» Articles » PMID: 29983583

Post-lumbar Discectomy Reoperations That Are Associated with Poor Clinical and Socioeconomic Outcomes Can Be Reduced Through Use of a Novel Annular Closure Device: Results from a 2-year Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Health Services
Date 2018 Jul 10
PMID 29983583
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Lumbar discectomy patients with large annular defects are at a high risk for reherniation and reoperation, which could be mitigated through the use of an annular closure device (ACD). To identify the most effective treatment pathways for this high-risk population, it is critical to understand the clinical outcomes and socioeconomic costs among reoperated patients as well as the utility of ACD for minimizing reoperation risk.

Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of an ACD. All 550 patients (both ACD treated and control) from the RCT with follow-up data through 2 years were included in this analysis (69 reoperated and 481 non-reoperated). Reoperations were defined as any revision surgery of the index level, regardless of indication. Equivalent U.S. Medicare expenditures for reoperations were estimated through cost multipliers derived from the commercially available PearlDiver database.

Results: A significantly greater number of control patients (45/278; 16%) compared to ACD patients (24/272; 9%) underwent a revision surgery at the index level within 2 years of followup (=0.01). At 2 years of follow-up, the reoperated patients had significantly worse Oswestry Disability Index scores and visual analog scale for leg and back pain scores compared to their non-reoperated counterparts (<0.0001). The total estimated direct medical costs for reoperation were US $952,348 ($13,802 per reoperated patient), with control patients accounting for the majority of this cost burden ($565,188; 59%).

Conclusion: Post-discectomy reoperation is associated with significantly increased patient morbidity, missed work, and direct treatment costs in a population at high risk for reherniation. Annular closure helped minimize this clinical and socioeconomic burden by reducing the incidence of reoperation by nearly 50% (16% control vs 9% ACD).

Citing Articles

Comparison and optimization of sheep in vivo intervertebral disc injury model.

Constant C, Hom W, Nehrbass D, Carmel E, Albers C, Deml M JOR Spine. 2022; 5(2):e1198.

PMID: 35783908 PMC: 9238284. DOI: 10.1002/jsp2.1198.


Effectiveness of an Annular Closure Device to Prevent Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Secondary Analysis With 5 Years of Follow-up.

Thome C, Kursumovic A, Klassen P, Bouma G, Bostelmann R, Martens F JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(12):e2136809.

PMID: 34882183 PMC: 8662371. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36809.


Lumbar Discectomy and Reoperation Among Workers' Compensation Cases in Florida and New York: Are Treatment Trends Similar to Other Payer Types?.

Ammerman J, Wind J, Goldsmith M, Inzana J J Occup Environ Med. 2020; 62(9):e478-e484.

PMID: 32890218 PMC: 7478206. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001943.


Predictors of Treatment Success Following Limited Discectomy With Annular Closure for Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Krutko A, Sanginov A, Baykov E Int J Spine Surg. 2020; 14(1):38-45.

PMID: 32128301 PMC: 7043812. DOI: 10.14444/7005.


International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy 2019-Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy.

Lorio M, Kim C, Araghi A, Inzana J, Yue J Int J Spine Surg. 2020; 14(1):1-17.

PMID: 32128297 PMC: 7043814. DOI: 10.14444/7001.


References
1.
Vik A, Zwart J, Hulleberg G, Nygaard O . Eight year outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a comparison of reoperated and not reoperated patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2001; 143(6):607-610; discussion 610-11. DOI: 10.1007/s007010170066. View

2.
DeVine J, Norvell D, Ecker E, Fourney D, Vaccaro A, Wang J . Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(21 Suppl):S69-74. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef6de. View

3.
Sherman J, Cauthen J, Schoenberg D, Burns M, Reaven N, Griffith S . Economic impact of improving outcomes of lumbar discectomy. Spine J. 2009; 10(2):108-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.08.453. View

4.
Lewis R, Williams N, Matar H, Din N, Fitzsimmons D, Phillips C . The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2011; 15(39):1-578. PMC: 4781007. DOI: 10.3310/hta15390. View

5.
Miwa S, Yokogawa A, Kobayashi T, Nishimura T, Igarashi K, Inatani H . Risk factors of recurrent lumbar disk herniation: a single center study and review of the literature. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012; 28(5):E265-9. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828215b3. View