Literature DB >> 8600197

An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations.

M A Ciol1, R A Deyo, E Howell, S Kreif.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study temporal trends and geographic variations in the use of surgery for spinal stenosis, estimate short-term morbidity and mortality of the procedure, and examine the likelihood of repeat back surgery after surgical repair.
DESIGN: Cohort study based on Medicare claims.
SETTING: Hospital care.
SUBJECTS: All Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older who received a lumbar spine operation for spinal stenosis in 1985 or 1989 were followed through 1991 (10,260 patients from the 1985 cohort and 18,655 from the 1989 cohort). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two outcomes were measured: (1) rates of operation for spinal stenosis by state and (2) on an individual level, operative complications (cardiopulmonary, vascular, or infectious), postoperative mortality, and time between first operation and any subsequent reoperation.
RESULTS: Rates of surgery for spinal stenosis increased eightfold from 1979 to 1992 for patients aged 65 and older and varied almost fivefold among US states. Mortality and operative complications increased with age and comorbidity. Complications were more likely for men and for individuals receiving spinal fusions. The 1989 cohort experienced a slightly higher probability of reoperation than the 1985 cohort for the first 3 years of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: A rapid increase in surgery rates for spinal stenosis was identified over a 14-year period. The wide geographic variations and substantial complication rate from this elective surgical procedure (partly related to patient age) suggest a need for more information on the relative efficacy of surgical and nonsurgical treatments for this condition. The risks and benefits of particular surgical procedures for specific clinical and demographic subgroups as well as individual patient preferences regarding surgical risks and possible outcomes should also be evaluated further. These issues are likely to become increasingly important with the aging of the US population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8600197     DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00915.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc        ISSN: 0002-8614            Impact factor:   5.562


  113 in total

1.  Elective lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: is it a high-risk operation?

Authors:  Rudolf Reindl; Thomas Steffen; Lara Cohen; Max Aebi
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna Tosteson; Emily Blood; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly.

Authors:  Robert Gunzburg; Marek Szpalski
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-09-05       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Stabilising effect of dynamic interspinous spacers in degenerative low-grade lumbar instability.

Authors:  Johannes Holinka; Petra Krepler; Michael Matzner; Josef G Grohs
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Computed tomography measurements of the lumbar spinous processes and interspinous space.

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Timmo Koy; Marc Röllinghoff; Jan Siewe; Thomas Kreitz; Daniel Müller; Christopher Bangard; Peer Eysel
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 1.246

6.  Prediction of long-term clinical outcome in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  B Micankova Adamova; S Vohanka; L Dusek; J Jarkovsky; J Bednarik
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Aperius interspinous device for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a review.

Authors:  Ashwanth Ramesh; Frank Lyons; Michael Kelleher
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.042

8.  Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer.

Authors:  Scott L Parker; Louise H Anderson; Teresa Nelson; Vikas V Patel
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-09

9.  Is the sedimentation sign associated with spinal stenosis surgical treatment effect in SPORT?

Authors:  Rachel A Moses; Wenyan Zhao; Lukas P Staub; Markus Melloh; Thomas Barz; Jon D Lurie
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Lumbar Interbody Fusion Outcomes in Degenerative Lumbar Disease : Comparison of Results between Patients Over and Under 65 Years of Age.

Authors:  Dae-Jean Jo; Jae-Kyun Jun; Ki-Tack Kim; Sung-Min Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2010-11-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.