Dataset Information

Risk factors for 30-day outcomes in elective anterior versus posterior cervical fusion: A matched cohort analysis.

ABSTRACT: Cervical spine fusion is the preferred treatment modality for a variety of degenerative and/or myelopathic disorders. Surgeons select between two approaches (anterior or posterior cervical fusion [ACF; PCF]) based on pathoanatomical features and spinal levels involved. Complications and outcome profiles between the approaches following elective surgery have not been systematically investigated.Adult patients undergoing elective ACF or PCF were extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program years 2011-2014. Five hundred twenty-eight patients (264 ACF and 264 PCF) were matched 1:1 by age, sex, functional status, vertebral levels operated, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Multivariable regression was performed by surgical approach for operation time, complications, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and discharge destination, controlling for body mass index and comorbidities. Mean differences (B), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported.Compared to ACF, PCF was associated with increased odds of blood transfusions >1 unit (OR = 4.31, 95% CI [1.18-15.75]; P = 0.027) and failure to discharge to home (OR = 3.68 [2.17-6.25]; P < 0.001), and increased mean HLOS (B = 1.72 days [1.19-2.26]; P < 0.001). No differences in operation time, other complications, or reoperation rates were found by surgical approach.In a matched cohort analysis by age, sex, functional and physical status, and vertebral levels, elective PCF is associated with increased HLOS and increased likelihood of failing to discharge to home compared to ACF without increased risk of 30-day complications. Increased blood transfusion volume is noted for patients undergoing PCF. Future prospective studies are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Yue JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5634108 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul-Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk factors for 30-day outcomes in elective anterior versus posterior cervical fusion: A matched cohort analysis.

Yue John K JK Upadhyayula Pavan S PS Deng Hansen H Sing David C DC Ciacci Joseph D JD

Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine 20170701 3

<h4>Objective</h4>Cervical spine fusion is the preferred treatment modality for a variety of degenerative and/or myelopathic disorders. Surgeons select between two approaches (anterior or posterior cervical fusion [ACF; PCF]) based on pathoanatomical features and spinal levels involved. Complications and outcome profiles between the approaches following elective surgery have not been systematically investigated.<h4>Methods</h4>Adult patients undergoing elective ACF or PCF were extracted from the ...[more]

PMID: 29021673

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has emerged as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical pathologies. Studies are on-going to assess the long term outcomes of CDA. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of the Prestige(®) LP Disc at 84-months follow up. METHODS:Prospective data from 280 CDA patients with single-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy were compared with 265 historical control ACDF patients. Clinical and radiographic follow up was completed pre-operatively, intraoperatively, and at intervals up to 84 months. RESULTS:Follow-up rate was 75.9% for CDA and 70.0% for ACDF patients. Statistical improvements (p < 0.001) in Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck/arm pain, and SF-36 were achieved by 1.5 months in both groups and maintained through 84 months. At 84 months, 86.1% of CDA versus 80.1% of ACDF patients achieved NDI success, (?15-point improvement over baseline). Mean NDI score improvements exceeded 30 points in both groups. SF-36 PCS/MCS mean improvements were 13.1±11.9/8.2±12.3 points for CDA and 10.7±11.8/8.3±13.6 points for ACDF. Neurological success was 92.8% for CDA and 79.7% for ACDF patients. The rate of Overall Success was 74.9% for CDA and 63.2% for ACDF. At 84 months, 17.5% of CDA and 16.6% of ACDF patients had a possibly implant- or implant-surgical procedure-related adverse event. Eighteen (6.4%) CDA and 29 (10.9%) ACDF patients had a second surgery at the index level. In CDA patients, mean angular motion at the target level was maintained at 24 (7.5°) and 84 (6.9°) months. Bridging bone was reported in 5.9%/9.5%/10.2%/13.0% of CDA patients at 24/36/60/84 months. Change in mean preoperative angulation of the adjacent segment above/below the index level was1.06±4.39/1.25±4.06 for CDA and (-0.23)±5.37/1.25±5.07 for ACDF patients. At 84 months, 90.9% of CDA and 85.6% of ACDF patients were satisfied with the results of their treatment. CONCLUSIONS:Prestige LP maintained significantly improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion; statistical superiority of CDA was concluded for overall success. This investigational device exemption study was sponsored by Medtronic Spinal and Biologics, Memphis, TN. Study approved by the Hughston Sports Medicine Center Institutional Review Board on January 7, 2005. Clinical trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00667459. All participants signed an informed consent.

Project description:ObjectiveMitral valve repair is superior to replacement for degenerative disease, but long-term outcomes of anterior versus posterior leaflet repair remain poorly defined. We propensity matched anterior and posterior repairs to compare long-term outcomes.MethodsPatients undergoing first-time degenerative mitral repair between 1992 and 2018 were identified. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were postprocedural residual mitral regurgitation and reoperation. From 1025 patients, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed, yielding 309 anterior (isolated anterior = 85, bileaflet = 224) and 309 isolated posterior repairs.ResultsAge was 58 ± 15 years, ejection fraction was 57% ± 10%, and matched groups were well balanced. Anterior repairs had longer bypass (122 ± 53 vs 109 ± 43 minutes, P = .001) and crossclamp (94 ± 44 vs 85 ± 62 minutes, P = .033) times. Mean residual mitral regurgitation grade was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.65) for anterior repair and 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) for posterior repair (P = .31). Overall, 92% (569/618) of matched patients had no residual mitral regurgitation, with no differences in mitral regurgitation grade between groups (P = .77). Survival did not differ between anterior (10 years: 72% ± 7%; 15 years: 63% ± 7%) and posterior (10 years: 74% ± 7%; 15 years: 60% ± 8%) groups (log-rank P = .93). Linearized incidence of reoperation was 0.62% per patient-year, including 0.74% for anterior and 0.48% for posterior repairs. Cumulative incidence of reoperation at 15 years was 7.5% after anterior repair and 4.9% after posterior repair (Gray's test P = .26).ConclusionsNo long-term survival or reoperation difference was found between posterior and anterior repair. On the basis of these findings, surgeons at centers of excellence should aim for repair of both anterior and posterior leaflet pathology with the same decision-making threshold over valve replacement for degenerative mitral disease.

Project description:BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion is a standard surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, but reoperations sometimes are performed to treat complications of fusion such as pseudarthrosis and adjacent-segment degeneration. A cervical disc arthroplasty is designed to preserve motion and avoid the shortcomings of fusion. Available evidence suggests that a cervical disc arthroplasty can provide pain relief and functional improvements similar or superior to an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. However, there is controversy regarding whether a cervical disc arthroplasty can reduce the frequency of reoperations.Questions/purposesWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion regarding (1) the overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels; (2) the frequency of reoperation at the index level; and (3) the frequency of reoperation at the adjacent levels.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify RCTs comparing cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and reporting the frequency of reoperation. We also manually searched the reference lists of articles and reviews for possible relevant studies. Twelve RCTs with a total of 3234 randomized patients were included. Eight types of disc prostheses were used in the included studies. In the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group, autograft was used in one study and allograft in 11 studies. Nine of 12 studies were industry sponsored. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and associated 95% CI were calculated for the frequency of reoperation using random-effects or fixed-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A funnel plot suggested the possible presence of publication bias in the available pool of studies; that is, the shape of the plot suggests that smaller negative or no-difference studies may have been performed but have not been published, and so were not identified and included in this meta-analysis.ResultsThe overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels was lower in the cervical disc arthroplasty group (6%; 108/1762) than in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group (12%; 171/1472) (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80; p = 0.002). Subgroup analyses were performed according to secondary surgical level. Compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc arthroplasty was associated with fewer reoperations at the index level (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.68; p < 0.001) and adjacent levels (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.74; p < 0.001).ConclusionsCervical disc arthroplasty is associated with fewer reoperations than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, indicating that it is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, because of some limitations, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Additional studies are needed.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Dataset Information

Risk factors for 30-day outcomes in elective anterior versus posterior cervical fusion: A matched cohort analysis.

Publications

Risk factors for 30-day outcomes in elective anterior versus posterior cervical fusion: A matched cohort analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets