» Articles » PMID: 32875897

A Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Fusion for Adult Cervical Deformity by Approach Type

Overview
Journal Global Spine J
Publisher Sage Publications
Date 2020 Sep 3
PMID 32875897
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To provide insight into postoperative complications, short-term quality outcomes, and costs of the surgical approaches of adult cervical deformity (ACD).

Methods: A national database was queried from 2007 to 2016 to identify patients who underwent cervical fusion for ACD. Patients were stratified by approach type-anterior, posterior, or circumferential. Patients undergoing anterior and posterior approach surgeries were additionally compared using propensity score matching.

Results: A total of 6575 patients underwent multilevel cervical fusion for ACD correction. Circumferential fusion had the highest postoperative complication rate (46.9% vs posterior: 36.7% vs anterior: 18.5%, < .0001). Anterior fusion patients more commonly required reoperation compared with posterior fusion patients ( < .0001), and 90-day readmission rate was highest for patients undergoing circumferential fusion ( < .0001). After propensity score matching, the complication rate remained higher in the posterior, as compared to the anterior fusion group ( < .0001). Readmission rate also remained higher in the posterior fusion group; however, anterior fusion patients were more likely to require reoperation. At index hospitalization, posterior fusion led to 1.5× higher costs, and total payments at 90 days were 1.6× higher than their anterior fusion counterparts.

Conclusion: Patients who undergo posterior fusion for ACD have higher complication rates, readmission rates, and higher cost burden than patients who undergo anterior fusion; however, posterior correction of ACD is associated with a lower rate of reoperation.

Citing Articles

The impact of osteoporosis on adult deformity surgery outcomes in Medicare patients.

Varshneya K, Bhattacharjya A, Jokhai R, Fatemi P, Medress Z, Stienen M Eur Spine J. 2021; 31(1):88-94.

PMID: 34655336 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-06985-z.

References
1.
Scheer J, Tang J, Smith J, Acosta Jr F, Protopsaltis T, Blondel B . Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013; 19(2):141-59. DOI: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12838. View

2.
Stewart T, Steinmetz M, Benzel E . Techniques for the ventral correction of postsurgical cervical kyphotic deformity. Neurosurgery. 2005; 56(1 Suppl):191-5. DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000144496.36844.7b. View

3.
Park Y, Riew K, Cho W . The long-term results of anterior surgical reconstruction in patients with postlaminectomy cervical kyphosis. Spine J. 2010; 10(5):380-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.006. View

4.
Grosso M, Hwang R, Krishnaney A, Mroz T, Benzel E, Steinmetz M . Complications and Outcomes for Surgical Approaches to Cervical Kyphosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 28(7):E385-93. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318299953f. View

5.
Etame A, Wang A, Than K, La Marca F, Park P . Outcomes after surgery for cervical spine deformity: review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28(3):E14. DOI: 10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09278. View