Browsing by Subject "Revision"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access Cause and Effect of Revisions in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Multicenter Study on Outcomes Based on Etiology.(The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2024-12) Passias, Peter G; Dave, Pooja; Smith, Justin S; Lafage, Renaud; Onafowokan, Oluwatobi O; Tretiakov, Peter; Mir, Jamshaid; Line, Breton; Diebo, Bassel; Daniels, Alan H; Gum, Jeffrey L; Eastlack, Robert; Hamilton, D Kojo; Chou, Dean; Klineberg, Eric O; Kebaish, Khaled M; Lewis, Stephen; Gupta, Munish C; Kim, Han Jo; Lenke, Lawrence G; Ames, Christopher P; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Schwab, Frank J; Lafage, Virginie; Bess, Shay; Hostin, Robert; Burton, Douglas CBackground context
While the treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) has increasingly favored surgical correction, the incidence of revision surgery remains high. Yet, little has been explored on the association between the etiology of reoperation and patient outcomes.Purpose
To assess the impact of the etiology of revision surgery on postoperative outcomes.Study design/setting
Retrospective cohort analysis.Patient sample
891 ASD patients.Outcome measures
Complications, radiographic parameters, disability metrics.Methods
Operative ASD patients with at least 1 revision stratified by etiology (mechanical [Mech] -pseudoarthrosis, thoracic decompensation without junctional failure, x-ray malalignment, implant failure, implant malposition, PJK ± major malalignment; infection [Infx]-early vs late onset, major vs minor; wound [Wound]; SI pain [SI Pain]). Excluded multiple etiologies, and intraoperative or medical complications. Data from the immediate visit prior to the final revision was used as baseline (rBL). Follow-up based on visits best aligned to time points after final revision. Radiographic parameters SVA, PI-LL, and PT were used to assess alignment post-revision via ANOVA. Multivariate analysis controlling for relevant covariates assessed outcome differences after final revision surgery.Results
891 MET INCLUSION (AGE: 60.40±14.17, 77% F, BMI: 27.97±5.87 KG/M2, CCI: : 1.80±1.73). Etiology groups were as follows: Mech: 432; Infx: 296; Wound: 65; SI Pain: 98. Surgically, Infx had lower rates of osteotomy, interbody fusion, and decompression (p<.05). Infx and SI Pain demonstrated similar correction in radiographics SVA, PI-LL, and PT (p>.05), whereas Mech had significantly less improvement by 2 years (p<.003) that improved by 5 years. Compared to without revision, the odds of MCID in ODI were 48.6% lower across groups (OR: 0.514 [.280, .945], p=.032). Indications of x-ray malalignment were 93.0% less likely to reach MCID (OR: 0.071, [.006, .866], p=.038). Similarly, implant failure negatively impacted rates of MCID (40% vs. 15.2%, p=.029). Those with PJK had 57% lower odds of MCID (33% vs 54%, OR: .43, [0.2, 0.9] p= 0.023), further negated by major malalignment (OR: 0.05, [.07, .97], p=.02). Indications of pseudarthrosis, thoracic decompensation, implant malposition were not significant. Major sepsis had lower rates of MCID compared to minor (6.4% vs. 21.2%), and early onset infection improved compared to late (OR: 1.43, [1.17, 2.98], p<.001). In the early follow-up period, the Mech group has significantly worse SRS Pain and Mental Health scores compared to other groups (1-year: Mech 1.56 vs Infx 0.83 vs SI Pain 0.72, p<0.001; 2-year: 1.88 vs 0.71 vs 0.76, p=0.034). Complication rates increased with the number of revisions and with mechanical indication (all p<.05). At 5 years, patient satisfaction was significantly more likely to improve compared to early follow-up (OR: 1.22, p=.011), along with improved pain score, in Mech group (0.89 vs 0.49 vs 0.56, p=.081).Conclusions
This study focused on the impact of revision as it varies with etiology and time of occurrence postoperatively. Compared to other etiologies, revision surgery due to mechanical complications had less radiographic improvement and worsening patient-reported scores in the early postoperative period despite stabilization at 5 years. The depth of impact of mechanical complication, particularly with the addition of malalignment, merits greater focus during surgical planning.Level of evidence
III.Item Open Access Defining modern iatrogenic flatback syndrome: examination of segmental lordosis in short lumbar fusion patients undergoing thoracolumbar deformity correction(European Spine Journal, 2024-01-01) Diebo, Bassel G; Singh, Manjot; Balmaceno-Criss, Mariah; Daher, Mohammad; Lenke, Lawrence G; Ames, Christopher P; Burton, Douglas C; Lewis, Stephen M; Klineberg, Eric O; Lafage, Renaud; Eastlack, Robert K; Gupta, Munish C; Mundis, Gregory M; Gum, Jeffrey L; Hamilton, Kojo D; Hostin, Richard; Passias, Peter G; Protopsaltis, Themistocles S; Kebaish, Khaled M; Kim, Han Jo; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Line, Breton G; Mummaneni, Praveen V; Nunley, Pierce D; Smith, Justin S; Turner, Jay; Schwab, Frank J; Uribe, Juan S; Bess, Shay; Lafage, Virginie; Daniels, Alan H; International Spine Study Group (ISSG)Purpose: Understanding the mechanism and extent of preoperative deformity in revision procedures may provide data to prevent future failures in lumbar spinal fusion patients. Methods: ASD patients without prior spine surgery (PRIMARY) and with prior short (SHORT) and long (LONG) fusions were included. SHORT patients were stratified into modes of failure: implant, junctional, malalignment, and neurologic. Baseline demographics, spinopelvic alignment, offset from alignment targets, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared across PRIMARY and SHORT cohorts. Segmental lordosis analyses, assessing under-, match, or over-correction to segmental and global lordosis targets, were performed by SRS-Schwab coronal curve type and construct length. Results: Among 785 patients, 430 (55%) were PRIMARY and 355 (45%) were revisions. Revision procedures included 181 (23%) LONG and 174 (22%) SHORT corrections. SHORT modes of failure included 27% implant, 40% junctional, 73% malalignment, and/or 28% neurologic. SHORT patients were older, frailer, and had worse baseline deformity (PT, PI-LL, SVA) and PROMs (NRS, ODI, VR-12, SRS-22) compared to primary patients (p < 0.001). Segmental lordosis analysis identified 93%, 88%, and 62% undercorrected patients at LL, L1-L4, and L4-S1, respectively. SHORT patients more often underwent 3-column osteotomies (30% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and had higher ISSG Surgical Invasiveness Score (87.8 vs. 78.3, p = 0.006). Conclusions: Nearly half of adult spinal deformity surgeries were revision fusions. Revision short fusions were associated with sagittal malalignment, often due to undercorrection of segmental lordosis goals, and frequently required more invasive procedures. Further initiatives to optimize alignment in lumbar fusions are needed to avoid costly and invasive deformity corrections. Level of evidence: IV: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.Item Open Access Percutaneous Revision of a Testicular Prosthesis is Safe, Cost-effective, and Provides Good Patient Satisfaction.(Urol Case Rep, 2015-09) Cone, Eugene B; Lentz, Aaron COffice-based percutaneous revision of a testicular prosthesis has never been reported. A patient received a testicular prosthesis but was dissatisfied with the firmness of the implant. In an office setting, the prosthesis was inflated with additional fluid via a percutaneous approach. Evaluated outcomes included patient satisfaction, prosthesis size, recovery time, and cost savings. The patient was satisfied, with no infection, leak, or complication after more than 1 year of follow-up, at significantly less cost than revision surgery. Percutaneous adjustment of testicular prosthesis fill-volume can be safe, inexpensive, and result in good patient satisfaction.