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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |