Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group

Abstract. The reported complication rates after various surgical techniques used to create a lumbar fusion vary within wide ranges. In a previous paper, the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group have reported on the clinical outcome of lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain in a comparably homogeneous patient population where there were no significant differences between baseline sociodemographic, clinical and paraclinical characteristics. In this report we compared the complication rates of the surgical procedures used in that study and analyzed the association between complications and baseline variables, and between outcome results and complications. A multicenter randomized study was conducted where 211 patients aged 25–65 were treated with lumbar fusion according to three different surgical techniques: noninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF, n=71), instrumented posterolateral fusion (VSP, n=68), and in the third procedure we added an interbody fusion with solid autogenous bone grafts ("360", n=72). We categorized complications as: early/late, major/minor. The association between complications and sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, comorbidity, previous surgery, smoking), and technical variables (surgical technique, levels fused, hospital category) was analyzed. The association between outcome variables (patient global assessment, pain, disability, depressive symptoms) and complications was analyzed. A literature review was conducted. There was no mortality. There was no significant difference in clinical outcome between the surgical groups after 2 years, although the power to detect such a difference was low. The total complication rate after 2 years in the PLF group was 12%, compared with 22% in the VSP group, and 40% in the "360" group (P=0.0003). After exclusion of complications, there was still no difference in outcome between the groups. The odds ratio (confidence intervals) of having a complication was 5.3 (2.2–12.7) when "360" was used compared with PLF, and 2.4 (1.1–5.3) for "360" compared with VSP. There was no association between clinical outcome and complications on a group level. The reintervention rate was 6% in the PLF group, 22% in the VSP, and 17% in the "360" group (P=0.020). The odds ratio (confidence intervals) of having a reintervention was 4.0 (1.3–11.9) when instrumentation was used compared with non-instrumented fusion. In this prospective randomized study comparing three lumbar fusion techniques in a comparably homogeneous patient population, complications increased significantly with increasing technicality of the surgical procedure. Even though we did not find a significant association between clinical outcome and complications after 2 years, the increased morbidity inflicted on an individual patient was not negligible. In this light, and as no fusion technique produced superior clinical outcome irrespective of whether complications were included or excluded in the analyses, the patient and the treating physician should carefully discuss the possible advantages and drawbacks of the different surgical options before making a decision. In order to make valid comparisons of both complication and reintervention rates after lumbar fusion, there is a need for a consensus in the spinal society regarding the definition of these entities.

[1]  K. Gill,et al.  Complications of the Wiltse Pedicle Screw Fixation System. , 1993, Spine.

[2]  C. Dickman,et al.  A Historical Cohort Study of Pedicle Screw Fixation in Thoracic, Lumbar, and Sacral Spinal Fusions. , 1994, Spine.

[3]  H. Tiusanen,et al.  Retrograde ejaculation after anterior interbody lumbar fusion , 2004, European Spine Journal.

[4]  M. Aebi,et al.  Minimally invasive bone harvesting tools , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[5]  C. Warfield,et al.  The measurement of pain. , 1988, Hospital practice.

[6]  Survivorship analysis of pedicular fixation systems in the treatment of degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine: a comparison of Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation and the AO internal fixator. , 1992, Journal of spinal disorders.

[7]  K. Suk,et al.  Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. , 2000, Spine.

[8]  S. Esses,et al.  Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation. A selected survey of ABS members. , 1993, Spine.

[9]  J. K. Webb,et al.  Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders: A European view , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[10]  H. Herkowitz,et al.  Spinal Instrumentation in the Management of Degenerative Disorders of the Lumbar Spine , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  E. Cooke,et al.  Late Operative Site Pain With Isola Posterior Instrumentation Requiring Implant Removal: Infection or Metal Reaction? , 2001, Spine.

[12]  P. Robertson,et al.  Natural History of Posterior Iliac Crest Bone Graft Donation for Spinal Surgery: A Prospective Analysis of Morbidity , 2001, Spine.

[13]  I. Gelalis,et al.  Thoracic and lumbar fusions for degenerative disorders: rationale for selecting the appropriate fusion techniques. , 1998, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[14]  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.

[15]  R. Biscup,et al.  Segmental spine plates with pedicle screw fixation. A new internal fixation device for disorders of the lumbar and thoracolumbar spine. , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  M. Yahiro.  Comprehensive literature review. Pedicle screw fixation devices. , 1994, Spine.

[17]  T. Whitecloud,et al.  Operative treatment of the degenerated segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. , 1994, Spine.

[18]  W. J. Daum,et al.  Evaluation of Lumbar Spine Fusion: Plain Radiographs Versus Direct Surgical Exploration and Observation , 1995, Spine.

[19]  A. Tonino,et al.  Results and complications after posterior lumbar spondylodesis with the "Variable Screw Placement Spinal Fixation System". , 1997, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[20]  W C Lauerman,et al.  A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. , 1999, Spine.

[21]  J C Fairbank,et al.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. , 1980, Physiotherapy.

[22]  J. Katz,et al.  Lumbar Spinal Fusions: Surgical Rates, Costs, and Complications , 1995, Spine.

[23]  L. Ross,et al.  Pitfalls of Pedicle Screw Fixation in the Sacrum: A Cadaver Model , 1992, Spine.

[24]  J. Haselkorn,et al.  Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. , 1992, JAMA.

[25]  J. Gibson,et al.  The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. , 1999, Spine.

[26]  B. Summers,et al.  Donor site pain from the ilium. A complication of lumbar spine fusion. , 1989, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[27]  R A Deyo,et al.  Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine. The influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure. , 1992, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[28]  L. Lenke,et al.  The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. , 1993, Journal of spinal disorders.

[29]  A. Nordwall,et al.  2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar Fusion Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial From the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2001, Spine.

[30]  R. Deyo,et al.  5‐Year Reoperation Rates After Different Types of Lumbar Spine Surgery , 1998, Spine.

[31]  S. Shott,et al.  Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970-1993. , 1994, Spine.

[32]  I. Redlund‐Johnell,et al.  Complications After Transpedicular Stabilization of the Spine: A Survivorship Analysis of 163 Cases , 1994, Spine.

[33]  S. Eiskjær,et al.  1997 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: The Effect of Pedicle Screw Instrumentation on Functional Outcome and Fusion Rates in Posterolateral Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study , 1997, Spine.

[34]  D. Bradford,et al.  Complications of the Variable Screw Plate Pedicle Screw Fixation , 1991, Spine.

[35]  R. B. Cloward.  Lesions of the intervertebral disks and their treatment by interbody fusion methods. The painful disk. , 1963, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[36]  R. B. Cloward.  The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. , 1953, Journal of neurosurgery.

[37]  H. Möller,et al.  Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis--a prospective randomized study: part 2. , 2000, Spine.

[38]  J. Brantigan,et al.  The variable screw placement spinal fixation system. Report of a prospective study of 250 patients enrolled in Food and Drug Administration clinical trials. , 1993, Spine.

[39]  B. Nafe,et al.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis , 1999, Neurosurgical Review.

[40]  V. Rajaraman,et al.  Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. , 1999, Journal of neurosurgery.

[41]  J. O'Brien.  Lumbar Disc Disease With Discogenic Pain: What Surgical Treatment Is Most Effective? , 1996, Spine.

[42]  M B WATKINS,et al.  Posterolateral fusion of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. , 1953, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[43]  W W Zung,et al.  Self-rating depression scale in an outpatient clinic. Further validation of the SDS. , 1965, Archives of general psychiatry.

[44]  R A Deyo,et al.  Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. , 1993, Spine.

[45]  R. Winter,et al.  Postoperative deep wound infection in adults after posterior lumbosacral spine fusion with instrumentation: incidence and management. , 2000, Journal of spinal disorders.

[46]  Anders Nordwall,et al.  Chronic Low Back Pain and Fusion: A Comparison of Three Surgical Techniques: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Study From the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2002, Spine.

[47]  O. Karaeminoğullari,et al.  Postoperative deep wound infection in instrumented spinal surgery. , 1999, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[48]  A. Levine,et al.  Chronic Donor Site Pain Complicating Bone Graft Harvesting From the Posterior Iliac Crest for Spinal Fusion , 1992, Spine.

[49]  A. Nordwall,et al.  Characteristics of patients with chronic low back pain selected for surgery: a comparison with the general population reported from the Swedish lumbar spine study. , 2002, Spine.

[50]  T. Laine,et al.  Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[51]  R. Fraser,et al.  Instrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion: Results and Comparison With Anterior Interbody Fusion , 1998, Spine.

[52]  W. J. Elias,et al.  Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device. , 2000, Journal of neurosurgery.

[53]  R Roy-Camille,et al.  Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[54]  K. Okuyama,et al.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases. , 1999, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[55]  M. D. W. Malefijt.  An orthopedic complication-registration system , 1995 .

[56]  J. O'Brien,et al.  Simultaneous Combined Anterior and Posterior Fusion, An Independent Analysis of A Treatment for the Disabled Low‐Back Pain Patient , 1990, Spine.