Cargando…

A Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Fusion for Adult Cervical Deformity by Approach Type

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into postoperative complications, short-term quality outcomes, and costs of the surgical approaches of adult cervical deformity (ACD). METHODS: A national database was queried from 2007 to 2016 to identify patients who underwent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Varshneya, Kunal, Medress, Zachary A., Stienen, Martin N., Nathan, Jay, Ho, Allen, Pendharkar, Arjun V., Loo, Sheri, Aikin, Jessica, Li, Gordon, Desai, Atman, Ratliff, John K., Veeravagu, Anand
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8165914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32875897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568220915717
_version_ 1783701408700170240
author Varshneya, Kunal
Medress, Zachary A.
Stienen, Martin N.
Nathan, Jay
Ho, Allen
Pendharkar, Arjun V.
Loo, Sheri
Aikin, Jessica
Li, Gordon
Desai, Atman
Ratliff, John K.
Veeravagu, Anand
author_facet Varshneya, Kunal
Medress, Zachary A.
Stienen, Martin N.
Nathan, Jay
Ho, Allen
Pendharkar, Arjun V.
Loo, Sheri
Aikin, Jessica
Li, Gordon
Desai, Atman
Ratliff, John K.
Veeravagu, Anand
author_sort Varshneya, Kunal
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into postoperative complications, short-term quality outcomes, and costs of the surgical approaches of adult cervical deformity (ACD). METHODS: A national database was queried from 2007 to 2016 to identify patients who underwent cervical fusion for ACD. Patients were stratified by approach type—anterior, posterior, or circumferential. Patients undergoing anterior and posterior approach surgeries were additionally compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 6575 patients underwent multilevel cervical fusion for ACD correction. Circumferential fusion had the highest postoperative complication rate (46.9% vs posterior: 36.7% vs anterior: 18.5%, P < .0001). Anterior fusion patients more commonly required reoperation compared with posterior fusion patients (P < .0001), and 90-day readmission rate was highest for patients undergoing circumferential fusion (P < .0001). After propensity score matching, the complication rate remained higher in the posterior, as compared to the anterior fusion group (P < .0001). Readmission rate also remained higher in the posterior fusion group; however, anterior fusion patients were more likely to require reoperation. At index hospitalization, posterior fusion led to 1.5× higher costs, and total payments at 90 days were 1.6× higher than their anterior fusion counterparts. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo posterior fusion for ACD have higher complication rates, readmission rates, and higher cost burden than patients who undergo anterior fusion; however, posterior correction of ACD is associated with a lower rate of reoperation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8165914
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81659142021-06-07 A Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Fusion for Adult Cervical Deformity by Approach Type Varshneya, Kunal Medress, Zachary A. Stienen, Martin N. Nathan, Jay Ho, Allen Pendharkar, Arjun V. Loo, Sheri Aikin, Jessica Li, Gordon Desai, Atman Ratliff, John K. Veeravagu, Anand Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into postoperative complications, short-term quality outcomes, and costs of the surgical approaches of adult cervical deformity (ACD). METHODS: A national database was queried from 2007 to 2016 to identify patients who underwent cervical fusion for ACD. Patients were stratified by approach type—anterior, posterior, or circumferential. Patients undergoing anterior and posterior approach surgeries were additionally compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 6575 patients underwent multilevel cervical fusion for ACD correction. Circumferential fusion had the highest postoperative complication rate (46.9% vs posterior: 36.7% vs anterior: 18.5%, P < .0001). Anterior fusion patients more commonly required reoperation compared with posterior fusion patients (P < .0001), and 90-day readmission rate was highest for patients undergoing circumferential fusion (P < .0001). After propensity score matching, the complication rate remained higher in the posterior, as compared to the anterior fusion group (P < .0001). Readmission rate also remained higher in the posterior fusion group; however, anterior fusion patients were more likely to require reoperation. At index hospitalization, posterior fusion led to 1.5× higher costs, and total payments at 90 days were 1.6× higher than their anterior fusion counterparts. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo posterior fusion for ACD have higher complication rates, readmission rates, and higher cost burden than patients who undergo anterior fusion; however, posterior correction of ACD is associated with a lower rate of reoperation. SAGE Publications 2020-04-13 2021-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8165914/ /pubmed/32875897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568220915717 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 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
Varshneya, Kunal
Medress, Zachary A.
Stienen, Martin N.
Nathan, Jay
Ho, Allen
Pendharkar, Arjun V.
Loo, Sheri
Aikin, Jessica
Li, Gordon
Desai, Atman
Ratliff, John K.
Veeravagu, Anand
A Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Fusion for Adult Cervical Deformity by Approach Type
title A Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Fusion for Adult Cervical Deformity by Approach Type
title_full A Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Fusion for Adult Cervical Deformity by Approach Type
title_fullStr A Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Fusion for Adult Cervical Deformity by Approach Type
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Fusion for Adult Cervical Deformity by Approach Type
title_short A Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Fusion for Adult Cervical Deformity by Approach Type
title_sort comparative analysis of patients undergoing fusion for adult cervical deformity by approach type
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8165914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32875897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568220915717
work_keys_str_mv AT varshneyakunal acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT medresszacharya acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT stienenmartinn acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT nathanjay acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT hoallen acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT pendharkararjunv acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT loosheri acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT aikinjessica acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT ligordon acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT desaiatman acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT ratliffjohnk acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT veeravaguanand acomparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT varshneyakunal comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT medresszacharya comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT stienenmartinn comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT nathanjay comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT hoallen comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT pendharkararjunv comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT loosheri comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT aikinjessica comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT ligordon comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT desaiatman comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT ratliffjohnk comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype
AT veeravaguanand comparativeanalysisofpatientsundergoingfusionforadultcervicaldeformitybyapproachtype