Different Fusion Approaches for Single-level Lumbar Spondylolysis Have Similar Perioperative Outcomes.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Different Fusion Approaches for Single-level Lumbar Spondylolysis Have Similar Perioperative Outcomes.
Autorzy:: Gala RJ; Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Bovonratwet P; Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Webb ML; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Varthi AG; Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Daubs MD; Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV.
Grauer JN; Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Źródło:: Spine [Spine (Phila Pa 1976)] 2018 Jan 15; Vol. 43 (2), pp. E111-E117.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: Hagerstown, MD : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Original Publication: Hagerstown, Md., Medical Dept., Harper & Row.
MeSH Terms:: Lumbar Vertebrae/*surgery
Spinal Fusion/*methods
Spondylolysis/*surgery
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Databases, Factual ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Operative Time ; Retrospective Studies ; Spinal Fusion/adverse effects ; Treatment Outcome
References:: Shah S, Mahmood F, Nagraju K. Herkowitz HN, Rothman RH, Simeone FA, et al. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Rothman-Simeone, the Spine Saunders Elsevier, 5th ed.Philadelphia, PA: 2006.
Kreiner DS, Baisden J, Mazanec DJ, et al. Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine J 2016; 16:1478–1485.
Moller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis—a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25:1711–1715.
Kwon BK, Albert TJ. Adult low-grade acquired spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: evaluation and management. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30:S35–S41.
Wang SJ, Han YC, Liu XM, et al. Fusion techniques for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Arch Orthopaed Trauma Surg 2014; 134:777–784.
Barbanti Brodano G, Lolli F, Martikos K, et al. Fueling the debate: Are outcomes better after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or after posterolateral fusion (PLF) in adult patients with low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis? Evid Based Spine Care J 2010; 1:29–34.
Jiang SD, Chen JW, Jiang LS. Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? Arch Orthopaed Trauma Surg 2012; 132:1259–1266.
Kim JS, Kang BU, Lee SH, et al. Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22:114–121.
Yang EZ, Xu JG, Liu XK, et al. An RCT study comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes with the use of PLIF or TLIF after instrumented reduction in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2016; 25:1587–1594.
Ekman P, Moller H, Tullberg T, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32:2178–2183.
Kim JS, Kim DH, Lee SH. Comparison between instrumented mini-TLIF and instrumented circumferential fusion in adult low-grade lytic spondylolisthesis: can mini-TLIF with PPF Replace circumferential fusion? J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2009; 45:74–80.
Kim JS, Kim DH, Lee SH, et al. Comparison study of the instrumented circumferential fusion with instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion as a surgical procedure for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 2010; 73:565–571.
McGuire RA, Amundson GM. The use of primary internal fixation in spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993; 18:1662–1672.
Molinari RW, Sloboda JF, Arrington EC. Low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis treated with instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in U.S. servicemen. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18 (suppl):S24–S29.
Cheng CL, Fang D, Lee PC, et al. Anterior spinal fusion for spondylolysis and isthmic spondylolisthesis. Long term results in adults. J Bone Joint Surg 1989; 71:264–267.
Spruit M, van Jonbergen JP, de Kleuver M. A concise follow-up of a previous report: posterior reduction and anterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2005; 14:828–832.
Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2014; 25:279–304.
DiPaola CP, Molinari RW. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthopaed Surg 2008; 16:130–139.
Moskowitz A. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthoped Clin North Am 2002; 33:359–366.
Siemionow K, Muschler G. Herkowitz HN, Rothman RH, Simeone FA. Principles of bone fusion. Rothman-Simeone, the Spine Saunders Elsevier, 6th ed.Philadelphia, PA: 2011.
Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Daly D, et al. Approach-related complications of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: results of a combined spine and vascular surgical team. Global Spine J 2016; 6:147–154.
Guyer R, Glenn J. Herkowitz HN, Rothman RH, Simeone FA. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Rothman-Simeone, the Spine Saunders Elsevier, 6th ed.Philadelphia, PA: 2011.
Kim NH, Lee JW. Anterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion with transpedicular fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. A comparison of clinical results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24:812–816. discussion 7.
Riouallon G, Lachaniette CH, Poignard A, et al. Outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults: a continuous series of 65 cases with an average follow-up of 6.6 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99:155–161.
Wang JM, Kim DJ, Yun YH. Posterior pedicular screw instrumentation and anterior interbody fusion in adult lumbar spondylolysis or grade I spondylolisthesis with segmental instability. J Spinal Disord 1996; 9:83–88.
Quirno M, Kamerlink JR, Goldstein JA, et al. Outcomes analysis of anterior-posterior fusion for low grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2011; 69:316–319.
Swan J, Hurwitz E, Malek F, et al. Surgical treatment for unstable low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults: a prospective controlled study of posterior instrumented fusion compared with combined anterior-posterior fusion. Spine J 2006; 6:606–614.
Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:666–674.
Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:1368–1375.
Steinberg SM, Popa MR, Michalek JA, et al. Comparison of risk adjustment methodologies in surgical quality improvement. Surgery 2008; 144:662–667. discussion –7.
ACS-NSQIP. User Guide for the 2012 ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File], 2013. Available at: http://site.acsnsqip.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ACSNSQIP.PUF_.UserGuide.2012.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2014.
Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Hooper NM, et al. The relationship between the American Society Of Anesthesiologists physical rating and outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty: an analysis of theNew Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94:1065–1070.
Buerba RA, Fu MC, Gruskay JA, et al. Obese Class III patients at significantly greater risk of multiple complications after lumbar surgery: an analysis of 10,387 patients in the ACS NSQIP database. Spine J 2014; 14:2008–2018.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for casual effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:15.
Dunn OJ. Multiple comparisons among means. J Am Stat Assoc 1961; 56:12.
Shim JH, Kim WS, Kim JH, et al. Comparison of instrumented posterolateral fusion versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation combined with anterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients with L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and foraminal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15:311–319.
Bohl DD, Basques BA, Golinvaux NS, et al. Nationwide Inpatient Sample and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program give different results in hip fracture studies. Clin Orthopaed Relat Res 2014; 472:1672–1680.
Bohl DD, Russo GS, Basques BA, et al. Variations in data collection methods between national databases affect study results: a comparison of the nationwide inpatient sample and national surgical quality improvement program databases for lumbar spine fusion procedures. J Bone Joint Surg 2014; 96:e193.
Thirukumaran CP, Raudenbush B, Li Y, et al. National trends in the surgical management of adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis: 1998 to 2011. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41:490–501.
Samuel AM, Lukasiewicz AM, Webb ML, et al. Do we really know our patient population in database research? A comparison of the femoral shaft fracture patient populations in three commonly used national databases. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B:425–432.
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20170608 Date Completed: 20190611 Latest Revision: 20220321
Update Code:: 20240104
DOI:: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002262
PMID:: 28591074
: Czasopismo naukowe

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to compare perioperative adverse events for patients with lumbar spondylolysis treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior spinal fusion (PSF), combined anterior and posterior fusion (AP fusion), or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).
Summary of Background Data: Previous cohort studies have shown similar long-term outcomes for different surgical approaches for this indication, but potential differences in 30-day perioperative adverse events have not been well characterized.
Methods: The present study uses data extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Database. Patients undergoing fusion with different approaches for lumbar spondylolysis were identified. Propensity score matching was utilized to account for potential differences in demographic and comorbidity factors. Comparisons among perioperative outcomes were then made among the propensity score-matched study groups.
Results: Of 1077 cases of spondylolysis identified, 556 underwent TLIF, 327 underwent PSF, 108 underwent AP fusion, and 86 underwent ALIF. After propensity score matching, there were no differences in the rates of any of the 30-day individual adverse events studied and no differences in the aggregated groupings of any adverse event, serious adverse event, or minor adverse event. There was a significantly increased operative time in the AP fusion group, but there were no differences in hospital length of stay or readmission rates.
Conclusion: Because perioperative adverse event rates were similar, even with a slightly longer operative time in the AP fusion group, these findings suggest that surgeon preference and long-term outcomes are better used to determine the recommendation of one surgical approach over another for single level fusions for lumbar spondylolysis.
Level of Evidence: 3.

Informacja