» Articles » PMID: 30202709

Incidence of Osteoporosis-Related Complications Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion

Overview
Journal Global Spine J
Publisher Sage Publications
Date 2018 Sep 12
PMID 30202709
Citations 50
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective review.

Objectives: This study investigates the prevalence of adverse postsurgical events, or osteoporosis-related complications (ORCs), following spinal fusion.

Methods: Patients undergoing primary posterior thoracolumbar or lumbar fusion by 1 of 2 surgeons practicing at a single institution were analyzed from 2007 to 2014. ORCs were defined in one of the following categories: revision surgery, compression fracture, proximal junctional kyphosis, pseudarthrosis, or failure of instrumentation. Patients with a bone mineral density of the hips and/or spine performed within 1 year of the index procedure were included. Patients were stratified into normal bone density, osteopenia, and osteoporosis using WHO guidelines. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years at the time of surgery, with infection, malignancy, skeletal dysplasia, neuromuscular disorders, concomitant or staged anterior-posterior procedure, or fusion performed because of trauma.

Results: Out of 140 patients included, the prevalence of normal bone density was 31.4% (44/140), osteopenia 58.6% (82/140), and osteoporosis 10.0% (14/140). There were no differences between groups for gender, age, body mass index, and interbody device rate. The overall prevalence of ORCs was 32.1% (45/140). By group, there was a prevalence of 22.7% (10/44), 32.9% (27/82), and 50.0% (7/14) for normal bone density, osteopenia, and osteoporosis, respectively. These differences were significantly higher for both the osteopenia and osteoporosis groups.

Conclusions: Patients with scores below -1.0 undergoing posterior lumbar fusion have an increased prevalence of ORCs. Consideration of bone density plays a crucial role in patient selection, medical management, and counseling patient expectations.

Citing Articles

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.


Amino Acid Supplementation May Help Prevent Muscle Wasting After Orthopedic Surgery, but Additional Studies Are Warranted: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Brown E, Mohler S, Kviatkovsky S, Blake L, Hill J, Stambough J HSS J. 2025; 15563316241308265.

PMID: 39802328 PMC: 11713956. DOI: 10.1177/15563316241308265.


Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for Cervical Spine Fusion in Patients with Risk Factors for Pseudarthrosis.

Lansford T, Campbell P, Hassanzadeh H, Weinstein M, Wind J, Beaumont A Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2024; 16:122534.

PMID: 39698480 PMC: 11655132. DOI: 10.52965/001c.122534.


A novel T2-weighted series-based modified vertebral bone quality score for evaluating bone mineral density.

Yan S, Liu Y, Yuan L, Du G, Li W, Zeng Y Eur Spine J. 2024; 34(2):506-512.

PMID: 39643705 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-024-08522-0.


Bone Health Optimization in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients: A Narrative Review.

Al-Najjar Y, Quraishi D, Kumar N, Hussain I J Clin Med. 2024; 13(16).

PMID: 39201032 PMC: 11355164. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13164891.


References
1.
Hart R, McCarthy I, OBrien M, Bess S, Line B, Adjei O . Identification of decision criteria for revision surgery among patients with proximal junctional failure after surgical treatment of spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(19):E1223-7. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829fedde. View

2.
Abul-Kasim K, Ohlin A . Evaluation of implant loosening following segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 2 year follow-up with low-dose CT. Scoliosis. 2014; 9:13. PMC: 4149778. DOI: 10.1186/1748-7161-9-13. View

3.
Etebar S, Cahill D . Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg. 1999; 90(2 Suppl):163-9. DOI: 10.3171/spi.1999.90.2.0163. View

4.
Rothman S, Glenn Jr W . CT evaluation of interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985; (193):47-56. View

5.
Fogel G, Toohey J, Neidre A, Brantigan J . Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. Spine J. 2007; 8(4):570-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.03.013. View