Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: Yoji Ogura x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Yoji Ogura, Yoshio Shinozaki, Yoshiomi Kobayashi, Takahiro Kitagawa, Yoshiro Yonezawa, Yohei Takahashi, Kodai Yoshida, Akimasa Yasuda, and Jun Ogawa

OBJECTIVE

The importance of global sagittal alignment is well known. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) generally tend to bend forward to relieve their neurological symptoms, i.e., they have a positive sagittal vertical axis (SVA). We hypothesized that the positive SVA associated with LSS is symptom related and should improve after surgery. However, little is known about the changes in sagittal alignment in LSS patients after decompression surgery. In this study the authors aimed to evaluate midterm radiographical changes in sagittal spinopelvic alignment after decompression surgery for LSS and to determine the factors influencing the improvement in sagittal spinopelvic alignment.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed 89 patients who underwent lumbar decompression without fusion between January 2014 and September 2015 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Standing whole-spine radiographs at the preoperative stage and at the final follow-up were examined. We analyzed SVA, lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), thoracolumbar kyphosis (TLK), and thoracic kyphosis (TK).

RESULTS

LL and TK were significantly increased postoperatively. SVA and PI minus LL (PI-LL) were significantly decreased. There were no significant differences between the preoperative and postoperative PT, PI, SS, or TLK. Twenty-nine patients had preoperative sagittal malalignment with SVA > 50 mm. Thirteen of the 29 patients improved to SVA < 50 mm after decompression surgery. Lower ASA grade, preoperative higher LL, and lower PI-LL were related to patient improvement. A receiver operating characteristic curve for the preoperative PI-LL had an area under the curve value of 0.821, indicating moderate accuracy (p = 0.003). A cutoff value for preoperative PI-LL of 19.2° showed a sensitivity of 93.5% and a specificity of 71.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar decompression can lead to a reactive improvement in the lumbar and global sagittal alignment. However, some of the sagittal malalignment in LSS was irreversible. Preoperative PI-LL was a useful predictor to distinguish reversible from irreversible sagittal malalignment.

Restricted access

Yoji Ogura, Yoshio Shinozaki, Yoshiomi Kobayashi, Takahiro Kitagawa, Yoshiro Yonezawa, Yohei Takahashi, Kodai Yoshida, Akimasa Yasuda, and Jun Ogawa

OBJECTIVE

Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) tend to bend forward to relieve neurological symptoms. They therefore have a positive sagittal vertical axis (SVA). The importance of the SVA value is well known in the field of adult spinal deformity; however, little is known about its impact on LSS. The authors sought to investigate the impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcome and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after decompression surgery for LSS.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed 83 patients who underwent lumbar decompression without fusion between January 2014 and September 2015 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Standing whole-spine radiographs were examined preoperatively and at final follow-up. Based on the SVA, patients were allocated to a sagittal balance group (group B; SVA < 50 mm) or a sagittal imbalance group (group I; SVA ≥ 50 mm). The authors compared the groups using Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the 8-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-8) scores.

RESULTS

Preoperative groups B (group pre-B) and I (group pre-I) included 58 and 25 patients, respectively. Preoperative sagittal malalignment had negative effects on the JOA score recovery rate, postoperative ZCQ physical function domain score, and numeric rating scale (NRS) score of postoperative low-back pain (LBP), but no significant effects were observed for RMDQ and SF-8 domain scores. Postoperatively, groups B (group post-B) and I (group post-I) included 60 and 23 patients, respectively. Group post-I had a significantly worse JOA score recovery rate, postoperative symptom severity domain score in the ZCQ, and NRS score for postoperative LBP. Similarly, the postoperative RMDQ score and the Physical Component Summary score of the SF-8 were significantly worse in group post-I.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive SVA had significantly negative effects on clinical outcome and HRQOL in LSS patients after lumbar decompression surgery.

Restricted access

Yoji Ogura, Jeffrey L. Gum, Portia Steele, Charles H. Crawford III, Mladen Djurasovic, R. Kirk Owens II, Joseph L. Laratta, Morgan Brown, Christy Daniels, John R. Dimar II, Steven D. Glassman, and Leah Y. Carreon

OBJECTIVE

Unexpected nonhome discharge causes additional costs in the current reimbursement models, especially to the payor. Nonhome discharge is also related to longer length of hospital stay and therefore higher healthcare costs to society. With increasing demand for spine surgery, it is important to minimize costs by streamlining discharges and reducing length of hospital stay. Identifying factors associated with nonhome discharge can be useful for early intervention for discharge planning. The authors aimed to identify the drivers of nonhome discharge in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion.

METHODS

The electronic medical records from a single-center hospital administrative database were analyzed for consecutive patients who underwent 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions during the period from 2016 to 2018. Discharge disposition was determined as home or nonhome. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine associations between nonhome discharge and age, sex, body mass index (BMI), race, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, smoking status, marital status, insurance type, residence in an underserved zip code, and operative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 1502 patients were included. The majority (81%) were discharged home. Factors associated with a nonhome discharge were older age, higher BMI, living in an underserved zip code, not being married, being on government insurance, and having more levels fused. Patients discharged to a nonhome facility had longer lengths of hospital stay (5.6 vs 3.0 days, p < 0.001) and significantly increased hospital costs ($21,204 vs $17,518, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased age, greater BMI, residence in an underserved zip code, not being married, and government insurance are drivers for discharge to a nonhome facility after a 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion. Early identification and intervention for these patients, even before admission, may decrease the length of hospital stay and medical costs.

Restricted access

Yoji Ogura, Jeffrey L. Gum, Portia Steele, Charles H. Crawford III, Mladen Djurasovic, R. Kirk Owens II, Joseph L. Laratta, Morgan Brown, Christy Daniels, John R. Dimar II, Steven D. Glassman, and Leah Y. Carreon

OBJECTIVE

Unexpected nonhome discharge causes additional costs in the current reimbursement models, especially to the payor. Nonhome discharge is also related to longer length of hospital stay and therefore higher healthcare costs to society. With increasing demand for spine surgery, it is important to minimize costs by streamlining discharges and reducing length of hospital stay. Identifying factors associated with nonhome discharge can be useful for early intervention for discharge planning. The authors aimed to identify the drivers of nonhome discharge in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion.

METHODS

The electronic medical records from a single-center hospital administrative database were analyzed for consecutive patients who underwent 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions during the period from 2016 to 2018. Discharge disposition was determined as home or nonhome. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine associations between nonhome discharge and age, sex, body mass index (BMI), race, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, smoking status, marital status, insurance type, residence in an underserved zip code, and operative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 1502 patients were included. The majority (81%) were discharged home. Factors associated with a nonhome discharge were older age, higher BMI, living in an underserved zip code, not being married, being on government insurance, and having more levels fused. Patients discharged to a nonhome facility had longer lengths of hospital stay (5.6 vs 3.0 days, p < 0.001) and significantly increased hospital costs ($21,204 vs $17,518, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased age, greater BMI, residence in an underserved zip code, not being married, and government insurance are drivers for discharge to a nonhome facility after a 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion. Early identification and intervention for these patients, even before admission, may decrease the length of hospital stay and medical costs.

Restricted access

Yoji Ogura, Jeffrey L. Gum, Alex Soroceanu, Alan H. Daniels, Breton Line, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Richard A. Hostin, Peter G. Passias, Douglas C. Burton, Justin S. Smith, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Virginie Lafage, Renaud Lafage, Eric O. Klineberg, Han Jo Kim, Andrew Harris, Khaled Kebaish, Frank Schwab, Shay Bess, Christopher P. Ames, Leah Y. Carreon, and the International Spine Study Group (ISSG)

OBJECTIVE

The shared decision-making (SDM) process provides an opportunity to answer frequently asked questions (FAQs). The authors aimed to present a concise list of answers to FAQs to aid in SDM for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.

METHODS

From a prospective, multicenter ASD database, patients enrolled between 2008 and 2016 who underwent fusions of 5 or more levels with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. All deformity types were included to provide general applicability. The authors compiled a list of FAQs from patients undergoing ASD surgery and used a retrospective analysis to provide answers. All responses are reported as either the means or the proportions reaching the minimal clinically important difference at the 2-year follow-up interval.

RESULTS

Of 689 patients with ASD who were eligible for 2-year follow-up, 521 (76%) had health-related quality-of-life scores available at the time of that follow-up. The mean age at the initial surgery was 58.2 years, and 78% of patients were female. The majority (73%) underwent surgery with a posterior-only approach. The mean number of fused levels was 12.2. Revision surgery accounted for 48% of patients. The authors answered 12 FAQs as follows:

1. Will my pain improve? Back and leg pain will both be reduced by approximately 50%.

2. Will my activity level improve? Approximately 65% of patients feel improvement in their activity level.

3. Will I feel better about myself? More than 70% of patients feel improvement in their appearance.

4. Is there a chance I will get worse? 4.1% feel worse at 2 years postoperatively.

5. What is the likelihood I will have a complication? 67.8% will have a major or minor complication, with 47.8% having a major complication.

6. Will I need another surgery? 25.0% will have a reoperation within 2 years.

7. Will I regret having surgery? 6.5% would not choose the same treatment.

8. Will I get a blood transfusion? 73.7% require a blood transfusion.

9. How long will I stay in the hospital? You need to stay 8.1 days on average.

10. Will I have to go to the ICU? 76.0% will have to go to the ICU.

11. Will I be able to return to work? More than 70% will be working at 1 year postoperatively.

12. Will I be taller after surgery? You will be 1.1 cm taller on average.

CONCLUSIONS

The above list provides concise, practical answers to FAQs encountered in the SDM process while counseling patients for ASD surgery.