Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Greg McIntosh x
  • User-accessible content x
  • By Author: Johnson, Michael G. x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

R. Andrew Glennie, Mayilee Canizares, Anthony V. Perruccio, Edward Abraham, Fred Nicholls, Andrew Nataraj, Philippe Phan, Najmedden Attabib, Michael G. Johnson, Eden Richardson, Greg McIntosh, Henry Ahn, Charles G. Fisher, Neil Manson, Kenneth Thomas, and Y. Raja Rampersaud

OBJECTIVE

Patients undergoing spine surgery generally have high expectations for improvement postoperatively. Little is known about how these expectations are affected by the diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to examine whether preoperative expectations differ based on diagnostic pathoanatomical patterns in elective spine surgery patients.

METHODS

Patients with common degenerative cervical/lumbar pathology (lumbar/cervical stenosis, lumbar spondylolisthesis, and cervical/lumbar disc herniation) who had given their consent for surgery were analyzed using the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). Patients reported the changes they expected to experience postoperatively in relation to 7 separate items using a modified version of the North American Spine Society spine questionnaire. Patients were also asked about the most important item that would make them consider the surgery a success. Sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables were also collected.

RESULTS

There were 3868 eligible patients identified within the network for analysis. Patients with lumbar disc herniation had higher expectations for relief of leg pain compared with stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis cohorts within the univariate analysis. Cervical stenosis (myelopathy) patients were more likely to rank general physical capacity as their most important expectation from spine surgery. The multinomial regression analysis showed that cervical myelopathy patients have lower expectations for relief of arm or neck pain from surgery (OR 0.54, 0.34–0.88; p < 0.05). Patient factors, including age, symptoms (pain, disability, depression), work status, and lifestyle factors, were significantly associated with expectation, whereas the diagnoses were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with degenerative spinal conditions consenting for spine surgery have high expectations for improvement in all realms of their daily lives. With the exception of patients with cervical myelopathy, patient symptoms rather than diagnoses had a more substantial impact on the dimensions in which patients expected to improve or their most important expected change. Determination of patient expectation should be individualized and not biased by pathoanatomical diagnosis.

Restricted access

Oliver G. S. Ayling, Raphaele Charest-Morin, Matthew E. Eagles, Tamir Ailon, John T. Street, Nicolas Dea, Greg McIntosh, Sean D. Christie, Edward Abraham, W. Bradley Jacobs, Christopher S. Bailey, Michael G. Johnson, Najmedden Attabib, Peter Jarzem, Michael Weber, Jerome Paquet, Joel Finkelstein, Alexandra Stratton, Hamilton Hall, Neil Manson, Y. Raja Rampersaud, Kenneth Thomas, and Charles G. Fisher

OBJECTIVE

Previous works investigating rates of adverse events (AEs) in spine surgery have been retrospective, with data collection from administrative databases, and often from single centers. To date, there have been no prospective reports capturing AEs in spine surgery on a national level, with comparison among centers.

METHODS

The Spine Adverse Events Severity system was used to define the incidence and severity of AEs after spine surgery by using data from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) prospective registry. Patient data were collected prospectively and during hospital admission for those undergoing elective spine surgery for degenerative conditions. The Spine Adverse Events Severity system defined minor and major AEs as grades 1–2 and 3–6, respectively.

RESULTS

There were 3533 patients enrolled in this cohort. There were 85 (2.4%) individual patients with at least one major AE and 680 (19.2%) individual patients with at least one minor AE. There were 25 individual patients with 28 major intraoperative AEs and 260 patients with 275 minor intraoperative AEs. Postoperatively there were 61 patients with a total of 80 major AEs. Of the 487 patients with minor AEs postoperatively there were 698 total AEs. The average enrollment was 321 patients (range 47–1237 patients) per site. The rate of major AEs was consistent among sites (mean 2.9% ± 2.4%, range 0%–9.1%). However, the rate of minor AEs varied widely among sites—from 7.9% to 42.5%, with a mean of 18.8% ± 9.7%. The rate of minor AEs varied depending on how they were reported, with surgeon reporting associated with the lowest rates (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of major AEs after lumbar spine surgery is consistent among different sites but the rate of minor AEs appears to vary substantially. The method by which AEs are reported impacts the rate of minor AEs. These data have implications for the detection and reporting of AEs and the design of strategies aimed at mitigating complications.