Michael P Kelly1, Claire D Eliasberg2, Max S Riley3, Remi M Ajiboye4, Nelson F SooHoo4. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8233, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. kellymi@wudosis.wustl.edu. 2. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8233, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze rates of perioperative complications and subsequent cervical surgeries in patients treated for cervical degenerative disc disease with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and those treated with artificial cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) for up to 5-year follow-up. METHODS: California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development discharge database was analyzed for patients aged 18-65 years undergoing single-level ACDF or ACDA between 2003 and 2010. Medical comorbidities were identified with CMS-Condition Categories. Readmissions for short-term complications of the procedure were identified and rates of subsequent cervical surgeries were calculated at 90-day and 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up. Multivariate regression modeling was used to identify associations with complications and subsequent cervical surgeries correcting for patient and provider characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 52,395 eligible cases were identified: 50,926 ACDF and 1469 ACDA. Readmission was less common in the ACDA group (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-1.0, p = 0.048). Subsequent cervical spine surgery was more common in the ACDF group in the immediate perioperative period (within 90 days of surgery) (ACDF 3.35% vs. ACDA 2.04%, OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44-0.92, p = 0.015). At 1-, 3-, and 5-year postoperatively, rates of subsequent cervical surgeries were similar between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: We found no protective benefit for ACDA versus ACDF for single-level disease at up to 5-year follow-up in the largest cohort of patients examined to date. Early complications were rare in both cohorts stressing the value of large cohort studies to study risk factors for rare events. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze rates of perioperative complications and subsequent cervical surgeries in patients treated for cervical degenerative disc disease with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and those treated with artificial cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) for up to 5-year follow-up. METHODS: California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development discharge database was analyzed for patients aged 18-65 years undergoing single-levelACDF or ACDA between 2003 and 2010. Medical comorbidities were identified with CMS-Condition Categories. Readmissions for short-term complications of the procedure were identified and rates of subsequent cervical surgeries were calculated at 90-day and 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up. Multivariate regression modeling was used to identify associations with complications and subsequent cervical surgeries correcting for patient and provider characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 52,395 eligible cases were identified: 50,926 ACDF and 1469 ACDA. Readmission was less common in the ACDA group (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-1.0, p = 0.048). Subsequent cervical spine surgery was more common in the ACDF group in the immediate perioperative period (within 90 days of surgery) (ACDF 3.35% vs. ACDA 2.04%, OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44-0.92, p = 0.015). At 1-, 3-, and 5-year postoperatively, rates of subsequent cervical surgeries were similar between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: We found no protective benefit for ACDA versus ACDF for single-level disease at up to 5-year follow-up in the largest cohort of patients examined to date. Early complications were rare in both cohorts stressing the value of large cohort studies to study risk factors for rare events. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Michael F Shriver; Daniel Lubelski; Akshay M Sharma; Michael P Steinmetz; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Spine J Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Kushagra Verma; Sapan D Gandhi; Mitchell Maltenfort; Todd J Albert; Alan S Hilibrand; Alexander R Vaccaro; Kristin E Radcliff Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Frank M Phillips; Fred H Geisler; Kye M Gilder; Christopher Reah; Kelli M Howell; Paul C McAfee Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Ateev Mehrotra; Elizabeth M Sloss; Peter S Hussey; John L Adams; Susan Lovejoy; Nelson F SooHoo Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.983
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: Michael E Janssen; Jack E Zigler; Jeffrey M Spivak; Rick B Delamarter; Bruce V Darden; Branko Kopjar Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 5.284
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: Sami Al Eissa; Faisal Konbaz; Sarah Aldeghaither; Monerah Annaim; Rayed Aljehani; Fahad Alhelal; Majed Abaalkhail; Ali A Alhandi Journal: Cureus Date: 2020-04-12