keijiro Mukaiyama; Satoshi Shimizu; Yu Yamato; Koichiro Ide; Yosuke Shibata; Toshiyuki Ojima; Jun Takahashi; Hirotaka Haro; Yukihiro Matsuyama
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-09-10

Review 4.  The Biological Enhancement of Spinal Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Disease.

Authors:  Takahiro Makino; Hiroyuki Tsukazaki; Yuichiro Ukon; Daisuke Tateiwa; Hideki Yoshikawa; Takashi Kaito
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Efficacy of lumbar orthoses after posterior lumbar interbody fusion-a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Hiroyasu Fujiwara; Takahiro Makino; Kazuo Yonenobu; Yu Moriguchi; Takenori Oda; Takashi Kaito
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Pain Assessment after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Authors:  Yalin Yang; Xu Yan; Wenhui Li; Weizong Sun; Kai Wang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.071

7.  Impact of lordotic cages in the restoration of spinopelvic parameters after dorsal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective case control study.

Authors:  Stavros Oikonomidis; Vincent Heck; Sonja Bantle; Max Joseph Scheyerer; Christoph Hofstetter; Stefan Budde; Peer Eysel; Jan Bredow
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Prevalence and risk factors for cage subsidence after lumbar interbody fusion: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qiujiang Li; Xingxia Long; Lin Shi; Yinbin Wang; Tao Guan; Jinhan Lv; Lijun Cai
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Preclinical Safety of a 3D-Printed Hydroxyapatite-Demineralized Bone Matrix Scaffold for Spinal Fusion.

Authors:  Mark Plantz; Joseph Lyons; Jonathan T Yamaguchi; Allison C Greene; David J Ellenbogen; Mitchell J Hallman; Vivek Shah; Chawon Yun; Adam E Jakus; Daniele Procissi; Silvia Minardi; Ramille N Shah; Wellington K Hsu; Erin L Hsu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Dynesys system vs posterior decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Authors:  Hongbo Wang; Jun Peng; Qingshen Zeng; Yanchun Zhong; Chunlin Xiao; Yongjun Ye; Weimin Huang; Wuyang Liu; Jiaquan Luo
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.