Dataset Information

True Differences in Poor Outcome Risks Between Revision and Primary Lumbar Spine Surgeries.

ABSTRACT: Background: Previous studies have shown that the rates of complications associated with revision spine surgery are higher than those of primary spine surgery. However, there is a lack of research exploring the difference in magnitude of risk of poor outcomes between primary and revision lumbar spine surgeries. Purposes: We sought to compare the risks of poor outcomes for primary and revision lumbar spine surgeries and to analyze different measures of risk to better understand the true differences between the 2 forms of surgery. Methods: This retrospective observational study used data from the Quality Outcomes Database Lumbar Spine Surgical Registry from 2012 to 2018. We included individuals who received primary or revision surgery due to degenerative lumbar disorders. Outcome variables collected were complications within 30 days of surgery and 3 destination variables, specifically, (1) 30-day hospital readmission, (2) 30-day return to operating room, and (3) revision surgery within 3 months. Measures of risk considered were odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), relative risk increase (RRI), and absolute risk increase (ARI). Results: There were 31,843 individuals who received primary surgery and 7889 who received revision surgery. After controlling for baseline descriptive variables and comorbidities, revision surgery increased the odds of 4 complications and all 3 destination variables. Risk ratios reflected smaller magnitudes but similar findings as the statistically significant ORs. Conclusion: Revision surgery is related to higher overall risks than primary surgery, but the true magnitudes of these risks are very small. RRI and ARI should be included when reporting ORs to better clarify the significance.

SUBMITTER: Cook CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8361594 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe quality of the vertebral body structures such as endplate, cortex, and trabecular bone is important for understanding the performance of implants, particularly at the bone-implant interface. Although vertebral body structures have been analyzed separately in the literature, there is no comprehensive study to assess these anatomical measurements along with their interrelationships in the lumbar spine. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess variations in trabecular microstructure, vertebral endplate thickness and concavity, and vertebral body cortex thickness within the lumbar spine.MethodsA total of 80 lumbar vertebrae (L1-L5) were dissected from 16 human cadaver specimens and imaged with microcomputed tomography to determine trabecular microstructure, vertebral cortex thickness, endplate thickness, and maximum endplate concavity depth. A paired t test and regression analysis were used to determine significant differences (P < .05) between different vertebral levels and correlations between the analyzed anatomical parameters.ResultsL1 vertebra had significantly better (P?<?.02) trabecular bone microstructure (eg, trabecular bone volume fraction) than all other lumbar vertebrae. However, L1 vertebra also had significantly thinner (P???.02) anterior, left, and right cortices compared to all other vertebral levels. Within L3-L5 intervertebral disc spaces, cranial endplates had significantly greater (P???.03) thickness and maximum concavity depth compared to their respective caudal endplates. No strong correlations were observed between trabecular bone microstructure, maximum endplate concavity depth, vertebral cortex, and endplate thickness parameters.ConclusionsDetailed reference data of these anatomical parameters for each lumbar vertebral body can aid in improved understanding of bone quality, particularly when assessing different implant designs and fixation approaches. Moreover, such anatomical knowledge may help clinicians with optimal implant design selection and surgical placement of these devices into their respective locations.

Project description:PurposeMany minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques have been developed for instrumentation of spine. These MIS techniques restore stability, alignment while achieving return to function quite early as compared to open spine surgeries. The main aim of this review was to evaluate role, indications and complications of these MIS techniques in Thoracolumbar and Lumbar fractures.MethodsPubmed search using key words such as"Percutaneous pedicle screw for Thoracolumbar fractures" and "Video Assisted Thoracoscopy, Thoracoscopic, VATS for thoracolumbar, Lumbar and Spine fractures" were used till July 2016 while doing literature search. Authors analyzed all the articles, which came after search; the articles relevant to the topic were selected and used for the study. Both prospective and retrospective case control studies and randomized control trials (RCT's) were included in this review. Case reports and reviews were excluded. Studies demonstrating use of MIS in cases other than spine trauma and studies with lack of clinical follow up were excluded from this review. Variables such as number of patients, operative time and complications were evaluated in each study.ResultsAfter pubmed search, we found total 68 studies till July 2016 out of which eight studies were relevant for analysis of Video Assisted Thoracoscopy for thoracolumbar and lumbar fractures. Total 72 articles for Percutaneous pedicle screws in thoracolumbar and lumbar fractures were retrieved out of which percutaneous pedicle screws were analyzed in eleven studies and twelve studies involved comparison of percutaneous pedicle screws and conventional open techniques.ConclusionRole and Indications of the MIS techniques in spinal trauma are expanding quite rapidly. MIS techniques restore stability, alignment while achieving early return to function and lower infection rates as compared to open spine surgeries. In long term, they provide good kyphosis correction and stable fixation and fusion of spine. They are associated with long learning curve and technical challenges but with careful patient selection and in expert hands, MIS techniques may produce better results than open trauma spine surgeries.

Dataset Information

True Differences in Poor Outcome Risks Between Revision and Primary Lumbar Spine Surgeries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets