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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:World neurosurgery 2020-02, Vol.134, p.e657-e663
Hauptverfasser: 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.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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