Complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: an analysis of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open surgical techniques.

OBJECT It is hypothesized that minimally invasive surgical techniques lead to fewer complications than open surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD). The goal of this study was to analyze matched patient cohorts in an attempt to isolate the impact of approach on adverse events. METHODS Two multicenter databases queried for patients with ASD treated via surgery and at least 1 year of follow-up revealed 280 patients who had undergone minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or a hybrid procedure (HYB; n = 85) or open surgery (OPEN; n = 195). These patients were divided into 3 separate groups based on the approach performed and were propensity matched for age, preoperative sagittal vertebral axis (SVA), number of levels fused posteriorly, and lumbar coronal Cobb angle (CCA) in an attempt to neutralize these patient variables and to make conclusions based on approach only. Inclusion criteria for both databases were similar, and inclusion criteria specific to this study consisted of an age > 45 years, CCA > 20°, 3 or more levels of fusion, and minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Patients in the OPEN group with a thoracic CCA > 75° were excluded to further ensure a more homogeneous patient population. RESULTS In all, 60 matched patients were available for analysis (MIS = 20, HYB = 20, OPEN = 20). Blood loss was less in the MIS group than in the HYB and OPEN groups, but a significant difference was only found between the MIS and the OPEN group (669 vs 2322 ml, p = 0.001). The MIS and HYB groups had more fused interbody levels (4.5 and 4.1, respectively) than the OPEN group (1.6, p < 0.001). The OPEN group had less operative time than either the MIS or HYB group, but it was only statistically different from the HYB group (367 vs 665 minutes, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the duration of hospital stay among the groups. In patients with complete data, the overall complication rate was 45.5% (25 of 55). There was no significant difference in the total complication rate among the MIS, HYB, and OPEN groups (30%, 47%, and 63%, respectively; p = 0.147). No intraoperative complications were reported for the MIS group, 5.3% for the HYB group, and 25% for the OPEN group (p < 0.03). At least one postoperative complication occurred in 30%, 47%, and 50% (p = 0.40) of the MIS, HYB, and OPEN groups, respectively. One major complication occurred in 30%, 47%, and 63% (p = 0.147) of the MIS, HYB, and OPEN groups, respectively. All patients had significant improvement in both the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale scores after surgery (p < 0.001), although the MIS group did not have significant improvement in leg pain. The occurrence of complications had no impact on the ODI. CONCLUSIONS Results in this study suggest that the surgical approach may impact complications. The MIS group had significantly fewer intraoperative complications than did either the HYB or OPEN groups. If the goals of ASD surgery can be achieved, consideration should be given to less invasive techniques.

[1]  Michael Y. Wang,et al.  Mini-open pedicle subtraction osteotomy: surgical technique. , 2014, World neurosurgery.

[2]  Robert K. Eastlack,et al.  Anterior Column Realignment (ACR) for Focal Kyphotic Spinal Deformity Using a Lateral Transpsoas Approach and ALL Release , 2014, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[3]  D. Sessler,et al.  Morbidity and mortality after massive transfusion in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery , 2013, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie.

[4]  John E. Ziewacz,et al.  The role of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of adult spinal deformity. , 2013, Neurosurgery clinics of North America.

[5]  C. Lamartina,et al.  Far lateral approaches (XLIF) in adult scoliosis , 2013, European Spine Journal.

[6]  R. Crawford,et al.  Morbidity and mortality in adult spinal deformity surgery: Norwich Spinal Unit experience , 2013, European Spine Journal.

[7]  Juan S. Uribe,et al.  Early Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Anterior Longitudinal Ligament Release for Correction of Sagittal Imbalance in Patients with Adult Spinal Deformity , 2012, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[8]  Tien V. Le,et al.  Anterior longitudinal ligament release using the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: a cadaveric feasibility study and report of 4 clinical cases. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[9]  Alexander W. L. Turner,et al.  Lordosis restoration after anterior longitudinal ligament release and placement of lateral hyperlordotic interbody cages during the minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach: a radiographic study in cadavers. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[10]  L. Lenke,et al.  Rates and Causes of Mortality Associated With Spine Surgery Based on 108,419 Procedures: A Review of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Database , 2012, Spine.

[11]  M. McGirt,et al.  Effect of Minimally Invasive Technique on Return to Work and Narcotic Use Following Transforaminal Lumbar Inter-body Fusion: A Review , 2012, Professional case management.

[12]  Michael Y. Wang,et al.  Motor nerve injuries following the minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[13]  M. McGirt,et al.  Acute Hospital Costs After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Data From a US National Database With 6106 Patients , 2012, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[14]  P. Cao,et al.  Complications and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of one- or two-level degenerative disc diseases of the lumbar spine in patients older than 65 years. , 2012, Chinese medical journal.

[15]  J. Buchowski,et al.  Major Complications and Comparison Between 3-Column Osteotomy Techniques in 105 Consecutive Spinal Deformity Procedures , 2012, Spine.

[16]  Cory J. Laws,et al.  Direct Lateral Approach to Lumbar Fusion Is a Biomechanically Equivalent Alternative to the Anterior Approach: An In Vitro Study , 2012, Spine.

[17]  Samuel K. Cho,et al.  Major Complications in Revision Adult Deformity Surgery: Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes With 2- to 7-Year Follow-up , 2012, Spine.

[18]  K. Bridwell,et al.  Risk-Benefit Assessment of Surgery for Adult Scoliosis: An Analysis Based on Patient Age , 2011, Spine.

[19]  F. Phillips,et al.  A Prospective, Nonrandomized, Multicenter Evaluation of Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: Perioperative Outcomes and Complications , 2010, Spine.

[20]  A. Eckardt,et al.  Less Invasive Surgical Correction of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis. Part II: Complications and Clinical Outcome , 2010, Neurosurgery.

[21]  Juan S. Uribe,et al.  Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. , 2010, Neurosurgical focus.

[22]  Adam S. Kanter,et al.  Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. , 2010, Neurosurgical focus.

[23]  Michael Y. Wang,et al.  Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. , 2010, Neurosurgical focus.

[24]  Christopher R. Good,et al.  Revision Rates Following Primary Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Six Hundred Forty-Three Consecutive Patients Followed-up to Twenty-Two Years Postoperative , 2010, Spine.

[25]  F. Zhao,et al.  Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach , 2010, European Spine Journal.

[26]  L. Lenke,et al.  The Morbidity of an Anterior Thoracolumbar Approach: Adult Spinal Deformity Patients With Greater Than Five-Year Follow-up , 2009, Spine.

[27]  N. Anand,et al.  Minimally Invasive Multilevel Percutaneous Correction and Fusion for Adult Lumbar Degenerative Scoliosis: A Technique and Feasibility Study , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[28]  C. Ames,et al.  Complications and Outcomes of Lumbar Spine Surgery in Elderly People: A Review of the Literature , 2008, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[29]  K. Bridwell,et al.  The Impact of Perioperative Complications on Clinical Outcome in Adult Deformity Surgery , 2007, Spine.

[30]  R. Fessler,et al.  The development of minimally invasive spine surgery. , 2006, Neurosurgery clinics of North America.

[31]  L. Lenke,et al.  Pseudarthrosis in Long Adult Spinal Deformity Instrumentation and Fusion to the Sacrum: Prevalence and Risk Factor Analysis of 144 Cases , 2006, Spine.

[32]  L. Lenke,et al.  Long Adult Deformity Fusions to L5 and the Sacrum A Matched Cohort Analysis , 2004, Spine.

[33]  L. Lenke,et al.  Complications and Outcomes of Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomies for Fixed Sagittal Imbalance , 2003, Spine.

[34]  L. Lenke,et al.  Long-Term Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients Having Combined Surgery: A Comparison of Primary to Revision Patients , 2001, Spine.

[35]  Serena S. Hu,et al.  Adult scoliosis: surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes. , 1999, Spine.

[36]  L. Lenke,et al.  Complications in the adult spinal deformity patient having combined surgery. Does revision increase the risk? , 1999, Spine.

[37]  John R. Johnson,et al.  Perioperative Complications of Anterior Procedures on the Spine*† , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[38]  T. Albert,et al.  Health Outcome Assessment Before and After Adult Deformity Surgery: A Prospective Study , 1995, Spine.

[39]  Robert B. Winter,et al.  The Surgical and Medical Perioperative Complications of Anterior Spinal Fusion Surgery in the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine in Adults: A Review of 1223 Procedures , 1995, Spine.