The best method of treating unstable pelvic fractures that involve
the obturator ring is still a matter for debate. This study compared
three methods of treatment: nonoperative, isolated posterior fixation
and combined anteroposterior stabilization. The study used data from the German Pelvic Trauma Registry and
compared patients undergoing conservative management (n = 2394),
surgical treatment (n = 1345) and transpubic surgery, including
posterior stabilization (n = 730) with isolated posterior osteosynthesis
(n = 405) in non-complex Type B and C fractures that only involved the
obturator ring anteriorly. Calculated odds ratios were adjusted
for potential confounders. Outcome criteria were intraoperative
and general short-term complications, the incidence of nerve injuries,
and mortality.Aims
Patients and Methods
Previous surgery is known to increase the risk of complications during spine surgery, but few studies have quantified the dose-response effect using multivariate models to account for confounders. We quantified the effect of the number of prior spine surgeries on perioperative complications in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disorders. We included data from 4′940 patients documented in Eurospine's Spine Tango Registry from 2004 to 2015. Medical history and surgical details were documented on the Tango Surgery form, as were surgical and general medical complications arising between admission and discharge. Multiple logistic regression models were built to investigate the relationship between the number of any previous surgeries and the presence of a perioperative complication, controlling for other potential confounders (age, sex, smoking, BMI, comorbidity, number of vertebral levels affected).Background
Methods
Posterior lumbar fusion is a frequently performed procedure in spinal surgery. High percentages of good and excellent results are indicated by physicians. On the other hand patient-based outcomes are reported. Little is known about the correlations of these two assessment types. We aimed at their comparison. The analysis included 1013 patients with degenerative spinal disease or spondylolisthesis from an international spine registry, treated with posterior lumbar fusion. All patients were pre/postop assessed by physician-based McNab criteria (‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘poor’). Of these patients, 210 (mean age 61 years; 57% females) were in addition assessed by patient-based Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The remaining 803 patients (mean age 59 years; 56% females) were assessed by patient-based Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI), including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain as well as verbal self-rating (‘helped a lot’, ‘helped’, ‘helped only little’, ‘didn’t help’, ‘made things worse’). McNab criteria were compared to the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in ODI (12.8), in VAS back (1.2) and leg pain (1.6). We investigated the correlations between McNab criteria and these patient-based outcomes. In the ‘excellent’ group as rated by physicians, the proposed MCID was reached in 83% of patients for ODI, in 69% for VAS back and in 83% for VAS leg pain. All patients said the treatment had ‘helped’ or ‘helped a lot’. In the ‘good’ group 56% (ODI), 66% (back pain) and 86% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 96% of patients perceived the treatment as positive. In the ‘fair’ group 37% (ODI), 55% (back pain) and 63% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 49% had positive treatment considerations. The ‘poor’ group revealed 30% (ODI), 35% (back pain) and 44% (leg pain) of patients with reached MCID. Only 15% rated the treatment as positive. The Spearman correlation coefficients between McNab criteria on the one hand and ODI, back and leg pain as well as patients’ verbal self-rating on the other hand were 0.57, 0.37, 0.36 and 0.46 respectively. The comparison of physician and patient-based outcomes showed the highest correlations between McNab criteria and ODI, somewhat weaker correlations with patients’ self-rating and the weakest correlations with back and leg pain. Based on these findings, physicians’ evaluation of patient outcomes can be considered a valuable part of patient assessment, corresponding very well with patients’ perceptions of success or failure of spinal surgery.
- lumbar or lumbosacral degenerative spinal stenosis - operative therapy: decompression at least - posterior approach - at least one existing follow-up (FU) - no additional spinal pathology such as deformity, fracture, trauma, spondylolisthesis, inflammation, infection, tumor, or failed surgery This produced 1,493 patients, who were subdivided into three age groups:
<
65 yrs (n=609, 41%), 65–74 yrs (n=487, 33%), and ≥75 yrs (n=397, 26%).
The surgical complication rate in the complete sample was 5.7%. Multivariate logistic regression showed surgery time (p<
0.001), fusion/rigid stabilization (p=0.025) and age group (p=0.043) as a significant co-variates for surgical complications. Group 3 had a 2.1-times higher likelihood for a surgical complication as in group 1. The general complication rate of the complete sample was 2.9%. We found ASA (p=0.002), fusion / rigid stabilization (p=0.022) and age group (p=0.008) as significant influencing factors for general complications. The follow-up complication rate was 10.2% and did not vary significantly between age groups, but multivariate logistic regression showed fusion/rigid stabilization (p<
0.001) and previous surgery (p=0.005) to be significant co-variates for FU complications. Clearly age-related was the duration of hospital admission and level of ASA (both p<
0.001).
Our study and literature leaves no doubt about that aged and very aged patients benefit from surgical treatment. Therefore, although we should be aware of the increased risk for surgical and general complications in this population, high age (>
75 yrs) should not be a main influencing factor in the choice of operative indication and strategy when treating LSS.
Physician administered McNab criteria “excellent, good, fair and poor” were compared to ODI, VAS back- and leg pain and to the patients answer describing the outcome of the operation with the following options: helped a lot, helped, helped only little, didn’t help and made things worse. Then the concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was applied
In the “good” group 86% (MCID: 51.7%) of patients improved regarding ODI, 81% (MCID: 65,7%) regarding back and 93% (MCID: 89.4%) regarding leg pain. 99% of patients said that the treatment helped a lot, helped or helped only little. 65% (MCID: 40%) of patients in the “fair” group had improved ODIs. Even in this group 88% of patients perceived the treatment as helping a lot, helping or helping only little. Moreover in the “poor” group had 60% (MCID: 40%) of patients improved ODIs, 55% (MCID: 40%) alleviated back and 36% (MCID: 30%) reduced leg pain. But only 30% of patient stated that the treatment helped or helped only little. Spearman correlation coefficients for ODI, VAS back, VAS leg and patient’s verbal statement on overall outcome were 0.42, 0.18, 0.27 and 0.53.
Posterior lumbar fusion is one of the most frequent procedures in spinal surgery. This study examined which factors predict physician-based outcomes in posterior lumbar fusion within the international spine registry Spine Tango. This study used prospective consecutive hospital based documentation. Between May 2005 and October 2007 720 patients had been treated with posterior lumbar fusion for degenerative disease or spondylolisthesis. McNab criteria as commonly used physician-based outcomes were chosen as dependent outcome variable. We dichotomised the original McNab criteria combining “excellent” with “good” to “good”, and “fair” with “poor” to “poor”. Multivariate logistic regression was performed on following potential predictor-variables: age, gender, main pathology, number of previous spinal surgeries, number of spinal segments of posterior fusion, operation time, surgeon credentials, follow-up interval. Median age was 63 years (range 13–90 yrs) with a female to male ratio of 6.3:3.7. Number of previous spinal surgeries (p<
0.001) and follow-up interval (p<
0.001) were found to be predictors of the dichotomised McNab criteria. Patients without previous spinal surgery showed the highest ratio of “good” to “poor” outcome (80.5%:19.5%). This ratio was almost consistently decreasing with the number of previous spinal surgeries to 40%:60% in patients with more than five previous surgeries. At six and twelve-weeks follow-up outcomes were significantly better than after one year, without significant differences between other follow-up intervals. Other examined co-variables showed no influence on the outcomes. Predictors of physician-based outcomes in posterior lumbar fusion are “number of previous spinal surgeries” and “follow-up interval”. In patients with more than five previous spinal surgeries a higher likelihood of “poor” outcomes should be taken into consideration. A too positive outcome may occur at six or twelve-week’s follow-up.
hospital and number of segments of fusion. In fusions of four and more segments a threefold higher risk of dural tears in comparison to fusions of less than four segments should be taken into consideration. A subgroup analysis on the predictor-variable hospital should be performed assessing further covariates. However, this goes beyond the possibilities of documentation in this international spine registry.
The area of the dural sac and neuroforamina was examined with MRI for the narrowest spinal segment. ODI and VAS were used for clinical assessment.