Rationale of revision lumbar spine surgery.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Elgafy H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3864481 | biostudies-other | 2012 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Study Design Case report. Objective To report a case of remote cerebellar hemorrhage (RCH) without intraoperative dural tear after revision lumbar spine surgery. RCH is a rare postoperative complication following spine surgery. RCH has previously been reported only in cases with intraoperative dural tear or durotomy. Methods Case report and literature review. Results A 58-year-old woman underwent removal of L4-S1 posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) implants and L3-L4 decompressive laminectomy with PSIF. There was no intraoperative dural tear. After doing well initially, the patient developed new neurologic symptoms and was found to have RCH. Lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a large dural defect. After repair of the dura, the patient had dramatic improvement of her neurologic symptoms. At 1-year follow-up, the patient continued to have no neurologic sequelae. Conclusion This report demonstrates that RCH can occur without intraoperative dural tear. Although rare, any patient with new onset of declining neurologic symptoms following spine surgery should have a brain MRI and should have RCH on the differential diagnosis.
| S-EPMC4671890 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the associations between general health expectations and patient satisfaction with treatment for the two common spine surgery procedures diskectomy for lumbar disk herniation (LDH) and decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).DesignRegister study with prospectively collected preoperative and 1-year postoperative data.SettingNational outcome data from Swespine, the national Swedish spine register.ParticipantsA total of 9929 patients, aged between 20 and 85 years, who were self-reported non-smokers, and were operated between 2007 and 2016 for one-level LSS without degenerative spondylolisthesis, or one-level LDH, were identified in the national Swedish spine register (Swespine). We used SF-36 items 11c and 11d to assess future health expectations and present health perceptions. Satisfaction with treatment was assessed using the Swespine satisfaction item.InterventionsOne-level diskectomy for LDH or one-level decompression for LSS.Primary outcome measuresSatisfaction with treatment.ResultsFor LSS, the year 1 satisfaction ratio among patients with negative future health expectations preoperatively was 60% (95% CI 58% to 63%), while it was 75% (95% CI 73% to 76%) for patients with positive future health expectations preoperatively. The corresponding numbers for LDH were 73% (95% CI 71% to 75%) and 84% (95% CI 83% to 85%), respectively.ConclusionsPatients operated for the common lumbar spine diseases LSS or LDH, with negative future general health expectations, were significantly less satisfied with treatment than patients with positive expectations with regard to future general health. These findings are important for patients, and for the surgeons who counsel them, when surgery is a treatment option for LSS or LDH.
| S-EPMC10533696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs the number of cervical spine procedures performed continues to increase, the need for revision surgery is also likely to increase. Surgeons need to understand the etiology of post-surgical changes, as well as have a treatment algorithm when evaluating these complex patients.Questions/purposesThis study aims to review the rates and etiology of revision cervical spine surgery as well as describe our treatment algorithm.MethodsWe used a narrative and literature review. We performed a MEDLINE (PubMed) search for "cervical" and "spine" and "revision" which returned 353 articles from 1993 through January 22, 2014. Abstracts were analyzed for relevance and 32 articles were reviewed.ResultsThe rates of revision surgery on the cervical spine vary by the type and extent of procedure performed. Patient evaluation should include a detailed history and review of the indication for the index procedure, as well as lab work to rule out infection. Imaging studies including flexion/extension radiographs and computed tomography are obtained to evaluate potential pseudarthrosis. Magnetic resonance imaging is helpful to evaluate the disc, neural elements, soft tissue, and to differentiate scar from infection. Sagittal alignment should be corrected if necessary.ConclusionsRecurrent or new symptoms after cervical spine reconstruction can be effectively treated with revision surgery after identifying the etiology, and completing the appropriate workup.
| S-EPMC4342401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Spine surgery and spinal fusion surgery are rising. Revision rates following initial surgery are between 8 and 45%. Epidural fibrosis is a common response to spine surgery for most patients and increases complications in revision surgery. Previous research suggests using MESNA (Sodium 2-mercaptoethane sulfonate) in combination with mechanical blunt dissection safely reduces surgical complications. MESNA is a mucolytic agent which selectively cleaves disulphide bonds involved in the adherence and strength of fibrosis, meaning cutting instruments are not needed. The Chemically Assisted DISSection (CADISS®) System is an optimised non-cutting surgical device, consisting of a reconstitution cartridge for MESNA preparation, irrigated surgical instruments, and a footswitch to control MESNA release. This is the first study to investigate the use of the CADISS® System in revision spine surgery.MethodsThis was a prospective, open label, observational case study. We enrolled 21 patients for revision spine surgery with the CADISS® System at two Belgium sites. The primary assessment was the number of successful removals of epidural fibrosis without cutting. The amount of MESNA used, total dissection and procedure time were recorded. For secondary criterion, the surgeons assessed global satisfaction, facilitation of dissection, quickness of action, usability, bleeding reduction and visualisation of the cleavage plane using an 11-point Likert scale (0-10). Due to the exploratory nature, no formal statistical analysis was planned. We calculated the percentage and confidence interval of successful procedures, the medians and corresponding interquartile range of the Likert criterion, and the mean (±SD) of the amount of MESNA used, CADISS® dissection time and total procedure time.Results24 fibrosis dissections were performed in 19 patients and 23 were successful (95.8%, CI: 78.9%; 99.9%). The mean amount of MESNA used, mean dissection time and procedure time were 16 ml (±4.94), 16.5 min (±16.1) and 86.3 min (±25.1), respectively. No dural tears were reported. The mean global satisfaction score was 9.0 (8.0-9.0). All other Likert criterion had scores of 8.0 or 9.0, excluding quickness of action, which scored 7.0 (6.0-9.0).ConclusionsThe CADISS® System in revision spine surgery has potential to effectively reduce dissection complications.
| S-EPMC9661665 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8361594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh-quality patient information is recommended to help reduce procedure-related anxiety and encourage patients to become active participants in their recovery. The objective of this study was to analyze the quality of patient information leaflets (PILs) given to National Health Service (NHS) patients ahead of lumbar spine surgery.MethodsThe DISCERN tool was used to evaluate the quality of PILs, sourced from NHS websites.ResultsThirty-two PILs on lumbar surgery were included. Two (6%) leaflets were considered poor, 13 (41%) were marked as fair, 14 (44%) were of good quality, and 3 (9%) were scored as excellent. The total mean score was 55 (30-74), which corresponds to good quality. The lowest scoring questions were sources of information (Q4), balanced/unbiased content (Q6), and explanation of no treatment (Q12).ConclusionsThere is considerable variation in the quality of PILs provided ahead of lumbar spine surgery. The scope for improvement is clear, and as the move toward patient-centered, evidence-based care continues, it is important that hospital resources provide recommendations based upon evidence of clinical effectiveness.
| S-EPMC7786772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study designRetrospective cohort.ObjectivesDelayed ejaculation (DE) is a distressing condition characterized by a notable delay in ejaculation or complete inability to achieve ejaculation, and there are no existing reports of DE following lumbar spine surgery. Inspired by our institutional experience, we sought to assess national rates of DE following surgery of the lumbar spine.MethodsWe queried the Optum De-identified Clinformatics Database for adult men undergoing surgery of the lumbar spine between 2003 and 2017. The primary outcome was the development of DE within 2 years of surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with the development of DE.ResultsWe identified 117 918 men who underwent 162 646 lumbar spine surgeries, including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), and more. The overall incidence of DE was 0.09%, with the highest rate among ALIF surgeries at 0.13%. In multivariable analysis, the odds of developing DE did not vary between anterior/lateral lumbar interbody fusion, PLF, and other spine surgeries. A history of tobacco smoking (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.00-2.16, P = .05) and obesity (OR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.00-2.44, P = .05) were associated with development of DE.ConclusionsDE is a rare but distressing complication of thoracolumbar spine surgery, and patients should be queried for relevant symptoms at postoperative visits when indicated.
| S-EPMC9109564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is limited data available on the use of orthoses across varying elective spine surgeries. When previously studied in 2009, inconsistent lumbar postoperative bracing practices were reported. The present study aimed to provide a ten-year update regarding postoperative bracing practices after elective lumbar surgery among United States (U.S.) spine surgeons.MethodsA questionnaire was distributed to attendees of the Lumbar Spine Research Society Annual Meeting (April 2019). The questionnaire collected demographic information, and asked surgeons to identify if they used orthoses postoperatively after ten elective lumbar surgeries. Information regarding type of brace, duration of use, and reason for bracing was also collected. Chi-square tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for comparisons.ResultsSeventy-three of 88 U.S. attending surgeons completed the questionnaire (response rate: 83%). The majority of respondents were orthopaedic surgery-trained (78%), fellowship-trained (84%), and academic surgeons (73%). The majority of respondents (60%) did not use orthoses after any lumbar surgery. Among the surgeons who braced, the overall bracing frequency was 26%. This rate was significantly lower than that reported in the literature ten years earlier (p<0.0001). Respondents tended to use orthoses most often after stand-alone lateral interbody fusions (43%) (p<0.0001). The average bracing frequency after lumbar fusions (34%) was higher than the average bracing frequency after non-fusion surgeries (16%) (p<0.0001). The most frequently utilized brace was an off the shelf lumbar sacral orthosis (66%), and most surgeons braced patients to improve pain (42%). Of surgeons who braced, most commonly did so for 2-4 months (57%).ConclusionMost surgeon respondents did not prescribe orthoses after varying elective lumbar surgeries, and the frequency overall was lower than a similar study conducted in 2009. There continues to be inconsistencies in postoperative bracing practices. In an era striving for evidence-based practices, this is an area needing more attention.
| S-EPMC8820027 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7749911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background contextHealth can impact work performance through absenteeism, time spent away from work, and presenteeism, inhibited at-work performance. Low back pain is common and costly, both in terms of direct medical expenditures and indirect reduced work performance.PurposeSurgery for lumbar spinal pathology is an important part of treatment for patients who do not respond to nonsurgical management. While the indirect costs of return to work and absenteeism among employed patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery have been studied, little work has been done to quantify presenteeism before and after lumbar spine surgery.Study design/settingProspective cohort study at a single high-volume urban musculoskeletal specialty hospital.Patient samplePatients undergoing single-level lumbar spinal fusion and/or decompression surgery.Outcome measuresPresenteeism and absenteeism were measured using the World Health Organization's Health and Work Performance Questionnaire before surgery, as well as 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery.MethodsAverage presenteeism and absenteeism were evaluated at pre-surgical baseline and each follow-up timepoint. Monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism were calculated before surgery and 12 months after surgery. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools with support from Clinical and Translational Science Center grant, UL1TR002384. One author discloses royalties, private investments, consulting fees, speaking/teaching arrangements, travel, board of directorship, and scientific advisory board membership totaling >$300,000.ResultsWe enrolled 134 employed surgical patients, among whom 115 (86%) responded at 6 weeks, 105 (78%) responded at 6 months, and 115 (86%) responded at 12 months. Preoperatively, mean age was 56.4 years (median 57.5), and 41.0% were women; 68 (50.7%) had only decompressions, while 66 (49.3%) had fusions. Among respondents at each time point, 98%, 92%, and 92% were still employed, among whom 76%, 96%, and 96% had resumed working, respectively (median 29 days). Average at-work performance among working patients (who responded at each pair of timepoints) moved from 75.4 to 78.7 between baseline and 6 weeks, 71.8 to 85.9 between baseline and 6 months, and 73.0 to 88.1 between baseline and 12 months. Gains were concentrated among the 52.0% of patients whose at-work performance was declining (and low) leading up to surgery. Average absenteeism was relatively unmoved between baseline and each follow-up. Before surgery, the monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism was 19.8% and 18.9%, respectively; 12 months after surgery, these numbers were 9.7% and 16.0%; changes represent a mitigated loss of 13.0 percentage points of average monthly value.ConclusionsPresenteeism and absenteeism contributed roughly evenly to preoperative average monthly lost time. Although average changes in absenteeism and 6-week at-work performance were small, average changes in at-work performance at 6 and 12 months were significant. Cost-benefit analyses of lumbar spine surgery should therefore consider improved presenteeism, which appears to offset some of the direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment.
| S-EPMC9035193 | biostudies-literature