Kris Siemionow1, William Smith2, Mark Gillespy3, Bruce M McCormack4, Mukund I Gundanna5, Jon E Block6. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Western Regional Center for Brain & Spine Surgery, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 3. Orthopaedic Clinic of Daytona Beach, Daytona Beach, FL, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Brazos Spine, College Station, TX, USA. 6. San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using a multi-center medical device registry, we prospectively collected a set of perioperative and clinical outcomes among patients treated with tissue-sparing, posteriorly-placed intervertebral cage fusion used in the management of symptomatic, degenerative neural compressive disorders of the cervical spine. METHODS: Cervical fusion utilizing posteriorly-placed intervertebral cages offers a tissue-sparing alternative to traditional instrumentation for the treatment of symptomatic cervical radiculopathy. A registry was established to prospectively collect perioperative and clinical data in a real-world clinical practice setting for patients treated via this approach. This study evaluated length of stay as well as estimated blood loss and procedural time in 271 registry patients. RESULTS: The median length of stay was 1.1, 1.1 and 1.2 days for patients having a stand-alone arthrodesis, revision of a pseudoarthrosis, and circumferential fusion (360°), respectively, and was not related to number of levels treated. Historical comparison to published literature demonstrated that average lengths of stay associated with open, posterior lateral mass fixation were consistently ≥4 days. Average blood loss (range, 32-75 mL) and procedural time (range, 51-88 min) were also diminished in patients having tissue-sparing, cervical intervertebral cage fusion compared to open posterior lateral mass fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of this tissue-sparing procedure may offer substantial cost-constraining benefits by reducing the length of post-operative hospitalization by, at least, 3 days compared to traditional lateral mass fixation.
BACKGROUND: Using a multi-center medical device registry, we prospectively collected a set of perioperative and clinical outcomes among patients treated with tissue-sparing, posteriorly-placed intervertebral cage fusion used in the management of symptomatic, degenerative neural compressive disorders of the cervical spine. METHODS: Cervical fusion utilizing posteriorly-placed intervertebral cages offers a tissue-sparing alternative to traditional instrumentation for the treatment of symptomatic cervical radiculopathy. A registry was established to prospectively collect perioperative and clinical data in a real-world clinical practice setting for patients treated via this approach. This study evaluated length of stay as well as estimated blood loss and procedural time in 271 registry patients. RESULTS: The median length of stay was 1.1, 1.1 and 1.2 days for patients having a stand-alone arthrodesis, revision of a pseudoarthrosis, and circumferential fusion (360°), respectively, and was not related to number of levels treated. Historical comparison to published literature demonstrated that average lengths of stay associated with open, posterior lateral mass fixation were consistently ≥4 days. Average blood loss (range, 32-75 mL) and procedural time (range, 51-88 min) were also diminished in patients having tissue-sparing, cervical intervertebral cage fusion compared to open posterior lateral mass fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of this tissue-sparing procedure may offer substantial cost-constraining benefits by reducing the length of post-operative hospitalization by, at least, 3 days compared to traditional lateral mass fixation.
Entities:
Keywords:
CAVUX; Cervical fusion; DTRAX; cages; cervical radiculopathy; length of stay; minimally invasive surgery
Authors: Michael G Fehlings; Carlo Santaguida; Lindsay Tetreault; Paul Arnold; Giuseppe Barbagallo; Helton Defino; Shashank Kale; Qiang Zhou; Tim S Yoon; Branko Kopjar Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-09-03 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Jordan A Gruskay; Michael Fu; Bryce A Basques; Daniel D Bohl; Rafael A Buerba; Matthew L Webb; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: Clin Spine Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Judith A Turner; Bryan A Comstock; William Hollingworth; Sean D Sullivan Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Daniel T Warren; Pedro A Ricart-Hoffiz; Tate M Andres; Christian M Hoelscher; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Jeffrey A Goldstein; John A Bendo Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2013-12-01