Aims. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for adverse events following the surgical correction of cervical spinal deformities in adults. Methods. We identified adult patients who underwent corrective cervical spinal surgery between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2015 from the MarketScan database. The baseline comorbidities and characteristics of the operation were recorded. Adverse events were defined as the development of a complication, an unanticipated deleterious postoperative event, or further surgery. Patients aged < 18 years and those with a previous history of tumour or trauma were excluded from the study. Results. A total of 13,549 adults in the database underwent primary corrective surgery for a cervical spinal deformity during the study period. A total of 3,785 (27.9%) had a complication within 90 days of the procedure, and 3,893 (28.7%) required further surgery within two years. In multivariate analysis, male sex (odds ratio (OR) 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 0.9); p = 0.019) and a posterior approach (compared with a combined surgical approach, OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.8); p < 0.001) significantly decreased the risk of complications. Osteoporosis (OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); p < 0.001), dyspnoea (OR 1.48 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); p < 0.001), cerebrovascular accident (OR 1.81 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); p < 0.001), a posterior approach (compared with an anterior approach, OR 1.23 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.4); p < 0.001), and the use of bone morphogenic protein (BMP) (OR 1.22 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.4); p = 0.003) significantly increased the risks of 90-day complications. In multivariate regression analysis, preoperative dyspnoea (OR 1.50 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.7); p < 0.001), a posterior approach (compared with an anterior approach, OR 2.80 (95% CI 2.4 to 3.2; p < 0.001), and postoperative dysphagia (OR 2.50 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.4); p < 0.001) were associated with a significantly increased risk of further surgery two years postoperatively. A posterior approach (compared with a combined approach, OR 0.32 (95% CI 0.3 to 0.4); p < 0.001), the use of
We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the safety and efficacy of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) compared with bone graft when used specifically for revision spinal fusion surgery secondary to pseudarthrosis. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched using defined search terms. The primary outcome measure was spinal fusion, assessed as success or failure in accordance with radiograph, MRI or CT scan review at 24-month follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was time to fusion.Objectives
Methods
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% 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:
We evaluated the efficacy of Cite this article:
The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion (presacral ALIF) is not widely reported, particularly with regard to the mid-term outcome. This prospective study describes the clinical outcomes, complications and rates of fusion at a follow-up of two years for 26 patients who underwent this minimally invasive technique along with further stabilisation using pedicle screws. The fusion was single-level at the L5-S1 spinal segment in 17 patients and two-level at L4–5 and L5-S1 in the other nine. The visual analogue scale for pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores were recorded pre-operatively and during the 24-month study period. The evaluation of fusion was by thin-cut CT scans at six and 12 months, and flexion-extension plain radiographs at six, 12 and 24 months. Significant reductions in pain and disability occurred as early as three weeks postoperatively and were maintained. Fusion was achieved in 22 of 24 patients (92%) at 12 months and in 23 patients (96%) at 24 months. One patient (4%) with a pseudarthrosis underwent successful revision by augmentation of the posterolateral fusion mass through a standard open midline approach. There were no severe adverse events associated with presacral ALIF, which in this series demonstrated clinical outcomes and fusion rates comparable with those of reports of other methods of interbody fusion.