» Articles » PMID: 20371784

Trends, Major Medical Complications, and Charges Associated with Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Older Adults

Overview
Journal JAMA
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2010 Apr 8
PMID 20371784
Citations 462
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Context: In recent decades, the fastest growth in lumbar surgery occurred in older patients with spinal stenosis. Trials indicate that for selected patients, decompressive surgery offers an advantage over nonoperative treatment, but surgeons often recommend more invasive fusion procedures. Comorbidity is common in older patients, so benefits and risks must be carefully weighed in the choice of surgical procedure.

Objective: To examine trends in use of different types of stenosis operations and the association of complications and resource use with surgical complexity.

Design, Setting, And Patients: Retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare claims for 2002-2007, focusing on 2007 to assess complications and resource use in US hospitals. Operations for Medicare recipients undergoing surgery for lumbar stenosis (n = 32,152 in the first 11 months of 2007) were grouped into 3 gradations of invasiveness: decompression alone, simple fusion (1 or 2 disk levels, single surgical approach), or complex fusion (more than 2 disk levels or combined anterior and posterior approach).

Main Outcome Measures: Rates of the 3 types of surgery, major complications, postoperative mortality, and resource use.

Results: Overall, surgical rates declined slightly from 2002-2007, but the rate of complex fusion procedures increased 15-fold, from 1.3 to 19.9 per 100,000 beneficiaries. Life-threatening complications increased with increasing surgical invasiveness, from 2.3% among patients having decompression alone to 5.6% among those having complex fusions. After adjustment for age, comorbidity, previous spine surgery, and other features, the odds ratio (OR) of life-threatening complications for complex fusion compared with decompression alone was 2.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.50-3.49). A similar pattern was observed for rehospitalization within 30 days, which occurred for 7.8% of patients undergoing decompression and 13.0% having a complex fusion (adjusted OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.74-2.17). Adjusted mean hospital charges for complex fusion procedures were US $80,888 compared with US $23,724 for decompression alone.

Conclusions: Among Medicare recipients, between 2002 and 2007, the frequency of complex fusion procedures for spinal stenosis increased while the frequency of decompression surgery and simple fusions decreased. In 2007, compared with decompression, simple fusion and complex fusion were associated with increased risk of major complications, 30-day mortality, and resource use.

Citing Articles

Identifying modifiable factors that influence walking in patients undergoing surgery for neurogenic claudication: a prospective longitudinal study.

McIlroy S, Bearne L, Weinman J, Norton S Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):4959.

PMID: 39929935 PMC: 11811296. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-87894-9.


Artificial intelligence for segmentation and classification in lumbar spinal stenosis: an overview of current methods.

Verheijen E, Kapogiannis T, Munteh D, Chabros J, Staring M, Smith T Eur Spine J. 2025; 34(3):1146-1155.

PMID: 39883162 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-025-08672-9.


Retrospective Single-Center Analysis of 5575 Spinal Surgeries for Complication Associations and Potential Future Use of Generated Data.

Materlik Y, Tronnier V, Bonsanto M J Clin Med. 2025; 14(2).

PMID: 39860317 PMC: 11766437. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14020312.


A comparison of MRI and intraoperative measurements to determine interspinous spacer device size.

Nelson C, Liao C, Malik T Pain Pract. 2025; 25(2):e70001.

PMID: 39835417 PMC: 11748108. DOI: 10.1111/papr.70001.


Prevention and Management of Posterior Wound Complications Following Oncologic Spine Surgery: Narrative Review of Available Evidence and Proposed Clinical Decision-Making Algorithm.

Leary O, Setty A, Gong J, Ali R, Fridley J, Fisher C Global Spine J. 2025; 15(1_suppl):143S-156S.

PMID: 39801119 PMC: 11726526. DOI: 10.1177/21925682241237486.


References
1.
Fischgrund J, Mackay M, Herkowitz H, Brower R, MONTGOMERY D, Kurz L . 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998; 22(24):2807-12. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00003. View

2.
Mirza S, Deyo R, Heagerty P, Konodi M, Lee L, Turner J . Development of an index to characterize the "invasiveness" of spine surgery: validation by comparison to blood loss and operative time. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(24):2651-61. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818dad07. View

3.
Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A . Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J. 2003; 12(2):178-89. PMC: 3784840. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-002-0493-8. View

4.
Ciol M, Deyo R, Howell E, Kreif S . An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996; 44(3):285-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00915.x. View

5.
Irwin Z, Hilibrand A, Gustavel M, McLain R, Shaffer W, Myers M . Variation in surgical decision making for degenerative spinal disorders. Part I: lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(19):2208-13. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000181057.60012.08. View