Risk for Adjacent Segment and Same Segment Reoperation After Surgery for Lumbar Stenosis: A Subgroup Analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT)

Study Design. Subgroup analysis of a prospective, randomized database. Summary of Background Data. Reoperation due to recurrence of index level pathology or adjacent segment disease is a common clinical problem. Despite multiple studies on the incidence of reoperation, there have been few comparative studies establishing risk factors for reoperation after spinal stenosis surgery. The hypothesis of this subgroup analysis was that lumbar fusion or particular patient characteristics, such as obesity, would render patients with lumbar stenosis more susceptible to reoperation at the index or adjacent levels. Methods. The study population combined the randomized and observational cohorts enrolled in Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial for treatment of spinal stenosis. The surgically treated patients were stratified according to those who had reoperation (n = 54) or no reoperation (n = 359). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years. The difference in improvement between those who had reoperation and those who did not was determined at each follow-up period. Results. Of the 413 patients who underwent surgical treatment of spinal stenosis, 54 (13%) underwent a reoperation within 4 years. At baseline, there were no significant differences in demographic characteristics or clinical outcome scores between reoperation and nonreoperation groups. Furthermore, between groups there were no differences in the severity of symptoms, obesity, physical examination signs, levels of stenosis, location of stenosis, stenosis severity, levels of fusion, levels of laminectomy, levels decompressed, operation time, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. There was an increased percentage of patients with duration of symptoms greater than 12 months in the reoperation group (56% reoperation vs. 36% no reoperation, P < 0.008). At final follow-up, there was significantly less improvement in the outcome of the reoperation group in MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey physical function (14.4 vs. 22.6, P < 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index (−12.4 vs. −21.1, P < 0.01), and Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (−5 vs. −8.1, P < 0.006). Conclusion. Lumbar fusion and instrumentation were not associated with increased rate of reoperation at index or adjacent levels compared with nonfusion techniques. The only specific risk factor for reoperation after treatment of spinal stenosis was duration of pretreatment symptoms more than 12 months. The overall incidence of reoperations for spinal stenosis surgery was 13%, and reoperations were equally distributed between index and adjacent lumbar levels. Reoperation may be related to the natural history of spinal degenerative disease.

[1]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Does the Duration of Symptoms in Patients With Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Affect Outcomes?: Analysis of the Spine Outcomes Research Trial , 2011, Spine.

[2]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Predominant Leg Pain Is Associated With Better Surgical Outcomes in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Spinal Stenosis: Results From the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) , 2011, Spine.

[3]  Anna Tosteson,et al.  Surgical Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Four-Year Results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial , 2010, Spine.

[4]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Does Multilevel Lumbar Stenosis Lead to Poorer Outcomes?: A Subanalysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Lumbar Stenosis Study , 2010, Spine.

[5]  K. Bridwell,et al.  Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Versus Spinal Stenosis: Does a Slip Matter? Comparison of Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes (SPORT) , 2010, Spine.

[6]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Does Fusion Method Influence Outcome? Four-Year Results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial , 2009, Spine.

[7]  D. Belen,et al.  Functional and clinical evaluation for the surgical treatment of degenerative stenosis of the lumbar spinal canal. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[8]  V. Deviren,et al.  Reoperation After Primary Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity: Rate, Reason, and Timing , 2009, Spine.

[9]  H. Möller,et al.  A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[10]  E. Blood,et al.  THE IMPACT OF WORKERS??? COMPENSATION ON OUTCOMES OF PATIENTS WITH A LUMBAR DISC HERNIATION: TWO-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE SPINE PATIENT OUTCOMES RESEARCH TRIAL (SPORT) , 2008 .

[11]  Choon-Sung Lee,et al.  Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion , 2008, European Spine Journal.

[12]  Brett Hanscom,et al.  Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Yongjung Kim,et al.  Adjacent Segment Disease FollowingLumbar/Thoracolumbar Fusion With Pedicle Screw Instrumentation: A Minimum 5-Year Follow-up , 2007, Spine.

[14]  K. Ohzono,et al.  Five-Year Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Observational Study of Symptom Severity at Standard Intervals after Surgery , 2006, Spine.

[15]  G. Németh,et al.  Spinal stenosis re-operation rate in Sweden is 11% at 10 years—A national analysis of 9,664 operations , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[16]  Paul Park,et al.  Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar or Lumbosacral Fusion: Review of the Literature , 2004, Spine.

[17]  A. Miyauchi,et al.  Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Degeneration After PLIF , 2004, Spine.

[18]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  J. Fischgrund,et al.  Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Long-Term Study Comparing Fusion and Pseudarthrosis , 2004, Spine.

[20]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  L5–S1 Segment Survivorship and Clinical Outcome Analysis After L4–L5 Isolated Fusion , 2003, Spine.

[21]  N. Birkmeyer,et al.  Design of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) , 2002, Spine.

[22]  R A Deyo,et al.  Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. , 2000, Spine.

[23]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. , 1999, Spine.

[24]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[25]  B. Strömqvist,et al.  A Prospective and Consecutive Study of Surgically Treated Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Part II: Five‐Year Follow‐Up by an Independent Observer , 1997, Spine.

[26]  Robert A. Lew,et al.  Lumbar Laminectomy Alone or With Instrumented or Noninstrumented Arthrodesis in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Patient Selection, Costs, and Surgical Outcomes , 1997, Spine.

[27]  R. Deyo,et al.  The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part II: 1‐Year Outcomes of Surgical and Nonsurgical Management of Sciatica , 1996, Spine.

[28]  J. Taveras,et al.  The narrow lumbar spinal canal syndrome. , 1973, Radiology.

[29]  J. Weinstein Where is the wisdom in healthcare?: the "wizard of oz": heart, brain, and courage. , 2010, Spine.

[30]  O. Airaksinen,et al.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: a matched-pair study of operated and non-operated patients. , 1996, British journal of neurosurgery.

[31]  E. Booysen,et al.  Fibrous spinal stenosis. A report on 850 myelograms with a water-soluble contrast medium. , 1976, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.