Eddie de Dios1, Robert F Heary2, Lars Lindhagen3, Anna MacDowall4. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden. eddie.dedios@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, NJ, USA. 3. Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 4. Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported 5-year clinical outcomes between laminectomy alone versus laminectomy with instrumented fusion in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy in a population-based cohort. METHODS: All patients in the national Swedish Spine Register (Swespine) from January 2006 until March 2019, with degenerative cervical myelopathy, were assessed. Multiple imputation and propensity score matching based on clinicodemographic and radiographic parameters were used to compare patients treated with laminectomy alone with patients treated with laminectomy plus posterior-lateral instrumented fusion. The primary outcome measure was the European Myelopathy Score, a validated patient-reported outcome measure. The scale ranges from 5 to 18, with lower scores reflecting more severe myelopathy. RESULTS: Among 967 eligible patients, 717 (74%) patients were included. Laminectomy alone was performed on 412 patients (mean age 68 years; 149 women [36%]), whereas instrumented fusion was added for 305 patients (mean age 68 years; 119 women [39%]). After imputation, the propensity for smoking, worse myelopathy scores, spondylolisthesis, and kyphosis was slightly higher in the fusion group. After imputation and propensity score matching, there were on average 212 pairs patients with a 5-year follow-up in each group. There were no important differences in patient-reported clinical outcomes between the methods after 5 years. Due to longer hospitalization times and implant-related costs, the mean cost increase per instrumented patient was approximately $4700 US. CONCLUSIONS: Instrumented fusions generated higher costs and were not associated with superior long-term clinical outcomes. These findings are based on a national cohort and can thus be regarded as generalizable.
PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported 5-year clinical outcomes between laminectomy alone versus laminectomy with instrumented fusion in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy in a population-based cohort. METHODS: All patients in the national Swedish Spine Register (Swespine) from January 2006 until March 2019, with degenerative cervical myelopathy, were assessed. Multiple imputation and propensity score matching based on clinicodemographic and radiographic parameters were used to compare patients treated with laminectomy alone with patients treated with laminectomy plus posterior-lateral instrumented fusion. The primary outcome measure was the European Myelopathy Score, a validated patient-reported outcome measure. The scale ranges from 5 to 18, with lower scores reflecting more severe myelopathy. RESULTS: Among 967 eligible patients, 717 (74%) patients were included. Laminectomy alone was performed on 412 patients (mean age 68 years; 149 women [36%]), whereas instrumented fusion was added for 305 patients (mean age 68 years; 119 women [39%]). After imputation, the propensity for smoking, worse myelopathy scores, spondylolisthesis, and kyphosis was slightly higher in the fusion group. After imputation and propensity score matching, there were on average 212 pairs patients with a 5-year follow-up in each group. There were no important differences in patient-reported clinical outcomes between the methods after 5 years. Due to longer hospitalization times and implant-related costs, the mean cost increase per instrumented patient was approximately $4700 US. CONCLUSIONS: Instrumented fusions generated higher costs and were not associated with superior long-term clinical outcomes. These findings are based on a national cohort and can thus be regarded as generalizable.
Authors: Jetan H Badhiwala; Christopher S Ahuja; Muhammad A Akbar; Christopher D Witiw; Farshad Nassiri; Julio C Furlan; Armin Curt; Jefferson R Wilson; Michael G Fehlings Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Peter Försth; Gylfi Ólafsson; Thomas Carlsson; Anders Frost; Fredrik Borgström; Peter Fritzell; Patrik Öhagen; Karl Michaëlsson; Bengt Sandén Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Abdul Hafid Bajamal; Se-Hoon Kim; Mohammad Reza Arifianto; Muhammad Faris; Eko Agus Subagio; Ben Roitberg; Inyang Udo-Inyang; Jonathan Belding; Mehmet Zileli; Jutty K B C Parthiban Journal: Neurospine Date: 2019-09-30
Authors: Eddie de Dios; Mats Laesser; Isabella M Björkman-Burtscher; Lars Lindhagen; Anna MacDowall Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 2.721