Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: R. Andrew Glennie x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

John T. Street, R. Andrew Glennie, Nicolas Dea, Christian DiPaola, Zhi Wang, Michael Boyd, Scott J. Paquette, Brian K. Kwon, Marcel F. Dvorak, and Charles G. Fisher

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine if there is a significant difference in surgical site infection (SSI) when comparing the Wiltse and midline approaches for posterior instrumented interbody fusions of the lumbar spine and, secondarily, to evaluate if the reoperation rates and specific causes for reoperation were similar for both approaches.

METHODS

A total of 358 patients who underwent 1- or 2-level posterior instrumented interbody fusions for degenerative lumbar spinal pathology through either a midline or Wiltse approach were prospectively followed between March 2005 and January 2011 at a single tertiary care facility. A retrospective analysis was performed primarily to evaluate the incidence of SSI and the incidence and causes for reoperation. Secondary outcome measures included intraoperative complications, blood loss, and length of stay. A matched analysis was performed using the Fisher's exact test and a logistic regression model. The matched analysis controlled for age, sex, comorbidities, number of index levels addressed surgically, number of levels fused, and the use of bone grafting.

RESULTS

All patients returned for follow-up at 1 year, and adverse events were followed for 2 years. The rate of SSI was greater in the midline group (8 of 103 patients; 7.8%) versus the Wiltse group (1 of 103 patients; 1.0%) (p = 0.018). Fewer additional surgical procedures were performed in the Wiltse group (p = 0.025; OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23–0.95). Proximal adjacent segment failure requiring reoperation occurred more frequently in the midline group (15 of 103 patients; 14.6%) versus the Wiltse group (6 of 103 patients; 5.8%) (p = 0.048). Blood loss was significantly lower in the Wiltse group (436 ml) versus the midline group (703 ml); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in intraoperative complications or length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients who underwent the Wiltse approach had a decreased risk of wound breakdown and infection, less blood loss, and fewer reoperations than the midline patients. The risk of adjacent segment failure in short posterior constructs is lower with a Wiltse approach.

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.