Cargando…

A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaye, I. David, Fang, Terry, Wagner, Scott C., Butler, Joseph S., Sebastian, Arjun, Morrissey, Patrick B., Levine, Marc J., Vaccaro, Alex R., Hilibrand, Alan S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645084/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32875833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568219889360
_version_ 1783606592533430272
author Kaye, I. David
Fang, Terry
Wagner, Scott C.
Butler, Joseph S.
Sebastian, Arjun
Morrissey, Patrick B.
Levine, Marc J.
Vaccaro, Alex R.
Hilibrand, Alan S.
author_facet Kaye, I. David
Fang, Terry
Wagner, Scott C.
Butler, Joseph S.
Sebastian, Arjun
Morrissey, Patrick B.
Levine, Marc J.
Vaccaro, Alex R.
Hilibrand, Alan S.
author_sort Kaye, I. David
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only one of the levels or at both. METHODS: A total of 416 patients were identified who underwent 2-level PLF with a TLIF at either one of those levels (n = 183) or at both (n = 233) with greater than 1-year follow-up. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data was reviewed for each patient. These included age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charleston Comorbidity Index, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: Each cohort underwent 24 reoperations. Although the number of overall reoperations was not significantly different (P > .05), among the reoperation types, there were significantly more reoperations for adjacent segment disease in the 2-level group compared to the 1-level group (19 vs 12, P = .04). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between the groups (P > .05). Although both groups experienced significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (P < .001) and Short Form–12 health questionnaire (P < .001), there were no differences between improvements for 1- versus 2-level cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing 2-level PLF in the setting of a TLIF, using a TLIF at one versus both levels does not seem to influence reoperation rates or outcomes. However, reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease are increased in the setting of a 2-level PLF augmented by a 2-level TLIF.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7645084
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76450842020-11-17 A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Kaye, I. David Fang, Terry Wagner, Scott C. Butler, Joseph S. Sebastian, Arjun Morrissey, Patrick B. Levine, Marc J. Vaccaro, Alex R. Hilibrand, Alan S. Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only one of the levels or at both. METHODS: A total of 416 patients were identified who underwent 2-level PLF with a TLIF at either one of those levels (n = 183) or at both (n = 233) with greater than 1-year follow-up. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data was reviewed for each patient. These included age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charleston Comorbidity Index, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: Each cohort underwent 24 reoperations. Although the number of overall reoperations was not significantly different (P > .05), among the reoperation types, there were significantly more reoperations for adjacent segment disease in the 2-level group compared to the 1-level group (19 vs 12, P = .04). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between the groups (P > .05). Although both groups experienced significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (P < .001) and Short Form–12 health questionnaire (P < .001), there were no differences between improvements for 1- versus 2-level cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing 2-level PLF in the setting of a TLIF, using a TLIF at one versus both levels does not seem to influence reoperation rates or outcomes. However, reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease are increased in the setting of a 2-level PLF augmented by a 2-level TLIF. SAGE Publications 2019-11-20 2020-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7645084/ /pubmed/32875833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568219889360 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Kaye, I. David
Fang, Terry
Wagner, Scott C.
Butler, Joseph S.
Sebastian, Arjun
Morrissey, Patrick B.
Levine, Marc J.
Vaccaro, Alex R.
Hilibrand, Alan S.
A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_full A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_fullStr A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_short A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_sort comparison of revision rates and patient-reported outcomes for a 2-level posterolateral fusion augmented with single versus 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645084/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32875833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568219889360
work_keys_str_mv AT kayeidavid acomparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT fangterry acomparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT wagnerscottc acomparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT butlerjosephs acomparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT sebastianarjun acomparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT morrisseypatrickb acomparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT levinemarcj acomparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT vaccaroalexr acomparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT hilibrandalans acomparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT kayeidavid comparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT fangterry comparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT wagnerscottc comparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT butlerjosephs comparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT sebastianarjun comparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT morrisseypatrickb comparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT levinemarcj comparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT vaccaroalexr comparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion
AT hilibrandalans comparisonofrevisionratesandpatientreportedoutcomesfora2levelposterolateralfusionaugmentedwithsingleversus2leveltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion