Martin Skeppholm1,2, Thomas Henriques3, Tycho Tullberg4. 1. Karolinska Institute, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Medical Management Centre, Health Economics and Economic Evaluation Research Group, Tomtebodavägen 18 A, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. martin.skeppholm@rkc.se. 2. Center for Spine Surgery in Stockholm, Södra Fiskartorpsvägen 15 H, 114 85, Stockholm, Sweden. martin.skeppholm@rkc.se. 3. Center for Spine Surgery in Stockholm, Södra Fiskartorpsvägen 15 H, 114 85, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Stockholm Spine Center, Löwenströmska Sjukhuset, 194 89, Upplands Väsby, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate rates of secondary surgical interventions in a cohort treated with fusion (ACDF), artificial disc replacement (ADR) or a posterior surgical procedure (PP) because of a cervical degenerative pathology. METHODS: 715 patients treated with any primary cervical surgical intervention between the years 2000 and 2010 were retrospectively evaluated regarding frequency of secondary surgery between the years 2000 and 2015, thus giving a follow-up time of minimum 5 years. Reasons for secondary surgery as well as choice of new intervention were evaluated. Data were collected from a single-center setting. RESULTS: Follow-up rate was 94%. 79 (11%) patients in total underwent a new operation during follow-up. 50/504 (10%), 27/172 (15%), and 2/39 (5%) of the patients had a second surgical intervention in the ACDF, ADR, and PP groups, respectively. There was a statistically significant higher rate of repeated surgery in the ADR group compared to the ACDF group, OR 1.7 (CI 1.06-2.8), p = 0.03. Risk for repeated surgery at index level was even higher for ADR, OR 5.1 (CI 2.4-10.7), p < 0.001. Reoperation rate because of ASD in the whole cohort did not differ between ACDF and ADR groups, p = 0.40. CONCLUSION: The group initially treated with artificial disc replacement showed higher rate of reoperations and more implant-related complications. In this cohort, artificial disc replacement was not protective against reoperation because of adjacent segment pathology.
PURPOSE: To evaluate rates of secondary surgical interventions in a cohort treated with fusion (ACDF), artificial disc replacement (ADR) or a posterior surgical procedure (PP) because of a cervical degenerative pathology. METHODS: 715 patients treated with any primary cervical surgical intervention between the years 2000 and 2010 were retrospectively evaluated regarding frequency of secondary surgery between the years 2000 and 2015, thus giving a follow-up time of minimum 5 years. Reasons for secondary surgery as well as choice of new intervention were evaluated. Data were collected from a single-center setting. RESULTS: Follow-up rate was 94%. 79 (11%) patients in total underwent a new operation during follow-up. 50/504 (10%), 27/172 (15%), and 2/39 (5%) of the patients had a second surgical intervention in the ACDF, ADR, and PP groups, respectively. There was a statistically significant higher rate of repeated surgery in the ADR group compared to the ACDF group, OR 1.7 (CI 1.06-2.8), p = 0.03. Risk for repeated surgery at index level was even higher for ADR, OR 5.1 (CI 2.4-10.7), p < 0.001. Reoperation rate because of ASD in the whole cohort did not differ between ACDF and ADR groups, p = 0.40. CONCLUSION: The group initially treated with artificial disc replacement showed higher rate of reoperations and more implant-related complications. In this cohort, artificial disc replacement was not protective against reoperation because of adjacent segment pathology.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cervical spine; Reoperation rate; Secondary surgery
Authors: Mohit Bhandari; Jason W Busse; Dianne Jackowski; Victor M Montori; Holger Schünemann; Sheila Sprague; Derek Mears; Emil H Schemitsch; Dianne Heels-Ansdell; P J Devereaux Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-02-17 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Andre M Samuel; Michael C Fu; Jason O Toy; Adam M Lukasiewicz; Matthew L Webb; Daniel D Bohl; Bryce A Basques; Todd J Albert; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: P Justin Tortolani; Bryan W Cunningham; Mmech Eng; Paul C McAfee; Gwen A Holsapple; Karen A Adams Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Carola F van Eck; Conor Regan; William F Donaldson; James D Kang; Joon Y Lee Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Robert J Jackson; Reginald J Davis; Gregory A Hoffman; Hyun W Bae; Michael S Hisey; Kee D Kim; Steven E Gaede; Pierce Dalton Nunley Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2016-01-22
Authors: Jack E Zigler; Rick Delamarter; Dan Murrey; Jeffrey Spivak; Michael Janssen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Bijan Abar; Alejandro Alonso-Calleja; Alexander Kelly; Cambre Kelly; Ken Gall; Jennifer L West Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 4.396
Authors: Nathan J Lee; Andrei F Joaquim; Venkat Boddapati; Justin Mathew; Paul Park; Jun S Kim; Zeeshan M Sardar; Ronald A Lehman; K Daniel Riew Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2021-01-19