Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 6 | Pages 807 - 816
1 Jun 2014
Rajaee SS Kanim LEA Bae HW

Using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified national trends in revision spinal fusion along with a comprehensive comparison of comorbidities, inpatient complications and surgical factors of revision spinal fusion compared to primary spinal fusion. In 2009, there were 410 158 primary spinal fusion discharges and 22 128 revision spinal fusion discharges. Between 2002 and 2009, primary fusion increased at a higher rate compared with revision fusion (56.4% vs 51.0%; p < 0.001). In 2009, the mean length of stay and hospital charges were higher for revision fusion discharges than for primary fusion discharges (4.2 days vs 3.8 days, p < 0.001; USD $91 909 vs. $87 161, p < 0.001). In 2009, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) was used more in revision fusion than in primary fusion (39.6% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001), whereas interbody devices were used less in revision fusion (41.8% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001). . In the multivariable logistic regression model for all spinal fusions, depression (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, p < 0.001), psychotic disorders (OR 1.49, p < 0.001), deficiency anaemias (OR 1.35, p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.10, p = 0.006) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges, adjusting for other variables. In terms of complications, after adjusting for all significant comorbidities, this study found that dural tears (OR 1.41; p < 0.001) and surgical site infections (OR 3.40; p < 0.001) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges (p < 0.001). A p-value < 0.01 was considered significant in all final analyses. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:807–16


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 5 | Pages 585 - 591
1 May 2017
Buckland AJ Puvanesarajah V Vigdorchik J Schwarzkopf R Jain A Klineberg EO Hart RA Callaghan JJ Hassanzadeh H

Aims

Lumbar fusion is known to reduce the variation in pelvic tilt between standing and sitting. A flexible lumbo-pelvic unit increases the stability of total hip arthroplasty (THA) when seated by increasing anterior clearance and acetabular anteversion, thereby preventing impingement of the prosthesis. Lumbar fusion may eliminate this protective pelvic movement. The effect of lumbar fusion on the stability of total hip arthroplasty has not previously been investigated.

Patients and Methods

The Medicare database was searched for patients who had undergone THA and spinal fusion between 2005 and 2012. PearlDiver software was used to query the database by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedural code for primary THA and lumbar spinal fusion. Patients who had undergone both lumbar fusion and THA were then divided into three groups: 1 to 2 levels, 3 to 7 levels and 8+ levels of fusion. The rate of dislocation in each group was established using ICD-9-CM codes. Patients who underwent THA without spinal fusion were used as a control group. Statistical significant difference between groups was tested using the chi-squared test, and significance set at p < 0.05.