Jamal N Shillingford1, Joseph L Laratta2, Joseph M Lombardi1, John D Mueller1, Meghan Cerpa1, Hemant P Reddy1, Comron Saifi3, Charla R Fischer4, Ronald A Lehman1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, The Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA. 2. Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, KY, USA. 3. Penn Orthopaedics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Joint Diseases at New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over the ability of various lumbar interbody fusion techniques to realign global and regional balance and their effect on patient outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study to compare thirty-day postoperative outcomes between anterior and posterior interbody fusion techniques within a large national database. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study utilizing the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database included 2,372 (29.9%) single-level anterior/direct lateral interbody fusions (ALIF/DLIF) and 5,563 (70.1%) single-level posterior/transforaminal lateral interbody fusions (PLIF/TLIF) between 2013 and 2014. Emergent cases, fracture cases, and preoperative compromised wounds were not analyzed. Primary thirty-day outcomes included mortality, return to operating room, readmission, length of stay, and other major complications. Minor outcomes included urinary tract infection, superficial incisional site infection, and perioperative blood transfusion within 72 hours. RESULTS: ALIF/DLIF was performed more for degenerative lumbar disc disease (31.0% vs. 13.9%, P<0.001), whereas PLIF/TLIF was utilized more for spondylolisthesis (19.1% vs. 24.4%, P<0.001). Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher with ALIF/DLIF (0.3% vs. 0.1%, P=0.021) in the univariate analysis and persisted in the multivariate analysis (OR =12.8; 95% CI, 1.37-119.6; P=0.025). Significantly more PLIF/TLIF patients required blood transfusions within 72 hours of surgery (9.6% vs. 7.6%, P=0.005). This difference did not persist in the multivariate analysis after controlling for covariates. Elevated ASA physical status classification, age >60, prior bleeding disorder, and preoperative anemia were significantly associated with blood transfusion requirement. More deep venous thrombosis occurred (DVT) with ALIF/DLIF compared to PLIF/TLIF (1.0% vs. 0.6%, P=0.025), which persisted in the multivariate analysis (OR =2.03; 95% CI, 1.13-3.65; P=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous techniques can be utilized in the treatment approach to various lumbar pathologies, anterior approaches have an increased risk of developing a perioperative DVT and early mortality. Transfusion risk is more strongly associated with elevated American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, increased age, preoperative anemia, and patients with bleeding disorders.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over the ability of various lumbar interbody fusion techniques to realign global and regional balance and their effect on patient outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study to compare thirty-day postoperative outcomes between anterior and posterior interbody fusion techniques within a large national database. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study utilizing the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database included 2,372 (29.9%) single-level anterior/direct lateral interbody fusions (ALIF/DLIF) and 5,563 (70.1%) single-level posterior/transforaminal lateral interbody fusions (PLIF/TLIF) between 2013 and 2014. Emergent cases, fracture cases, and preoperative compromised wounds were not analyzed. Primary thirty-day outcomes included mortality, return to operating room, readmission, length of stay, and other major complications. Minor outcomes included urinary tract infection, superficial incisional site infection, and perioperative blood transfusion within 72 hours. RESULTS: ALIF/DLIF was performed more for degenerative lumbar disc disease (31.0% vs. 13.9%, P<0.001), whereas PLIF/TLIF was utilized more for spondylolisthesis (19.1% vs. 24.4%, P<0.001). Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher with ALIF/DLIF (0.3% vs. 0.1%, P=0.021) in the univariate analysis and persisted in the multivariate analysis (OR =12.8; 95% CI, 1.37-119.6; P=0.025). Significantly more PLIF/TLIF patients required blood transfusions within 72 hours of surgery (9.6% vs. 7.6%, P=0.005). This difference did not persist in the multivariate analysis after controlling for covariates. Elevated ASA physical status classification, age >60, prior bleeding disorder, and preoperative anemia were significantly associated with blood transfusion requirement. More deep venous thrombosis occurred (DVT) with ALIF/DLIF compared to PLIF/TLIF (1.0% vs. 0.6%, P=0.025), which persisted in the multivariate analysis (OR =2.03; 95% CI, 1.13-3.65; P=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous techniques can be utilized in the treatment approach to various lumbar pathologies, anterior approaches have an increased risk of developing a perioperative DVT and early mortality. Transfusion risk is more strongly associated with elevated American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, increased age, preoperative anemia, and patients with bleeding disorders.
Entities:
Keywords:
American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA); Interbody fusion; National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP); anterior lateral interbody fusion (ALIF); posterior lateral interbody fusion (PLIF); transforaminal lateral interbody fusion (TLIF)
Authors: Stavros G Memtsoudis; Vassilios I Vougioukas; Yan Ma; Licia K Gaber-Baylis; Federico P Girardi Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Patrick C Hsieh; Tyler R Koski; Brian A O'Shaughnessy; Patrick Sugrue; Sean Salehi; Stephen Ondra; John C Liu Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2007-10
Authors: E Roseann Andreou; T Koru-Sengul; L Linkins; S M Bates; J S Ginsberg; C Kearon Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2008-07-28 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Salvador A Brau; Rick B Delamarter; Michael L Schiffman; Lytton A Williams; Robert G Watkins Journal: Spine J Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Abhijit Y Pawar; Alexander P Hughes; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi; Darren R Lebl; Frank P Cammisa Journal: Asian Spine J Date: 2015-09-22