Original ArticleTwo-Year Results of the Prospective Spine Treatment Outcomes Study: Analysis of Postoperative Clinical Outcomes Between Patients with and without a History of Previous Cervical Spine Surgery
Introduction
Clinical disorders of the cervical spine have a variety of causes but are caused most frequently by degenerative and age-related changes. These changes result in canal or foraminal stenosis, which can manifest as myelopathy, radiculopathy, or neck pain.1, 2, 3 Although the natural history of cervical disease is hard to predict, it is commonly characterized by a progressive, stepwise decline. Surgical intervention for cervical spondylosis has been shown to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life.4, 5
Improvements in surgical technique along with an aging population have led to increased use of cervical spine surgery. As cervical spine surgery becomes more common, an increasing number of patients will require secondary or revision procedures.1 Although the risks inherent in primary cervical spine surgery are well documented, there are additional considerations involved with each subsequent surgery, which remain to be fully analyzed.6, 7 Although previous reports have included previous spine surgery as a risk factor for poor outcomes, few studies have directly compared the outcomes between primary and revision spinal surgery.
Considering the paucity of literature specifically evaluating patient-reported outcomes after a history of previous cervical spinal surgery, the purpose of this study was to determine differences in outcomes and quality of life between cervical patients who underwent previous surgery compared with those who did not undergo previous surgery. An improved understanding of the clinical outcomes and complications after revision spine surgery may improve our ability to counsel patients before these procedures in regard to their expected recovery.
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected multi-institutional database that contained information on patients undergoing surgical treatment for cervical pathology. This prospective spine outcomes registry included 2221 patients, of whom 1818 received operative treatment and 403 underwent nonoperative management. Of the 1818 who underwent operative treatment, 1286 met our criteria for inclusion.
Inclusion criteria for this study were patients older than the age of 18 who
Results
The study population included a total of 1286 patients with cervical pathology, of whom 377 had a history of previous spine surgery (W), and 909 without (WO). The baseline demographics for the study population are displayed in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the 2 experimental groups on the basis of age (W: 51.5 vs. WO: 50.5 years, P > 0.05), body mass index (W: 28.6 vs. WO: 28.8 kg/m2, P > 0.05), or current smoking habits (W: 30.4% vs. WO: 29.0%, P = 0.642). The W group
Discussion
The decision to perform revision cervical spine surgery on patients who have a history of previous cervical spine surgery requires careful consideration of risks and benefits. The clinician must appropriately counsel the patient on the expected outcomes after choosing to undergo elective revision surgery. Indications for revision surgery vary but commonly include pseudarthrosis, wound infection, device failure, and progressive deformity.8 The purpose of this study was to identify differences in
Conclusions
Using a multicenter prospective database, we found that patients who had a history of previous cervical spine surgery had less improvement in quality of life outcome scores when undergoing cervical spine surgery compared with those who did not undergo previous surgery, despite overall improvement after surgery. Patients with cervical pathology with a history of previous surgical intervention who elect to undergo subsequent surgeries should be appropriately counseled about expected results.
References (21)
- et al.
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy in the young adult: a review of the literature and clinical diagnostic criteria in an uncommon demographic
Clin Neurol Neurosurg
(2014) - et al.
Pathobiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Eur Spine J
(2015) - et al.
Risk factors for development of myelopathy in patients with cervical spondylotic cord compression
Eur Spine J
(2015) - et al.
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Neurologist
(2010) - et al.
Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients
Spine
(1984) - et al.
Posterior-lateral foraminotomy as an exclusive operative technique for cervical radiculopathy: a review of 846 consecutively operated cases
Neurosurgery
(1983) - et al.
Perioperative and delayed complications associated with the surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy based on 302 patients from the AOSpine North America Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Study
J Neurosurg Spine
(2012) - et al.
Surgical mortality and complications leading to reoperation in 318 consecutive posterior decompressions for cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Acta Neurol Scand
(2011) - et al.
Revision cervical spine surgery
Orthop Clin North Am
(2012) - et al.
Measuring surgical outcomes in subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease patients: minimum clinically important difference as a tool for determining meaningful clinical improvement
Neurosurgery
(2014)
Cited by (10)
Association of overlapping cardiac surgery with short-term patient outcomes
2021, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryCitation Excerpt :Although this is possible, we believe appropriate major criteria have been selected on the basis of supporting literature correlating these factors with outcomes. History of previous surgery, evaluated in cervical spine surgery,29 was found to lower surgical success rate and postoperative improvement. Prior investigations on length of surgery have shown that an increase in surgical time leads to increased risk of complication and predicts length of surgical intensive care unit stay.30
Predicting short-term outcomes following supratentorial tumor surgery
2020, Clinical Neurology and NeurosurgeryCitation Excerpt :Successful application of LACE+ in this context would suggest that the algorithm may be used to identify patients who have the highest risk of adverse outcomes – these patients might then be targeted for support interventions designed to proactively identify and avert readmission-causing complications. The matching criteria employed in the present study were selected based on prior work correlating these factors with patient outcomes [9,34–40]. Although patients were matched on many key criteria, it is possible that using additional unknown/unstudied characteristics would have resulted in more perfect matching between quartiles.
Composite Score for Outcome Prediction in Gynecologic Surgery Patients
2021, Journal for Healthcare QualityThe LACE+ Index as a Predictor of 30-Day Patient Outcomes in a Plastic Surgery Population: A Coarsened Exact Match Study
2020, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Conflict of interest statement: Dr. Radcliff reports personal fees from Globus Medical, 4 Web Medical, Medtronic Advanced Energy, DePuy, Globus, LDR, Orthopedic Sciences, Inc., NuVasive, and NEXXT Spine and grants from Pacira Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Non-financial—Boards of Directors: Association for Collaborative Spinal Research and Scientific Advisory Board: 4 Web Medical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Isaacs reports grants and personal fees from NuVasive, Inc., personal fees from Association for Collaborative Spine research, and serves as Scientific Advisor for Providence Medical Technology, outside the submitted work. Dr. Vaccaro reports personal fees from Medtronics, Striker Spine, Biomet Spine, Globus, Aesculap, Thieme, Jaypee, Elseviere, Taylor Francis, DePuy, Medtronics, Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint Global, Medacorp, Innovative Surgical Design, Orthobullets, Expert testimony, Ellipse, Vertex, and stock ownership in Replication Medica, Paradigm Spine, Stout Medical, Progressive Spinal Technologies Advanced Spinal Intellectual Properties, Spine Medica, Computational Biodynamics, Spinology, Small Bone Innovations, Cross Current, In Vivo, Flaghsip Surgical, Cytonics, Bonovo Orthopaedics, Electrocore, Gamma Spine, Location Based Intelligence, FlowPharma, R.S.I, Rothman Institute and Related Properties, Innovative Surgical Design, and Avaz Surgical, outside the submitted work. Non-financial—Scientific Advisory Board for AO Spine, Innovative Surgical Design, and Association for Collaborative Spine Research, outside the submitted work. Dr. Passias reports consultancy from Medicrea & SpineWave and personal fees from Zimmer Biomet, and a grant from CSRS, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts to report.