Literature DB >> 9563113

5-year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery.

A D Malter1, B McNeney, J D Loeser, R A Deyo.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Population-based cohort study of Washington State patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery for degenerative conditions in 1988.
OBJECTIVES: To compare complications and reoperation rates during the 5-year period after surgery between patients who have undergone lumbar spine fusion surgery and those who have undergone laminectomy or discectomy alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal fusion is associated with wider surgical exposure, more extensive dissection, and longer operative times than lumbar surgery without fusion, and previous studies have shown higher complication rates and hospital charges associated with these more complex procedures. In elderly patients, spinal fusion operations were associated with higher mortality rates than laminectomy or discectomy alone, and reoperation rates were not lower. In the current study, reoperations, mortality, and complications following lumbar spine surgery were examined for the general population.
METHODS: A statewide hospital discharge database was used to identify all Washington patients who underwent spine surgery in 1988 and to determine the rate of reoperation during the subsequent 5 years. Administrative records also were used to identify complications, mortality, and hospital charges associated with the operations. Unadjusted complication and reoperation rates for the groups were compared using chi-square statistics. Adjusted rates were compared using logistic regression and proportional hazards (Cox) regression after controlling for age, gender, prior spine surgery, diagnosis, comorbidity, type of surgery, and coverage by Workers' Compensation.
RESULTS: Of 6376 patients who underwent lumbar surgery for degenerative conditions in Washington in 1988, 1041 (16%) had operations involving spine fusion. Diagnoses of degenerative disc disease or possible instability were more frequent among patients undergoing fusion surgery, whereas herniated discs were more frequent among those undergoing discectomy or laminectomy alone. Complications were recorded in 18% of fusion patients and 7% of nonfusion patients (P < 0.01), but mortality rates did not differ. Unadjusted reoperation rates over the 5-year period were greater for patients who underwent fusion than for patients who underwent nonfusion surgery (18% vs. 15%, respectively), but after adjustment for baseline characteristics, fusion patients had only a slightly greater (and nonsignificant) risk of reoperation (relative risk 1.1, confidence interval .9-1.3).
CONCLUSION: As in previous studies, complications in the current study occurred more frequently among patients who underwent lumbar spine fusion than among those who underwent laminectomy or discectomy alone. Reoperations were at least as frequent after fusion, but the authors could not assess treatment efficacy in terms of pain relief or improved function. Although the characteristics of patients undergoing fusion differed from those undergoing a laminectomy or discectomy alone, there appeared to be sufficient overlap in the clinical populations to warrant closer scrutiny of the safety, efficacy, and indications for spinal fusions, preferably in randomized trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9563113     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199804010-00015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  39 in total

1.  A decade's experience in lumbar spine surgery in Belgium: sickness fund beneficiaries, 2000-2009.

Authors:  Marc Du Bois; Marek Szpalski; Peter Donceel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Radiculopathy associated with disc herniation.

Authors:  P Goupille; D Mulleman; J-P Valat
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 3.  [Spinal surgery in the elderly: does age have an influence on the complication rate?].

Authors:  R Sobottke; G Csécsei; T Kaulhausen; S Delank; J Franklin; E Aghayev; T Zweig; P Eysel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Comparison of a minimally invasive procedure versus standard microscopic discotomy: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Jörg Franke; R Greiner-Perth; H Boehm; K Mahlfeld; H Grasshoff; Y Allam; F Awiszus
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-10       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Authors:  Belinda L Udeh; Shrif Costandi; Jarrod E Dalton; Raktim Ghosh; Hani Yousef; Nagy Mekhail
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 3.183

6.  Reoperation after lumbar disc surgery in two hundred and seven patients.

Authors:  Jiwei Cheng; Hongwei Wang; Wenjie Zheng; Changqing Li; Jian Wang; Zhengfeng Zhang; Bo Huang; Yue Zhou
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Role of a collagen membrane in adhesion prevention strategy for complex spinal surgeries.

Authors:  Jean-Charles LeHuec; Rachid Sadikki; Arnaud Cogniet; Julien Rigal; Hugues Demezon; Stéphane Aunoble
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Reoperation of decompression alone or decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases: a systematic review.

Authors:  Zhao Lang; Jing-Sheng Li; Felix Yang; Yan Yu; Kamran Khan; Louis G Jenis; Thomas D Cha; James D Kang; Guoan Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Complications and Rates of Subsequent Lumbar Surgery Following Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty and Lumbar Fusion.

Authors:  Claire D Eliasberg; Michael P Kelly; Remi M Ajiboye; Nelson F SooHoo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Interspinous posterior devices: What is the real surgical indication?

Authors:  Alessandro Landi
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 1.337

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.