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.

[1]  H. Clusmann,et al.  Improvement of Back and Leg Pain after Lumbar Spinal Decompression without Fusion , 2018, Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A: Central European Neurosurgery.

[2]  Tomoyuki Saito,et al.  The surgical outcome of decompression alone versus decompression with limited fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. , 2018, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[3]  N. Epstein.  Lower complication and reoperation rates for laminectomy rather than MI TLIF/other fusions for degenerative lumbar disease/spondylolisthesis: A review , 2018, Surgical neurology international.

[4]  Joseph S. Cheng,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. , 2018, World neurosurgery.

[5]  Henry Ahn,et al.  Predictors of Blood Transfusion in Posterior Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Canadian Spine Outcome and Research Network Study , 2018, Spine.

[6]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Reoperation for Recurrent Intervertebral Disc Herniation in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial: Analysis of Rate, Risk Factors, and Outcome , 2017, Spine.

[7]  N. Epstein.  More risks and complications for elective spine surgery in morbidly obese patients , 2017, Surgical neurology international.

[8]  C. Barrios,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up , 2016, European Spine Journal.

[9]  T. Tosteson,et al.  Risk Factors for Reoperation in Patients Treated Surgically for Intervertebral Disc Herniation: A Subanalysis of Eight-Year SPORT Data. , 2015, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  W. Mei,et al.  Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis , 2015, European Spine Journal.

[11]  V. Denaro,et al.  Estimating the risk for symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: analysis from a cohort of patients undergoing revision surgery , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[12]  M. Boakye,et al.  Surgery for Spinal Stenosis: Long-Term Reoperation Rates, Health Care Cost, and Impact of Instrumentation , 2014, Spine.

[13]  D. Brodke,et al.  Reoperation and Revision Rates of 3 Surgical Treatment Methods for Lumbar Stenosis Associated With Degenerative Scoliosis and Spondylolisthesis , 2013, Spine.

[14]  S. Hahn,et al.  Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis: a nationwide cohort study. , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[15]  K. Than,et al.  Minimally invasive unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of spinal stenosis and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. , 2013, Neurosurgical focus.

[16]  J. Weinstein,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) , 2013, Spine.

[17]  G. Andersson,et al.  Lumbar Spine Fusion for Chronic Low Back Pain Due to Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review , 2013, Spine.

[18]  Alistair Jones,et al.  Improvement in low back pain following spinal decompression: observational study of 119 patients , 2013, European Spine Journal.

[19]  B. Wiedenhöfer,et al.  Bedeutung des sagittalen Profils bei Revisionseingriffen an der Wirbelsäule , 2011, Der Orthopäde.

[20]  M. Groff,et al.  Reoperations after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2011, World neurosurgery.

[21]  C. Klöckner,et al.  [Importance of sagittal alignment in spinal revision surgery]. , 2011, Der Orthopade.

[22]  C. Lauryssen.  Technical Advances in Minimally Invasive Surgery: Direct Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 2010, Spine.

[23]  R. Deyo,et al.  Reoperation Rates Following Lumbar Spine Surgery and the Influence of Spinal Fusion Procedures , 2007, Spine.

[24]  G. Caldito,et al.  Predictive factors for dural tear and cerebrospinal fluid leakage in patients undergoing lumbar surgery. , 2006, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[25]  L. Dai,et al.  Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after discectomy: outcome of repeat discectomy. , 2005, Surgical neurology.

[26]  Safdar N. Khan,et al.  Factors Predicting Hospital Stay, Operative Time, Blood Loss, and Transfusion in Patients Undergoing Revision Posterior Lumbar Spine Decompression, Fusion, and Segmental Instrumentation , 2002, Spine.

[27]  C. Niu,et al.  Clinical outcomes of revision lumbar spinal surgery: 124 patients with a minimum of two years of follow-up. , 2002, Chang Gung medical journal.

[28]  M. Gardner,et al.  Evaluation and treatment of dural tears in lumbar spine surgery: a review. , 2001, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.