*Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC †Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; and ‡Department of Neurosurgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 May 20;39(12):978-87. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000314.
Retrospective cohort analysis.
To examine the complications, reoperation rates, and resource use after each of the surgical approaches for the treatment of spinal stenosis.
There are no uniform guidelines for which procedure (decompression, decompression with instrumentation, or decompression with noninstrumented fusion) to perform for the treatment of spinal stenosis. With no clear evidence for increased efficacy, the rate of instrumented fusions is rising.
We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent spinal stenosis surgery between 2002 and 2009 in the United States. Patients included (n = 12,657) were diagnosed with spinal stenosis without concurrent spondylolisthesis and had at least 2 years of preoperative enrollment. A total of 2385 patients with decompression only and 620 patients with fusion had follow-up data for 5 years or more.
Complication rates during the initial procedure hospitalization and at 90 days were significantly higher for those who underwent laminectomy with fusion than for those who underwent laminectomy alone, with reoperation rates not differing significantly between these groups. Long-term (≥5 yr) reoperation rates were similar for those undergoing decompression alone versus decompression with fusion (17.3% vs. 16.0%, P = 0.44). Those with instrumented fusions had a slightly higher rate of reoperation than patients with noninstrumented fusions (17.4% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.11) at more than 5 years. The total cost including initial procedure and hospital, outpatient, emergency department, and medication charges at 5 years was similar for those who received decompression alone and fusion. The long-term costs for instrumented and noninstrumented fusions were also similar, totaling $107,056 and $100,471, respectively.
For patients with spinal stenosis, if fusion is warranted, use of arthrodesis without instrumentation is associated with decreased costs with similar long-term complication and reoperation rates.
回顾性队列分析。
研究治疗椎管狭窄症的各种手术方法的并发症、再次手术率和资源利用情况。
对于治疗椎管狭窄症,没有统一的指南规定采用哪种手术方法(减压、减压伴内固定或减压伴非融合固定)。尽管没有明确证据表明疗效增加,但带内固定的融合手术率正在上升。
我们对 2002 年至 2009 年在美国接受椎管狭窄症手术的患者进行了回顾性队列分析。患者(n=12657)被诊断为无合并脊椎滑脱的椎管狭窄症,且术前登记至少 2 年。共有 2385 例仅接受减压手术和 620 例接受融合手术的患者随访时间超过 5 年。
接受椎板切除术加融合术的患者在初始手术住院期间和术后 90 天的并发症发生率明显高于仅接受椎板切除术的患者,而两组之间的再次手术率没有显著差异。单独减压与减压伴融合的患者长期(≥5 年)再次手术率相似(17.3%对 16.0%,P=0.44)。在超过 5 年的时间里,接受内固定融合术的患者再次手术率略高于接受非内固定融合术的患者(17.4%对 12.2%,P=0.11)。单独减压和融合患者的 5 年总费用包括初始手术和医院、门诊、急诊和药物费用。接受内固定和非内固定融合的长期费用也相似,分别为 107056 美元和 100471 美元。
对于患有椎管狭窄症的患者,如果需要融合,使用无内固定的关节融合术可降低成本,且长期并发症和再次手术率相似。