Clinical outcomes in revision lumbar spine fusions: an observational cohort study

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

The authors compared primary lumbar spine fusions with revision fusions by using patient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to evaluate the impact of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based medicine (EBM) lumbar fusion indications on patient-reported outcome measures of revision surgeries.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single quaternary spine surgery service and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. A prospective quality improvement database was constructed that included the data from all elective lumbar spine surgeries, which were categorized prospectively as primary or revision surgeries and EBM-concordant or EBM-discordant revision surgeries based on the NASS coverage EBM policy. In total, 309 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The ODIs of all groups (primary, revision, revision EBM concordant, and revision EBM discordant) were statistically compared. Differences in frequencies between cohorts were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. The unpaired 2-tailed Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric data were used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was performed to determine the associations between independent variables (surgery status and NASS criteria indications) and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Primary lumbar fusions were significantly associated with improved functional outcomes compared with revisions, as evidenced by ODI scores (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16–2.95 to achieve a minimal clinically important difference, p = 0.01). The percentage of patients whose functional status had declined at the 6-month postoperative evaluation was significantly higher in patients who had undergone a revision surgery than in those who underwent a primary surgery (23% vs 12.3%, respectively). An increase in ODI score, indicating worse clinical outcome after surgery, was greater in patients who underwent revision procedures (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.17–3.91, p = 0.0014). Patients who underwent EBM-concordant revision surgery had significantly improved mean ODI scores compared with those who underwent EBM-discordant revision surgery (7.02 ± 5.57 vs −4.6 ± 6.54, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this prospective quality improvement program investigation illustrate that outcomes of primary lumbar fusions were superior to outcomes of revisions. However, revision procedures that met EBM guidelines were associated with greater improvements in ODI scores, which indicates that the use of defined EBM guideline criteria for reoperation can improve clinical outcomes of revision lumbar fusions.

ABBREVIATIONS

ALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusion; AP = anteroposterior; ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists; EBM = evidence-based medicine; LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusion; MCID = minimal clinically important difference; NASS = North American Spine Society; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PA = posteroanterior; PAP = posterior-anterior-posterior; PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion; SCB = substantial clinical benefit; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Illustration from Rothrock et al. (pp 535–545). Copyright Roberto Suazo. Published with permission.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Ravindra VM, Senglaub SS, Rattani A, et al. Degenerative lumbar spine disease: estimating global incidence and worldwide volume. Global Spine J. 2018;8(8):784794.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Deyo RA. Fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative disc disease: still more questions than answers. Spine J. 2015;15(2):272274.

  • 3

    Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB. Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(1):6776.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Thomson S. Failed back surgery syndrome–definition, epidemiology and demographics. Br J Pain. 2013;7(1):5659.

  • 5

    Weir S, Samnaliev M, Kuo T-C, et al. The incidence and healthcare costs of persistent postoperative pain following lumbar spine surgery in the UK: a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e017585.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Godil SS, et al. Incidence of low back pain after lumbar discectomy for herniated disc and its effect on patient-reported outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):19881999.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Malter AD, McNeney B, Loeser JD, Deyo RA. 5-year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(7):814820.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Sato S, Yagi M, Machida M, et al. Reoperation rate and risk factors of elective spinal surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine J. 2015;15(7):15361544.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Diwan AD, Parvartaneni H, Cammisa F. Failed degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34(2):309324.

  • 10

    Bono C, Baisden J, Baker R. NASS Coverage Policy Recommendations: Lumbar Fusion. North American Spine Society; 2014.

  • 11

    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):29402952.

  • 12

    Little DG, MacDonald D. The use of the percentage change in Oswestry Disability Index score as an outcome measure in lumbar spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(19):21392143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Koenders N, Rushton A, Verra ML, et al. Pain and disability after first-time spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(4):696709.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Abdu WA, Sacks OA, Tosteson ANA, et al. Long-term results of surgery compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(23):16191630.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(1):1220.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, et al. Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):14241434.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Monticone M, Baiardi P, Vanti C, et al. Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in Italian subjects with sub-acute and chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(1):122129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Suarez-Almazor ME, Kendall C, Johnson JA, et al. Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(7):783790.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, et al. Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(9):18391847.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Zannikos S, Lee L, Smith HE. Minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit: does one size fit all diagnoses and patients? Semin Spine Surg. 2014;26(1):811.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Guyer RD, Patterson M, Ohnmeiss DD. Failed back surgery syndrome: diagnostic evaluation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(9):534543.

  • 22

    Chen WJ, Lai PL, Chen LH. Adjacent instability after instrumented lumbar fusion. Chang Gung Med J. 2003;26(11):792798.

  • 23

    Ondra SL, Marzouk S. Revision strategies for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2003;15(3):E9.

  • 24

    Cassinelli EH, Wallach C, Hanscom B, et al. Prospective clinical outcomes of revision fusion surgery in patients with pseudarthrosis after posterior lumbar interbody fusions using stand-alone metallic cages. Spine J. 2006;6(4):428434.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Brodke DS, Annis P, Lawrence BD, et al. Reoperation and revision rates of 3 surgical treatment methods for lumbar stenosis associated with degenerative scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):22872294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Geisler FH, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL, et al. Patient selection for lumbar arthroplasty and arthrodesis: the effect of revision surgery in a controlled, multicenter, randomized study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8(1):1316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Eichholz KM, Ryken TC. Complications of revision spinal surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2003;15(3):E1.

  • 28

    Elgafy H, Vaccaro AR, Chapman JR, Dvorak MF. Rationale of revision lumbar spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2012;2(01):714.

  • 29

    Skaf G, Bouclaous C, Alaraj A, Chamoun R. Clinical outcome of surgical treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Surg Neurol. 2005;64(6):483489.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Epstein NE, Hood DC, Bender JF. A comparison of surgeon’s assessment to patient’s self analysis (Short Form 36) after far lateral lumbar disc surgery An outcome study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(20):24222428.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Fritsch EW, Heisel J, Rupp S. The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: a report of 182 operative treatments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(5):626633.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Slipman CW, Shin CH, Patel RK, et al. Etiologies of failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Med. 2002;3(3):200217.

  • 33

    Wong CB, Chen WJ, Chen LH, et al. Clinical outcomes of revision lumbar spinal surgery: 124 patients with a minimum of two years of follow-up. Chang Gung Med J. 2002;25(3):175182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, et al. Preoperative Zung Depression Scale predicts outcome after revision lumbar surgery for adjacent segment disease, recurrent stenosis, and pseudarthrosis. Spine J. 2012;12(3):179185.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Kim SS, Michelsen CB. Revision surgery for failed back surgery syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(8):957960.

  • 36

    Waddell G, Kummel EG, Lotto WN, et al. Failed lumbar disc surgery and repeat surgery following industrial injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(2):201207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Wood K, Buttermann G, Mehbod A, et al. Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(5):773781.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Schwab F, Farcy JP, Bridwell K, et al. A clinical impact classification of scoliosis in the adult. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(18):21092114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, et al. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(6):682688.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Shaffrey CI, et al. The costs and benefits of nonoperative management for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(5):578582.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(6):802808.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):22572270.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    Möller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. A prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(13):17111715.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Kramer KM, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990;15(11):11421147.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    McCulloch JA, Weiner BK. Microsurgery in the lumbar intertransverse interval. Instr Course Lect. 2002;51:233241.

  • 46

    Xu R, McGirt MJ, Parker SL, et al. Factors associated with recurrent back pain and cyst recurrence after surgical resection of one hundred ninety-five spinal synovial cysts: analysis of one hundred sixty-seven consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(10):10441053.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47

    Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, et al. Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ. 2005;330(7502):1233.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48

    Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(23):25212534.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 125 125 125
Full Text Views 44 44 44
PDF Downloads 62 62 62
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0