Towards a More Realistic Appraisal of Complications Following Staged Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Single Institution Series

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

With steadily increasing implementation of far lateral approaches in spine surgery, surgeons can utilize the advantages of different approaches synergistically to ensure an optimal patient outcome. Our single institution study aimed to assess the complication rates of patients who underwent a lateral interbody fusion as the index procedure and additional anterior or posterior instrumentation as part of a planned staged surgical reconstruction effort.

METHODS

This study was approved by our institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We included 576 patients who received a lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as the index procedure followed by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) between 2016 and 2020. Primary outcomes were complications identified during the initial inpatient stay, which were categorized into approach-related and secondary complications. Secondary outcomes tracked up to 6 years post-surgery.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was 19.2% (10.5% approach related, 8.7% secondary complications). Significant intraoperative hemorrhage (mean 659.3 mL vs 131.4 mL, P < .01) was the most common approach related complication with an incidence of 4%, followed by temporary hip flexor weakness in 2.6%. A permanent (femoral) nerve damage was verified in 1 patient. The most common secondary complication was impaired wound healing in 12 patients (2.1%). We identified a 7.1% (41 of 576 patients) rate of revision surgery, on average after 372 days (±34 days).

CONCLUSIONS

We recorded an overall complication rate of 19.2% for staged adult deformity corrective surgeries utilizing far lateral interbody fusions at several lumbar levels followed by a more comprehensive posterior surgical reconstruction.

Comparison of Postoperative Complications and Reoperation Rates Following Surgical Management of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy in the Privately Insured Patient Population

STUDY DESIGN

This was a large database study.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of complications and reoperation rates between the most common surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM): anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF), and posterior laminectomy and fusion (Lamifusion).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

CSM is a major contributor to disability and reduced quality of life worldwide.

METHODS

Humana insurance database was queried for CSM diagnoses between 2007 and 2016. The initial population was divided based on the surgical treatment and matched for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity index. Specific postoperative complications or revisions were analyzed at individual time points. Pearson χ2 analysis with Yate continuity correction was used.

RESULTS

Lamifusion had significantly higher rates of wound infection/disruption than ACDF or ACCF (5.03%, 2.19%, 2.29%; P=0.0008, 0.002, respectively) as well as iatrogenic deformity (4.75%, 2.19%, 2.10%; P=0.0036, 0.0013). Lamifusion also had a significantly higher rate of shock and same-day transfusion than ACDF (4.75%, 2.01%, P=0.0005), circulatory complications (2.01%, <1%, P=0.0183), and C5 palsy (4.84%, 1.74%, P≤0.0001). Compared with ACDF, Lamifusion had higher rates of hardware complication (3.29%, 2.01%, P=0.0468), and revision surgery (8.23% 5.85%, P=0.0395). Lamifusion had significantly lower rates of dysphagia than either ACDF (3.93% vs. 6.58%, P=0.0089) or ACCF (3.93% vs. 8.59%, P<0.0001). When comparing ACCF to ACDF, ACCF had significantly higher rates of circulatory complications (2.38%, <1%, P=0.0053), shock/same-day transfusion (3.2%, 2.0%, P=0.59), C5 palsy (3.47%, 1.74%, P=0.0108), and revision surgery (9.51%, 5.85%, P=0.0086).

CONCLUSIONS

The data shows that posterior Lamifusion has higher overall rate of complications compared with ACDF or ACCF. Furthermore, when comparing the anterior approaches, ACDF was associated with lower rate of complication and revision. ACCF had the highest overall rate of revision surgery.

Evidence based update: open versus closed reduction

Outcomes after operative treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults are fraught with high complications rates including non-union and avascular necrosis. Among the therapeutic controversies that persist is the role of open reduction, which would allow surgeons a direct means to improve the quality of reduction, a predictor of successful treatment. We performed a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes (nonunion, avascular necrosis, and deep infection) after open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) to closed reduction with internal fixation (CRIF) of acute (surgery performed less than 6 weeks from injury) femoral neck fractures in young adults (average age of 50 or younger) followed for at least one year. Despite the large literature investigating outcomes after operative treatment of femoral neck fracture, relatively few studies aimed to determine the relative risk of complications associated with method of reduction. Therefore, both observational and randomised studies as well as case series with clear descriptions of surgical approach and outcomes were included. We identified 21 studies that matched our inclusion criteria. The incidence of nonunion was 11.6% in closed reduction and 14.9% in the open reduction group (P=0.25). The incidence of avascular necrosis for CRIF and ORIF were 17.2% and 17.7% respectively (P=0.91). The incidence of deep wound infection was 0.49% in the closed reduction group and 3.9% in the open reduction group (P=0.0019). Meta-analysis of risk ratios estimated from six of the studies with comparative data revealed no significant difference in the incidence of nonunion, avascular necrosis or total complications between the two reduction techniques. In summary, systematic review of the literature reveals a lack of evidence in support of ORIF versus CRIF as a means of treating displaced femoral neck fractures in young patients with respect to union and avascular necrosis; however, the incidence of surgical site infections may be lower with CRIF. Firm conclusions cannot be drawn given the lack of high quality prospective studies and patient reported outcomes. In the future, randomised controlled trials will be required to test the effect of reduction method.