Literature DB >> 29423887

Reoperation within 2 years after lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study.

Kazuyoshi Kobayashi1, Kei Ando1, Fumihiko Kato2, Tokumi Kanemura3, Koji Sato4, Yudo Hachiya5, Yuji Matsubara6, Mitsuhiro Kamiya7, Yoshihito Sakai8, Hideki Yagi9, Ryuichi Shinjo10, Yoshihiro Nishida1, Naoki Ishiguro1, Shiro Imagama11.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) can have complications that require reoperation. The goal of the study was to identify risk factors for reoperation within 2 years after PLIF/TLIF.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter database was performed for patients who underwent PLIF/TLIF. A total of 1363 patients (689 males and 674 females) were identified, with an average age of 65.9 years old. Comorbidities, perioperative ASA grade, and operative factors were compared between patients with and without reoperation. Risk factors for reoperation were identified in multivariate logistic analysis.
RESULTS: There were 38 reoperations within 2 years after PLIF/TLIF (2.8%). The original surgical procedures were open PLIF (n = 26), open TLIF (n = 10), and minimally invasive surgery (n = 2). Reoperation was due to adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) (n = 10), surgical site infection (SSI) (n = 9), screw misplacement (n = 6), postoperative epidural hematoma (n = 6), pseudoarthrosis (n = 4), and cage protrusion (n = 3). Number of levels fused and dural tear were significantly associated with reoperation. In analysis of complications requiring reoperation, SSI was related to diabetes mellitus and dural tear, and postoperative epidural hematoma was related to fusion of two or more levels, EBL, and operation time. In multivariate logistic regression, fusion of two or more levels (HR 2.19) was significantly associated with reoperation.
CONCLUSION: Surgical invasiveness, as reflected by number of fused levels, operation time, EBL and dural tear, was associated with reoperation. Fusion of two or more levels is a strong risk factor for reoperation within 2 years after initial PLIF/TLIF. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adjacent segment degeneration; Complications; Dural tear; Epidural hematoma; Invasiveness; Multicenter; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF); Reoperation; Screw misplacement; Surgical site infection; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29423887     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5508-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  36 in total

1.  Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors.

Authors:  H T Hee; F P Castro; M E Majd; R T Holt; L Myers
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2001-12

2.  Reoperation rate after instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a report on 1680 cases.

Authors:  Ralph Greiner-Perth; Heinrich Boehm; Yasser Allam; Hesham Elsaghir; Joerg Franke
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Daniel K Resnick; Tanvir F Choudhri; Andrew T Dailey; Michael W Groff; Larry Khoo; Paul G Matz; Praveen Mummaneni; William C Watters; Jeffrey Wang; Beverly C Walters; Mark N Hadley
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2005-06

Review 4.  Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Jason C Eck; Scott Hodges; S Craig Humphreys
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 5.  Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF.

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Kevin Phan; Greg Malham; Kevin Seex; Prashanth J Rao
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-12

6.  Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies.

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Praveenan Sivabalan; Jane Li
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 1.961

7.  1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study.

Authors:  K Thomsen; F B Christensen; S P Eiskjaer; E S Hansen; S Fruensgaard; C E Bünger
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Radiographic Adjacent Segment Degeneration at 5 Years After L4/5 Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Pedicle Screw Instrumentation: Evaluation by Computed Tomography and Annual Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Shiro Imagama; Noriaki Kawakami; Yuji Matsubara; Taichi Tsuji; Tetsuya Ohara; Yoshito Katayama; Naoki Ishiguro; Tokumi Kanemura
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.876

9.  Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population.

Authors:  R A Deyo; M A Ciol; D C Cherkin; J D Loeser; S J Bigos
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Sanjay S Dhall; Michael Y Wang; Praveen V Mummaneni
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2008-12
View more
  12 in total

1.  Complications in TLIF spondylodesis-do they influence the outcome for patients? A prospective two-center study.

Authors:  Philipp Poppenborg; Ulf Liljenqvist; Georg Gosheger; Albert Schulze Boevingloh; Lukas Lampe; Sebastian Schmeil; Tobias L Schulte; Tobias Lange
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Diabetes management in spinal surgery.

Authors:  Michelot Michel; Brandon Lucke-Wold
Journal:  J Clin Images Med Case Rep       Date:  2022-06-22

3.  Early Reoperation Rates and Its Risk Factors after Instrumented Spinal Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study of 65,355 Patients.

Authors:  Jihye Kim; Hwan Ryu; Tae-Hwan Kim
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 4.964

4.  Cement discoplasty for managing lumbar spine pseudarthrosis in elderly patients: a less invasive alternative approach for failed posterior lumbar spine interbody fusion.

Authors:  Mahmoud Alkharsawi; Mootaz Shousha; Heinrich Boehm; Mohamed Alhashash
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-03-27       Impact factor: 2.721

5.  Biportal Endoscopic Technique for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Review of Current Research.

Authors:  Min-Seok Kang; Dong Hwa Heo; Hyoung-Bok Kim; Heung-Tae Chung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

Review 6.  Is minimally invasive superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Aimin Li; Xiang Li; Yang Zhong
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  The Navigated Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Accuracy Rate, Effect on Surgical Time, and Complications.

Authors:  Zhuo Xi; Dean Chou; Praveen V Mummaneni; Shane Burch
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2020-02-05

8.  Diabetes Is Predictive of Postoperative Outcomes and Readmission Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion.

Authors:  Annie E Arrighi-Allisan; Sean N Neifert; Jonathan S Gal; Lawrence Zeldin; Jeffrey H Zimering; Jeffrey T Gilligan; Brian C Deutsch; Daniel J Snyder; Dominic A Nistal; John M Caridi
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-08-17

9.  [Comparison of the effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery].

Authors:  Guangduo Zhu; Yingjie Hao; Lei Yu; Cheng Peng; Jian Zhu; Panke Zhang
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-06-15

10.  The comparison between anterior and posterior approaches for removal of infected lumbar interbody cages and a proposal regarding the use of endoscope-assisted technique.

Authors:  Yun-Da Li; Jia-En Chi; Ping-Yeh Chiu; Fu-Cheng Kao; Po-Liang Lai; Tsung-Ting Tsai
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.