Comparison of Reoperation after Fusion and after Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Single-Center Experience of 987 Cases

Abstract

Background and Study Aim Reoperation for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is technically challenging. Studies comparing preoperative risk factors and reoperation outcomes between spinal fusion and spinal decompression are limited. Thus this study compared fusion and decompression with respect to reoperation rates, preoperative factors related to re-surgery, and clinical outcomes.

Patients and Methods This retrospective cohort study included prospectively collected data from patients who underwent revision surgeries for degenerative LSS between May 2001 and March 2015. The reoperation rate, risk factors (proportional hazards analysis of index surgery), surgery type, main reason for revision, and final clinical outcomes (pain, quality-of-life modification, patient satisfaction, and complication rate) were analyzed and compared between the fusion and decompression surgeries.

Results Among 987 cases during 13 years, 25 cases of reoperation after fusion and 23 cases of reoperation after decompression were identified, accounting for reoperation rates of 5.88% and 4.00%, respectively. Combined comorbidities (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.98 for fusion; multilevel involvement [with fusion, HR: 2.92; decompression, HR: 1.95]) were strongly correlated with preoperative demographic risk factor for each procedure. The main reason for reoperation in fusion cases was proximal junctional kyphosis (40%) and implant failure (20%), and in decompression cases, recurrent lesions (48.8%) and incomplete surgery (17.4%) An additional fusion after initial fusion and re-decompression without fusion after initial decompression were the most common surgical procedure. Back pain and patient satisfaction after fusion were better compared with those after decompression.

Conclusion The reoperation rate, preoperative risk factors, reason for revision, reoperation type, clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and time interval between index and re-surgery were different between the primary fusion and primary decompression. A better understanding of disease pathophysiology and surgical procedure characteristics will facilitate improvement in disease management and the development of treatment strategies.

Keywords

revision surgery - reoperation - microscopic spinal decompression - proximal junctional kyphosis

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 19. Juli 2019

Angenommen: 21. Oktober 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. Mai 2020

• References

• 1 Phillips FM, Slosar PJ, Youssef JA, Andersson G, Papatheofanis F. Lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: a systematic review. Spine 2013; 38 (07) E409-E422
• 2 Abdu RW, Abdu WA, Pearson AM, Zhao W, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN. Reoperation for recurrent intervertebral disc herniation in the spine patient outcomes research trial: analysis of rate, risk factors, and outcome. Spine 2017; 42 (14) 1106-1114
• 3 Bosacco SJ, Gardner MJ, Guille JT. Evaluation and treatment of dural tears in lumbar spine surgery: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (389) 238-247
• 4 Wong CB, Chen WJ, Chen LH, Niu CC, Lai PL. Clinical outcomes of revision lumbar spinal surgery: 124 patients with a minimum of two years of follow-up. Chang Gung Med J 2002; 25 (03) 175-182
• 5 Dai LY, Zhou Q, Yao WF, Shen L. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after discectomy: outcome of repeat discectomy. Surg Neurol 2005; 64 (03) 226-231 ; discussion 231
• 6 Di Martino A, Quattrocchi CC, Scarciolla L, Papapietro N, Beomonte Zobel B, Denaro V. Estimating the risk for symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: analysis from a cohort of patients undergoing revision surgery. Eur Spine J 2014; 23 (Suppl. 06) 693-698
• 7 Brodke DS, Annis P, Lawrence BD, Woodbury AM, Daubs MD. Reoperation and revision rates of 3 surgical treatment methods for lumbar stenosis associated with degenerative scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. Spine 2013; 38 (26) 2287-2294
• 8 Lad SP, Babu R, Ugiliweneza B, Patil CG, Boakye M. Surgery for spinal stenosis: long-term reoperation rates, health care cost, and impact of instrumentation. Spine 2014; 39 (12) 978-987
• 9 Kim CH, Chung CK, Park CS. , et al. Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis: a nationwide cohort study. Spine J 2013; 13 (10) 1230-1237
• 10 Klöckner C, Spur R, Wiedenhöfer B. Importance of sagittal alignment in spinal revision surgery [in German]. Orthopade 2011; 40 (08) 713-718
• 11 Lam FC, Groff MW. Reoperations after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. World Neurosurg 2011; 76 (1-2): 51-53
• 12 Radcliff K, Curry P, Hilibrand A. , et al. Risk for adjacent segment and same segment reoperation after surgery for lumbar stenosis: a subgroup analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 2013; 38 (07) 531-539
• 13 Jones AD, Wafai AM, Easterbrook AL. Improvement in low back pain following spinal decompression: observational study of 119 patients. Eur Spine J 2014; 23 (01) 135-141
• 14 Geiger MF, Bongartz N, Blume C, Clusmann H, Müller CA. Improvement of back and leg pain after lumbar spinal decompression without fusion. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2019; 80 (02) 81-87
• 15 Epstein NE. Lower complication and reoperation rates for laminectomy rather than MI TLIF/other fusions for degenerative lumbar disease/spondylolisthesis: A review. Surg Neurol Int 2018; 9: 55
• 16 Jin-Tao Q, Yu T, Mei W. , et al. Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (05) 1058-1065
• 17 Maruenda JI, Barrios C, Garibo F, Maruenda B. Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 2016; 25 (05) 1550-1557
• 18 Chen KS, Than KD, Lamarca F, Park P. Minimally invasive unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of spinal stenosis and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus 2013; 35 (Suppl. 02) 4
• 19 Lauryssen C. Technical advances in minimally invasive surgery: direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2010; 35 (Suppl. 26) S287-S293
• 20 Zheng F, Cammisa Jr FP, Sandhu HS, Girardi FP, Khan SN. Factors predicting hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion in patients undergoing revision posterior lumbar spine decompression, fusion, and segmental instrumentation. Spine 2002; 27 (08) 818-824
• 21 Epstein NE. More risks and complications for elective spine surgery in morbidly obese patients. Surg Neurol Int 2017; 8: 66
• 22 Leven D, Passias PG, Errico TJ. , et al. Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for intervertebral disc herniation: a subanalysis of eight-year SPORT data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (16) 1316-1325
• 23 Sin AH, Caldito G, Smith D, Rashidi M, Willis B, Nanda A. Predictive factors for dural tear and cerebrospinal fluid leakage in patients undergoing lumbar surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 5 (03) 224-227
• 24 Elsamadicy AA, Adogwa O, Ongele M. , et al. Preoperative hemoglobin level is associated with increased health care use after elective spinal fusion (≥3 levels) in elderly male patients with spine deformity. World Neurosurg 2018; 112: e348-e354
• 25 Morcos MW, Jiang F, McIntosh G. , et al. Predictors of blood transfusion in posterior lumbar spinal fusion: a Canadian Spine Outcome and Research Network Study. Spine 2018; 43 (01) E35-E39
• 26 Masuda K, Higashi T, Yamada K, Sekiya T, Saito T. The surgical outcome of decompression alone versus decompression with limited fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2018; 29 (03) 259-264
• 27 Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine 2007; 32 (03) 382-387