Cargando…
Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures
BACKGROUND: Multilevel cervical pathology can often be addressed via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical fusion (PCF). While posterior procedures may be technically easier for four-level pathology, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches that make i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8980614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35392022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100115 |
_version_ | 1784681429285732352 |
---|---|
author | Joo, Peter Y. Jayaram, Rahul H. McLaughlin, William M. Ameri, Bijan Kammien, Alexander J. Arnold, Paul M. Grauer, Jonathan N. |
author_facet | Joo, Peter Y. Jayaram, Rahul H. McLaughlin, William M. Ameri, Bijan Kammien, Alexander J. Arnold, Paul M. Grauer, Jonathan N. |
author_sort | Joo, Peter Y. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Multilevel cervical pathology can often be addressed via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical fusion (PCF). While posterior procedures may be technically easier for four-level pathology, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches that make it of interest to compare outcomes. The purpose was to compare perioperative adverse events and long-term cervical reoperation rates of four-level ACDF and PCF. METHODS: The 2010 to Q1 2020 PearlDiver MSpine database was queried. Patients undergoing isolated elective four-level ACDF or PCF were identified (excluding cases performed for trauma, neoplasm, and/or infections) and 1:1 matched based on age, sex, and comorbidities. Ninety-day adverse events were compared with univariate and multivariate analyses. Five-year incidences of subsequent cervical reoperations were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 3,714 patients 1:1 matched for four-level ACDF and PCF performed for degenerative pathologies were identified (1,857 for each of the study groups). On multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities, PCF was found to have significantly greater odds ratios (OR) for any (OR 2.12), serious (OR 2.31), and minor (OR 1.95) adverse events, as well as for length of stay ≥3 days (OR 1.76), p<0.001 for each. However, PCF had nearly three times lower odds of dysphagia compared to ACDF (OR 0.36, p<0.001). At five years, four-level ACDF cases were found to have significantly higher reoperation rates compared to four-level PCF cases (26.3% vs 18.3%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In evaluating four-level cervical cases, compared to anterior approach cases, posterior approach procedures were associated with approximately double the odds of any, serious, and minor adverse events, but around one third the rate of dysphagia and two thirds the rate of five-year reoperations. While the pathology may dictate surgical approach, this data suggests that the choice between four-level anterior versus posterior approach becomes a balance of risks/benefit considerations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8980614 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89806142022-04-06 Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures Joo, Peter Y. Jayaram, Rahul H. McLaughlin, William M. Ameri, Bijan Kammien, Alexander J. Arnold, Paul M. Grauer, Jonathan N. N Am Spine Soc J Clinical Studies BACKGROUND: Multilevel cervical pathology can often be addressed via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical fusion (PCF). While posterior procedures may be technically easier for four-level pathology, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches that make it of interest to compare outcomes. The purpose was to compare perioperative adverse events and long-term cervical reoperation rates of four-level ACDF and PCF. METHODS: The 2010 to Q1 2020 PearlDiver MSpine database was queried. Patients undergoing isolated elective four-level ACDF or PCF were identified (excluding cases performed for trauma, neoplasm, and/or infections) and 1:1 matched based on age, sex, and comorbidities. Ninety-day adverse events were compared with univariate and multivariate analyses. Five-year incidences of subsequent cervical reoperations were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 3,714 patients 1:1 matched for four-level ACDF and PCF performed for degenerative pathologies were identified (1,857 for each of the study groups). On multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities, PCF was found to have significantly greater odds ratios (OR) for any (OR 2.12), serious (OR 2.31), and minor (OR 1.95) adverse events, as well as for length of stay ≥3 days (OR 1.76), p<0.001 for each. However, PCF had nearly three times lower odds of dysphagia compared to ACDF (OR 0.36, p<0.001). At five years, four-level ACDF cases were found to have significantly higher reoperation rates compared to four-level PCF cases (26.3% vs 18.3%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In evaluating four-level cervical cases, compared to anterior approach cases, posterior approach procedures were associated with approximately double the odds of any, serious, and minor adverse events, but around one third the rate of dysphagia and two thirds the rate of five-year reoperations. While the pathology may dictate surgical approach, this data suggests that the choice between four-level anterior versus posterior approach becomes a balance of risks/benefit considerations. Elsevier 2022-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8980614/ /pubmed/35392022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100115 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Clinical Studies Joo, Peter Y. Jayaram, Rahul H. McLaughlin, William M. Ameri, Bijan Kammien, Alexander J. Arnold, Paul M. Grauer, Jonathan N. Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures |
title | Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures |
title_full | Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures |
title_fullStr | Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures |
title_full_unstemmed | Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures |
title_short | Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures |
title_sort | four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures |
topic | Clinical Studies |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8980614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35392022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100115 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT joopetery fourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalfusionsperioperativeoutcomesandfiveyearreoperationratesoutcomesafterfourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalprocedures AT jayaramrahulh fourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalfusionsperioperativeoutcomesandfiveyearreoperationratesoutcomesafterfourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalprocedures AT mclaughlinwilliamm fourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalfusionsperioperativeoutcomesandfiveyearreoperationratesoutcomesafterfourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalprocedures AT ameribijan fourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalfusionsperioperativeoutcomesandfiveyearreoperationratesoutcomesafterfourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalprocedures AT kammienalexanderj fourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalfusionsperioperativeoutcomesandfiveyearreoperationratesoutcomesafterfourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalprocedures AT arnoldpaulm fourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalfusionsperioperativeoutcomesandfiveyearreoperationratesoutcomesafterfourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalprocedures AT grauerjonathann fourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalfusionsperioperativeoutcomesandfiveyearreoperationratesoutcomesafterfourlevelanteriorversusposteriorcervicalprocedures |