Browse

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for

  • User-accessible content x
  • By Author: Burch, Shane x
Clear All
Free access

Junseok Bae, Alexander A. Theologis, Russell Strom, Bobby Tay, Shane Burch, Sigurd Berven, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Dean Chou, Christopher P. Ames and Vedat Deviren

OBJECTIVE

Surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) is an effective endeavor that can be accomplished using a variety of surgical strategies. Here, the authors assess and compare radiographic data, complications, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcome scores among patients with ASD who underwent a posterior spinal fixation (PSF)–only approach, a posterior approach combined with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF+PSF), or a posterior approach combined with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF+PSF).

METHODS

The medical records of consecutive adults who underwent thoracolumbar fusion for ASD between 2003 and 2013 at a single institution were reviewed. Included were patients who underwent instrumentation from the pelvis to L-1 or above, had a sagittal vertical axis (SVA) of < 10 cm, and underwent a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Those who underwent a 3-column osteotomy were excluded. Three groups of patients were compared on the basis of the procedure performed, LLIF+PSF, ALIF+PSF, and PSF only. Perioperative spinal deformity parameters, complications, and HRQoL outcome scores (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Scoliosis Research Society 22-question Questionnaire [SRS-22], 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], visual analog scale [VAS] for back/leg pain) from each group were assessed and compared with each other using ANOVA. The minimal clinically important differences used were −1.2 (VAS back pain), −1.6 (VAS leg pain), −15 (ODI), 0.587/0.375/0.8/0.42 (SRS-22 pain/function/self-image/mental health), and 5.2 (SF-36, physical component summary).

RESULTS

A total of 221 patients (58 LLIF, 91 ALIF, 72 PSF only) met the inclusion criteria. Average deformities consisted of a SVA of < 10 cm, a pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch of > 10°, a pelvic tilt of > 20°, a lumbar Cobb angle of > 20°, and a thoracic Cobb angle of > 15°. Preoperative SVA, LL, pelvic incidence–LL mismatch, and lumbar and thoracic Cobb angles were similar among the groups. Patients in the PSF-only group had more comorbidities, those in the ALIF+PSF group were, on average, younger and had a lower body mass index than those in the LLIF+PSF group, and patients in the LLIF+PSF group had a significantly higher mean number of interbody fusion levels than those in the ALIF+PSF and PSF-only groups. At final follow-up, all radiographic parameters and the mean numbers of complications were similar among the groups. Patients in the LLIF+PSF group had proximal junctional kyphosis that required revision surgery significantly less often and fewer proximal junctional fractures and vertebral slips. All preoperative HRQoL scores were similar among the groups. After surgery, the LLIF+PSF group had a significantly lower ODI score, higher SRS-22 self-image/total scores, and greater achievement of the minimal clinically important difference for the SRS-22 pain score.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory radiographic outcomes can be achieved similarly and adequately with these 3 surgical approaches for patients with ASD with mild to moderate sagittal deformity. Compared with patients treated with an ALIF+PSF or PSF-only surgical strategy, patients who underwent LLIF+PSF had lower rates of proximal junctional kyphosis and mechanical failure at the upper instrumented vertebra and less back pain, less disability, and better SRS-22 scores.

Full access

Darryl Lau, Andrew K. Chan, Alexander A. Theologis, Dean Chou, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Shane Burch, Sigurd Berven, Vedat Deviren and Christopher Ames

OBJECTIVE

Because the surgical strategies for primary and metastatic spinal tumors are different, the respective associated costs and morbidities associated with those treatments likely vary. This study compares the direct costs and 90-day readmission rates between the resection of extradural metastatic and primary spinal tumors. The factors associated with cost and readmission are identified.

METHODS

Adults (age 18 years or older) who underwent the resection of spinal tumors between 2008 and 2013 were included in the study. Patients with intradural tumors were excluded. The direct costs of index hospitalization and 90-day readmission hospitalization were evaluated. The direct costs were compared between patients who were treated surgically for primary and metastatic spinal tumors. The independent factors associated with costs and readmissions were identified using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 181 patients with spinal tumors were included (63 primary and 118 metastatic tumors). Overall, the mean index hospital admission cost for the surgical management of spinal tumors was $52,083. There was no significant difference in the cost of hospitalization between primary ($55,801) and metastatic ($50,098) tumors (p = 0.426). The independent factors associated with higher cost were male sex (p = 0.032), preoperative inability to ambulate (p = 0.002), having more than 3 comorbidities (p = 0.037), undergoing corpectomy (p = 0.021), instrumentation greater than 7 levels (p < 0.001), combined anterior-posterior approach (p < 0.001), presence of a perioperative complication (p < 0.001), and longer hospital stay (p < 0.001). The perioperative complication rate was 21.0%. Of this cohort, 11.6% of patients were readmitted within 90 days, and the mean hospitalization cost of that readmission was $20,078. Readmission rates after surgical treatment for primary and metastatic tumors were similar (11.1% vs 11.9%, respectively) (p = 0.880). Prior hospital stay greater than 15 days (OR 6.62, p = 0.016) and diagnosis of lung metastasis (OR 52.99, p = 0.007) were independent predictors of readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary and metastatic spinal tumors are comparable with regard to the direct costs of the index surgical hospitalization and readmission rate within 90 days. The factors independently associated with costs are related to preoperative health status, type and complexity of surgery, and postoperative course.

Free access

Takahito Fujimori, Shinichi Inoue, Hai Le, William W. Schairer, Sigurd H. Berven, Bobby K. Tay, Vedat Deviren, Shane Burch, Motoki Iwasaki and Serena S. Hu

Object

Despite increasing numbers of patients with adult spinal deformity, it is unclear how to select the optimal upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in long fusion surgery for these patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of vertebrae in the upper thoracic (UT) versus lower thoracic (LT) spine as the upper instrumented vertebra in long fusion surgery for adult spinal deformity.

Methods

Patients who underwent fusion from the sacrum to the thoracic spine for adult spinal deformity with sagittal imbalance at a single medical center were studied. The patients with a sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≥ 40 mm who had radiographs and completed the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) preoperatively and at final follow-up (≥ 2 years postoperatively) were included.

Results

Eighty patients (mean age of 61.1 ± 10.9 years; 69 women and 11 men) met the inclusion criteria. There were 31 patients in the UT group and 49 patients in the LT group. The mean follow-up period was 3.6 ± 1.6 years. The physical component summary (PCS) score of the SF-12 significantly improved from the preoperative assessment to final follow-up in each group (UT, 34 to 41; LT, 29 to 37; p = 0.001). This improvement reached the minimum clinically important difference in both groups. There was no significant difference in PCS score improvement between the 2 groups (p = 0.8). The UT group had significantly greater preoperative lumbar lordosis (28° vs 18°, p = 0.03) and greater thoracic kyphosis (36° vs 18°, p = 0.001). After surgery, there was no significant difference in lumbar lordosis or thoracic kyphosis. The UT group had significantly greater postoperative cervicothoracic kyphosis (20° vs 11°, p = 0.009). The UT group tended to maintain a smaller positive SVA (51 vs 73 mm, p = 0.08) and smaller T-1 spinopelvic inclination (−2.6° vs 0.6°, p = 0.06). The LT group tended to have more proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Radiographic PJK was 32% in the UT group and 41% in the LT group (p = 0.4). Surgical PJK was 6.4% in the UT group and 10% in the LT group (p = 0.6).

Conclusions

Both the UT and LT groups demonstrated significant improvement in clinical and radiographic outcomes. A significant difference was not observed in improvement of clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.