Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Revisions in Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion can be performed without supplemental posterior instrumentation. Previous reports have shown favorable results with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF); however, a reoperation rate of up to 26% has been reported. It remains unclear what perioperative...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | World neurosurgery 2020-02, Vol.134, p.e657-e663 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e663 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | e657 |
container_title | World neurosurgery |
container_volume | 134 |
creator | Rentenberger, Colleen Okano, Ichiro Salzmann, Stephan N. Winter, Fabian Plais, Nicolas Burkhard, Marco D. Shue, Jennifer Sama, Andrew A. Cammisa, Frank P. Girardi, Federico P. Hughes, Alexander P. |
description | Lateral lumbar interbody fusion can be performed without supplemental posterior instrumentation. Previous reports have shown favorable results with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF); however, a reoperation rate of up to 26% has been reported. It remains unclear what perioperative factors are associated with early failure after SA-LLIF. The objective of this study is to determine perioperative factors that increase the risk of early revisions after SA-LLIF.
Data of consecutive patients with SA-LLIF were reviewed. All revisions or recommendations for revision surgery within 12 months after the LLIF procedure were documented. As potential contributors, operative levels, preoperative clinical diagnosis, number of fusion levels, and the average L1/L2 quantitative computed tomography–volumetric bone mineral density value were obtained along with other demographic factors. Cage subsidence (grade 0–III as per Marchi et al.), was also evaluated in patients who had radiographs/computed tomography between 6 and 12 months postoperatively (n = 122). Logistic regression analyses were conducted.
Of 133 eligible patients, 21 (15.8%) underwent revision surgery and 4 (3.0%) were recommended for revision surgery within 1 year primarily because of neurologic symptoms or pain (68%). Baseline demographics showed no significant difference between the revision and the nonrevision group. The average number of levels fused was 2.12 (revision group) and 2.14 (nonrevision group) (P = 0.55). Significantly more patients in the revision group had the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis (64.0% vs. 39.8%; P = 0.04).
Patients with foraminal stenosis were more likely to have early revision surgery after SA-LLIF primarily because of neurologic symptoms/pain. This information can assist in preoperative discussions and management of patient expectations. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.164 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2313378927</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1878875019328025</els_id><sourcerecordid>2313378927</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-a0041daf53fc01e76bdbda1da7c5cf46a685ef2e544652958f92f3ff8445b3fe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMoKjp_wIVk6aZjXk1TcCPiqDCg-FhKSNMbyNhpxqQdmX9v64wuvZvcHL5z4B6EziiZUkLl5WL61UI_ZYSW01GTYg8dU1WoTBWy3P_bc3KEJiktyDCcClXwQ3TEqSwVpcUxen-C6MMKoun8GvCzTx94ZmwXYsIuRHxrYrPBz7D2yYc2Yd_il860dXbdhBbw3HSDtcHzflmZiB_a4VuFeoNn_cifogNnmgST3XuC3ma3rzf32fzx7uHmep5ZwViXGUIErY3LubOEQiGruqrNoBQ2t05II1UOjkEuhMxZmStXMsedU0LkFXfAT9DFNncVw2cPqdNLnyw0jWkh9EkzTjkvVMmKAWVb1MaQUgSnV9EvTdxoSvTYrF7osVk9NvujSTGYznf5fbWE-s_y2-MAXG0BGK5ce4g6WQ-thdpHsJ2ug_8v_xtZe4r8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2313378927</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Revisions in Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Rentenberger, Colleen ; Okano, Ichiro ; Salzmann, Stephan N. ; Winter, Fabian ; Plais, Nicolas ; Burkhard, Marco D. ; Shue, Jennifer ; Sama, Andrew A. ; Cammisa, Frank P. ; Girardi, Federico P. ; Hughes, Alexander P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rentenberger, Colleen ; Okano, Ichiro ; Salzmann, Stephan N. ; Winter, Fabian ; Plais, Nicolas ; Burkhard, Marco D. ; Shue, Jennifer ; Sama, Andrew A. ; Cammisa, Frank P. ; Girardi, Federico P. ; Hughes, Alexander P.</creatorcontrib><description>Lateral lumbar interbody fusion can be performed without supplemental posterior instrumentation. Previous reports have shown favorable results with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF); however, a reoperation rate of up to 26% has been reported. It remains unclear what perioperative factors are associated with early failure after SA-LLIF. The objective of this study is to determine perioperative factors that increase the risk of early revisions after SA-LLIF.
Data of consecutive patients with SA-LLIF were reviewed. All revisions or recommendations for revision surgery within 12 months after the LLIF procedure were documented. As potential contributors, operative levels, preoperative clinical diagnosis, number of fusion levels, and the average L1/L2 quantitative computed tomography–volumetric bone mineral density value were obtained along with other demographic factors. Cage subsidence (grade 0–III as per Marchi et al.), was also evaluated in patients who had radiographs/computed tomography between 6 and 12 months postoperatively (n = 122). Logistic regression analyses were conducted.
Of 133 eligible patients, 21 (15.8%) underwent revision surgery and 4 (3.0%) were recommended for revision surgery within 1 year primarily because of neurologic symptoms or pain (68%). Baseline demographics showed no significant difference between the revision and the nonrevision group. The average number of levels fused was 2.12 (revision group) and 2.14 (nonrevision group) (P = 0.55). Significantly more patients in the revision group had the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis (64.0% vs. 39.8%; P = 0.04).
Patients with foraminal stenosis were more likely to have early revision surgery after SA-LLIF primarily because of neurologic symptoms/pain. This information can assist in preoperative discussions and management of patient expectations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1878-8750</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-8769</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.164</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31698117</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Bone Density ; Bone Diseases, Metabolic - epidemiology ; Bone mineral density ; Comorbidity ; Female ; Foraminal stenosis ; Humans ; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration - epidemiology ; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration - surgery ; Logistic Models ; Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Osteoporosis - epidemiology ; Prosthesis Failure ; Pseudarthrosis - surgery ; Radiculopathy - surgery ; Reoperation - statistics & numerical data ; Retrospective Studies ; Revision ; Risk Factors ; Scoliosis - epidemiology ; Scoliosis - surgery ; Spinal Fusion - methods ; Spinal Stenosis - epidemiology ; Spinal Stenosis - surgery ; Spondylolisthesis - epidemiology ; Spondylolisthesis - surgery ; Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion ; Subsidence ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><ispartof>World neurosurgery, 2020-02, Vol.134, p.e657-e663</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-a0041daf53fc01e76bdbda1da7c5cf46a685ef2e544652958f92f3ff8445b3fe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-a0041daf53fc01e76bdbda1da7c5cf46a685ef2e544652958f92f3ff8445b3fe3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1741-5176</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.164$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31698117$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rentenberger, Colleen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okano, Ichiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salzmann, Stephan N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winter, Fabian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Plais, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burkhard, Marco D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shue, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sama, Andrew A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cammisa, Frank P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Girardi, Federico P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hughes, Alexander P.</creatorcontrib><title>Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Revisions in Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion</title><title>World neurosurgery</title><addtitle>World Neurosurg</addtitle><description>Lateral lumbar interbody fusion can be performed without supplemental posterior instrumentation. Previous reports have shown favorable results with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF); however, a reoperation rate of up to 26% has been reported. It remains unclear what perioperative factors are associated with early failure after SA-LLIF. The objective of this study is to determine perioperative factors that increase the risk of early revisions after SA-LLIF.
Data of consecutive patients with SA-LLIF were reviewed. All revisions or recommendations for revision surgery within 12 months after the LLIF procedure were documented. As potential contributors, operative levels, preoperative clinical diagnosis, number of fusion levels, and the average L1/L2 quantitative computed tomography–volumetric bone mineral density value were obtained along with other demographic factors. Cage subsidence (grade 0–III as per Marchi et al.), was also evaluated in patients who had radiographs/computed tomography between 6 and 12 months postoperatively (n = 122). Logistic regression analyses were conducted.
Of 133 eligible patients, 21 (15.8%) underwent revision surgery and 4 (3.0%) were recommended for revision surgery within 1 year primarily because of neurologic symptoms or pain (68%). Baseline demographics showed no significant difference between the revision and the nonrevision group. The average number of levels fused was 2.12 (revision group) and 2.14 (nonrevision group) (P = 0.55). Significantly more patients in the revision group had the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis (64.0% vs. 39.8%; P = 0.04).
Patients with foraminal stenosis were more likely to have early revision surgery after SA-LLIF primarily because of neurologic symptoms/pain. This information can assist in preoperative discussions and management of patient expectations.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Bone Density</subject><subject>Bone Diseases, Metabolic - epidemiology</subject><subject>Bone mineral density</subject><subject>Comorbidity</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Foraminal stenosis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervertebral Disc Degeneration - epidemiology</subject><subject>Intervertebral Disc Degeneration - surgery</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Osteoporosis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Pseudarthrosis - surgery</subject><subject>Radiculopathy - surgery</subject><subject>Reoperation - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Revision</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Scoliosis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Scoliosis - surgery</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - methods</subject><subject>Spinal Stenosis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Spinal Stenosis - surgery</subject><subject>Spondylolisthesis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Spondylolisthesis - surgery</subject><subject>Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion</subject><subject>Subsidence</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><issn>1878-8750</issn><issn>1878-8769</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMoKjp_wIVk6aZjXk1TcCPiqDCg-FhKSNMbyNhpxqQdmX9v64wuvZvcHL5z4B6EziiZUkLl5WL61UI_ZYSW01GTYg8dU1WoTBWy3P_bc3KEJiktyDCcClXwQ3TEqSwVpcUxen-C6MMKoun8GvCzTx94ZmwXYsIuRHxrYrPBz7D2yYc2Yd_il860dXbdhBbw3HSDtcHzflmZiB_a4VuFeoNn_cifogNnmgST3XuC3ma3rzf32fzx7uHmep5ZwViXGUIErY3LubOEQiGruqrNoBQ2t05II1UOjkEuhMxZmStXMsedU0LkFXfAT9DFNncVw2cPqdNLnyw0jWkh9EkzTjkvVMmKAWVb1MaQUgSnV9EvTdxoSvTYrF7osVk9NvujSTGYznf5fbWE-s_y2-MAXG0BGK5ce4g6WQ-thdpHsJ2ug_8v_xtZe4r8</recordid><startdate>202002</startdate><enddate>202002</enddate><creator>Rentenberger, Colleen</creator><creator>Okano, Ichiro</creator><creator>Salzmann, Stephan N.</creator><creator>Winter, Fabian</creator><creator>Plais, Nicolas</creator><creator>Burkhard, Marco D.</creator><creator>Shue, Jennifer</creator><creator>Sama, Andrew A.</creator><creator>Cammisa, Frank P.</creator><creator>Girardi, Federico P.</creator><creator>Hughes, Alexander P.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1741-5176</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202002</creationdate><title>Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Revisions in Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion</title><author>Rentenberger, Colleen ; Okano, Ichiro ; Salzmann, Stephan N. ; Winter, Fabian ; Plais, Nicolas ; Burkhard, Marco D. ; Shue, Jennifer ; Sama, Andrew A. ; Cammisa, Frank P. ; Girardi, Federico P. ; Hughes, Alexander P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-a0041daf53fc01e76bdbda1da7c5cf46a685ef2e544652958f92f3ff8445b3fe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Bone Density</topic><topic>Bone Diseases, Metabolic - epidemiology</topic><topic>Bone mineral density</topic><topic>Comorbidity</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Foraminal stenosis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervertebral Disc Degeneration - epidemiology</topic><topic>Intervertebral Disc Degeneration - surgery</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Osteoporosis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Pseudarthrosis - surgery</topic><topic>Radiculopathy - surgery</topic><topic>Reoperation - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Revision</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Scoliosis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Scoliosis - surgery</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - methods</topic><topic>Spinal Stenosis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Spinal Stenosis - surgery</topic><topic>Spondylolisthesis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Spondylolisthesis - surgery</topic><topic>Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion</topic><topic>Subsidence</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rentenberger, Colleen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okano, Ichiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salzmann, Stephan N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winter, Fabian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Plais, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burkhard, Marco D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shue, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sama, Andrew A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cammisa, Frank P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Girardi, Federico P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hughes, Alexander P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>World neurosurgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rentenberger, Colleen</au><au>Okano, Ichiro</au><au>Salzmann, Stephan N.</au><au>Winter, Fabian</au><au>Plais, Nicolas</au><au>Burkhard, Marco D.</au><au>Shue, Jennifer</au><au>Sama, Andrew A.</au><au>Cammisa, Frank P.</au><au>Girardi, Federico P.</au><au>Hughes, Alexander P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Revisions in Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion</atitle><jtitle>World neurosurgery</jtitle><addtitle>World Neurosurg</addtitle><date>2020-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>134</volume><spage>e657</spage><epage>e663</epage><pages>e657-e663</pages><issn>1878-8750</issn><eissn>1878-8769</eissn><abstract>Lateral lumbar interbody fusion can be performed without supplemental posterior instrumentation. Previous reports have shown favorable results with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF); however, a reoperation rate of up to 26% has been reported. It remains unclear what perioperative factors are associated with early failure after SA-LLIF. The objective of this study is to determine perioperative factors that increase the risk of early revisions after SA-LLIF.
Data of consecutive patients with SA-LLIF were reviewed. All revisions or recommendations for revision surgery within 12 months after the LLIF procedure were documented. As potential contributors, operative levels, preoperative clinical diagnosis, number of fusion levels, and the average L1/L2 quantitative computed tomography–volumetric bone mineral density value were obtained along with other demographic factors. Cage subsidence (grade 0–III as per Marchi et al.), was also evaluated in patients who had radiographs/computed tomography between 6 and 12 months postoperatively (n = 122). Logistic regression analyses were conducted.
Of 133 eligible patients, 21 (15.8%) underwent revision surgery and 4 (3.0%) were recommended for revision surgery within 1 year primarily because of neurologic symptoms or pain (68%). Baseline demographics showed no significant difference between the revision and the nonrevision group. The average number of levels fused was 2.12 (revision group) and 2.14 (nonrevision group) (P = 0.55). Significantly more patients in the revision group had the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis (64.0% vs. 39.8%; P = 0.04).
Patients with foraminal stenosis were more likely to have early revision surgery after SA-LLIF primarily because of neurologic symptoms/pain. This information can assist in preoperative discussions and management of patient expectations.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31698117</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.164</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1741-5176</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1878-8750 |
ispartof | World neurosurgery, 2020-02, Vol.134, p.e657-e663 |
issn | 1878-8750 1878-8769 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2313378927 |
source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Aged Bone Density Bone Diseases, Metabolic - epidemiology Bone mineral density Comorbidity Female Foraminal stenosis Humans Intervertebral Disc Degeneration - epidemiology Intervertebral Disc Degeneration - surgery Logistic Models Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery Male Middle Aged Osteoporosis - epidemiology Prosthesis Failure Pseudarthrosis - surgery Radiculopathy - surgery Reoperation - statistics & numerical data Retrospective Studies Revision Risk Factors Scoliosis - epidemiology Scoliosis - surgery Spinal Fusion - methods Spinal Stenosis - epidemiology Spinal Stenosis - surgery Spondylolisthesis - epidemiology Spondylolisthesis - surgery Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion Subsidence Tomography, X-Ray Computed |
title | Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Revisions in Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T05%3A06%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Perioperative%20Risk%20Factors%20for%20Early%20Revisions%20in%20Stand-Alone%20Lateral%20Lumbar%20Interbody%20Fusion&rft.jtitle=World%20neurosurgery&rft.au=Rentenberger,%20Colleen&rft.date=2020-02&rft.volume=134&rft.spage=e657&rft.epage=e663&rft.pages=e657-e663&rft.issn=1878-8750&rft.eissn=1878-8769&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.164&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2313378927%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2313378927&rft_id=info:pmid/31698117&rft_els_id=S1878875019328025&rfr_iscdi=true |