Suppr超能文献

全国范围内初次椎间盘切除术后翻修椎间盘切除术的发生率是多少?

What is the Rate of Revision Discectomies After Primary Discectomy on a National Scale?

作者信息

Virk Sohrab S, Diwan Ashish, Phillips Frank M, Sandhu Harvinder, Khan Safdar N

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. George Hospital, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

出版信息

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Nov;475(11):2752-2762. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5467-6. Epub 2017 Aug 28.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lumbar discectomy has been shown to be clinically beneficial in numerous studies for appropriately selected patients. Some patients, however, undergo revision discectomy, with previously reported estimates of revisions ranging from 5.1% to 7.9%. No study to date has been able to precisely quantify the rate of revision surgery over numerous years on a national scale.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSE: We performed a survival analysis for lumbar discectomy on a national scale using a life-table analysis to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of revision discectomy on a national scale over 5 to 7 years for patients undergoing primary discectomy alone? (2) Are there differences in revision discectomy rates based on age of patient, region of the country, or the payer type?

METHODS

The Medicare 5% National Sample Administrative Database (SAF5) and a large national database from Humana Inc (HORTHO) were used to catalog the number of patients undergoing a lumbar discectomy. Both of these databases have been cited in numerous peer-reviewed publications during the previous 5 years and routinely are audited by PearlDiver Inc. We identified patients using relevant ICD-9 codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, including ICD-9 72210 (lumbar disc displacement) for disc herniation. We used appropriate CPT codes to identify patients who had a lumbar discectomy. We analyzed patients undergoing additional surgery including those who had repeat discectomy (CPT-63042: laminotomy, reexploration single interspace, lumbar) and patients who had additional more-extensive decompressive procedures with or without fusion after their primary procedure. Revision surgery rates were calculated for patients 65 years and older and those younger than 65 years and for each database (Humana Inc and Medicare). Patients from the two databases also were analyzed based on four distinct geographic regions in the United States where their surgery occurred. There were a total of 7520 patients who underwent a lumbar discectomy for an intervertebral disc displacement with at least 5 years of followup in the HORTHO and SAF5 databases. We used cumulative incidence of revision surgery to estimate the survivorship of these patients.

RESULTS

In the HORTHO (2613 patients) and SAF5 (4907 patients) databases, 147 patients (5.6%; 95% CI, 1.8%-9.2%) and 305 patients (6.2%; 95% CI, 3.5%-8.9%) had revision surgery at 7 years after the index discectomy respectively. Survival analysis showed survival rates greater than 93% (95% CI, 91%-98%) for all of the cohorts for a primary discectomy up to 7 years after the surgery. The survivorship was lower for patients younger than 65 years (93% [95% CI, 87%-99%, 1016 of 1091] versus 95% [95% CI, 90%-100%, 1450 of 1522], p = 0.02). When nondiscectomy lumbar surgeries were included, the survivorship of patients younger than 65 years remained lower (83% [95% CI, 76%-89%, 902 of 1091] versus 87% [95% CI, 82%-92%, 1324 of 1522], p = 0.02). There was no difference in revision discectomy rates across geographic regions (p = 0.41) at 7 years. Similarly, there was no difference in additional nondiscectomy lumbar surgery rates (p = 0.68) across geographic regions at 7 years. There was no difference in survivorship rates between patients covered by Medicare (94% [95% CI, 91%-97%], 4602 of 4907) versus Humana Inc (94% [95% CI, 90%-98%], 2466 of 2613) (p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows rates of cumulative survival after an index lumbar discectomy with revision discectomy as the endpoint. We hope these data allow physicians to offer accurate advice to patients regarding the risk of revision surgery for patients of all ages during 5 to 7 years after their index procedure to enhance shared decision making in spinal surgery. These data also will help public policymakers and accountable care organizations accurately allocate scarce resources to patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

摘要

背景

在众多研究中,腰椎间盘切除术已被证明对经过适当选择的患者具有临床益处。然而,一些患者需要进行翻修椎间盘切除术,此前报道的翻修率估计在5.1%至7.9%之间。迄今为止,尚无研究能够在全国范围内精确量化多年来的翻修手术率。

问题/目的:我们使用生命表分析在全国范围内对腰椎间盘切除术进行了生存分析,以回答以下问题:(1)仅接受初次椎间盘切除术的患者在5至7年的全国范围内翻修椎间盘切除术的发生率是多少?(2)根据患者年龄、所在地区或支付方类型,翻修椎间盘切除术的发生率是否存在差异?

方法

使用医疗保险5%全国样本管理数据库(SAF5)和来自Humana公司的大型全国数据库(HORTHO)对接受腰椎间盘切除术的患者数量进行编目。在过去5年中,这两个数据库都在众多同行评审出版物中被引用,并且PearlDiver公司会定期对其进行审核。我们使用相关的ICD-9编码和当前手术操作术语(CPT)编码来识别患者,包括用于椎间盘突出的ICD-9 722.10(腰椎间盘移位)。我们使用适当的CPT编码来识别接受腰椎间盘切除术的患者。我们分析了接受额外手术的患者,包括那些进行重复椎间盘切除术的患者(CPT-63042:椎板切开术,再次探查单个间隙,腰椎)以及在初次手术后进行了额外更广泛减压手术(无论是否有融合)的患者。计算了65岁及以上患者和65岁以下患者以及每个数据库(Humana公司和医疗保险)的翻修手术率。还根据患者手术所在的美国四个不同地理区域对两个数据库中的患者进行了分析。在HORTHO和SAF5数据库中,共有7520例因椎间盘移位接受腰椎间盘切除术且至少随访5年的患者。我们使用翻修手术的累积发生率来估计这些患者的生存率。

结果

在HORTHO(2613例患者)和SAF5(4907例患者)数据库中,分别有147例患者(5.6%;95%CI,1.8%-9.2%)和305例患者(6.2%;95%CI,3.5%-8.9%)在初次椎间盘切除术后7年进行了翻修手术。生存分析显示,所有队列在初次椎间盘切除术后长达7年的生存率均大于93%(95%CI,91%-98%)。65岁以下患者的生存率较低(93%[95%CI,87%-99%,1091例中的1016例]对95%[95%CI,90%-100%,1522例中的1450例],p = 0.02)。当纳入非椎间盘切除的腰椎手术时,65岁以下患者的生存率仍然较低(83%[95%CI,76%-89%,1091例中的902例]对87%[95%CI,82%-92%,1522例中的1324例],p = 0.02)。7年时,不同地理区域的翻修椎间盘切除术发生率没有差异(p = 0.41)。同样地,7年时不同地理区域的额外非椎间盘切除腰椎手术发生率也没有差异(p = 0.68)。医疗保险覆盖的患者(94%[95%CI,91%-97%],4907例中的4602例)与Humana公司覆盖的患者(94%[95%CI,90%-98%],2613例中的2466例)的生存率没有差异(p = 0.31)。

结论

我们的研究显示了以翻修椎间盘切除术为终点的初次腰椎间盘切除术后的累积生存率。我们希望这些数据能让医生就初次手术后5至7年内各年龄段患者的翻修手术风险向患者提供准确建议,以加强脊柱手术中的共同决策。这些数据也将有助于公共政策制定者和责任医疗组织准确地将稀缺资源分配给有症状的腰椎间盘突出症患者。

证据水平

III级,治疗性研究。

相似文献

1
What is the Rate of Revision Discectomies After Primary Discectomy on a National Scale?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Nov;475(11):2752-2762. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5467-6. Epub 2017 Aug 28.
2
Lumbar discectomy is associated with higher rates of lumbar fusion.
Spine J. 2019 Mar;19(3):487-492. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.016. Epub 2018 May 21.
5
Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: results of operative management.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Mar 15;26(6):672-6. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200103150-00024.
6
Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc disease: nationwide cohort study.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Apr 1;38(7):581-90. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318274f9a7.
8
Incidence of Low Back Pain After Lumbar Discectomy for Herniated Disc and Its Effect on Patient-reported Outcomes.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):1988-99. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4193-1.
10
Annular closure device for disc herniation: meta-analysis of clinical outcome and complications.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Aug 16;19(1):290. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2213-5.

引用本文的文献

2
A perspective on reoperations after surgical treatments of degenerative lumbar diseases.
J Orthop Translat. 2025 Mar 13;51:159-162. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2025.01.014. eCollection 2025 Mar.
7
Revision Spinal Surgery at a University Hospital: Incidence, Causes, and Microbiological Agents in Infected Patients.
Int J Spine Surg. 2022 Sep;16(5):928-934. doi: 10.14444/8349. Epub 2022 Sep 13.
8
The Essence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lumbar Disc Herniation, 2021: 5. Prognosis.
Spine Surg Relat Res. 2022 Jul 27;6(4):333-336. doi: 10.22603/ssrr.2022-0046. eCollection 2022.
9
Emerging Issues Questioning the Current Treatment Strategies for Lumbar Disc Herniation.
Front Surg. 2022 Mar 28;9:814531. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.814531. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

2
Administrative Databases in Orthopaedic Research: Pearls and Pitfalls of Big Data.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016 Mar;24(3):172-9. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-13-00009.
3
Future patient demand for shoulder arthroplasty by younger patients: national projections.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):1860-7. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4231-z. Epub 2015 Mar 11.
4
Cancer risk from bone morphogenetic protein exposure in spinal arthrodesis.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Sep 3;96(17):1417-22. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01190.
5
Is changing hospitals for revision total joint arthroplasty associated with more complications?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jul;472(7):2006-15. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3515-z. Epub 2014 Mar 11.
6
Trends and demographics in hip arthroscopy in the United States.
Arthroscopy. 2013 Apr;29(4):661-5. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.11.005. Epub 2013 Feb 1.
7
The validity of using administrative claims data in total joint arthroplasty outcomes research.
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Sep;25(6 Suppl):58-61. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.006. Epub 2010 Jun 8.
8
Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after single-level lumbar discectomy: incidence and health care cost analysis.
Neurosurgery. 2009 Sep;65(3):574-8; discussion 578. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000350224.36213.F9.
10
Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy: part 1: evaluation of clinical outcome.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 1;33(3):265-72. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318162018c.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验