Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Division of Spinal Surgery, Departments of Orthopaedic and Neurosurgery, New York University Medical Center, NY University Spine Institute, New York, New York.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Sep 1;44(17):E1018-E1023. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003057.
Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database years 2010 to 2015.
Investigate which short-term outcomes differ for cervical laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion surgeries.
Conflicting reports exist in spine literature regarding short-term outcomes following cervical laminoplasty and posterior laminectomy and fusion. The objective of this study was to compare the 30-day outcomes for these two treatment groups for multilevel cervical pathology.
Patients who underwent cervical laminoplasty or posterior laminectomy and fusion were identified in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code: laminoplasty 63,050 and 63,051, posterior cervical laminectomy 63,015 and 63,045, and instrumentation 22,842. Propensity-adjusted multivariate regressions assessed differences in postoperative length of stay, adverse events, discharge disposition, and readmission.
Three thousand seven hundred ninety-six patients were included: 2397 (63%) underwent cervical laminectomy and fusion and 1399 (37%) underwent cervical laminoplasty. Both groups were similar in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologist Classification (ASA), Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), and had similar rates of malnutrition, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and history for steroid use. Age more than 70 and age less than 50 were not associated with one treatment group over the other (P > 0.05). Compared with laminoplasty patients, laminectomy and fusion patients had increased lengths of stay (LOS) (4.5 vs. 3.7 d, P < 0.01) and increased rates of adverse events (41.7% vs. 35.9%, P < 0.01), discharge to rehab (16.4% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.01), and skilled nursing facilities (12.2% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.02), and readmission (6.2% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.05). Both groups experienced similar rates of death, pulmonary embolus, deep vein thrombosis, deep and superficial surgical site infection, and reoperation (P > 0.05 for all).
Posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion patients were found to have increased LOS, readmissions, and complications despite having similar pre-op demographics and comorbidities. Patients and surgeons should consider these risks when considering surgical treatment for cervical pathology.
回顾性分析美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)数据库 2010 年至 2015 年的数据。
研究颈椎板成形术和椎板切除术融合术的短期结果有何不同。
颈椎板成形术和后路椎板切除术融合术的短期结果在脊柱文献中存在矛盾的报告。本研究的目的是比较这两种治疗方法在多节段颈椎病变中的 30 天结果。
根据美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)的手术操作分类代码(CPT 码),确定接受颈椎板成形术或后路椎板切除术和融合术的患者:板成形术 63050 和 63051,后路颈椎板切除术 63015 和 63045,以及器械 22842。采用倾向性调整多元回归分析评估术后住院时间、不良事件、出院去向和再入院率的差异。
共纳入 3796 例患者:2397 例(63%)接受颈椎板切除术和融合术,1399 例(37%)接受颈椎板成形术。两组患者的年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)、美国麻醉医师协会分类(ASA)、Charleston 合并症指数(CCI)和营养不良、慢性肾脏病、糖尿病、慢性阻塞性肺疾病和类固醇使用史的发生率相似。70 岁以上和 50 岁以下的年龄与任何一组治疗均无相关性(P>0.05)。与板成形术患者相比,椎板切除术和融合术患者的住院时间(4.5 天 vs. 3.7 天,P<0.01)和不良事件发生率(41.7% vs. 35.9%,P<0.01)、出院至康复(16.4% vs. 8.6%,P<0.01)、熟练护理设施(12.2% vs. 9.7%,P=0.02)和再入院(6.2% vs. 4.5%,P=0.05)更高。两组的死亡率、肺栓塞、深静脉血栓形成、深部和浅部手术部位感染以及再次手术率相似(所有 P>0.05)。
尽管颈椎板切除术和融合术患者的术前人口统计学和合并症相似,但他们的住院时间、再入院率和并发症发生率更高。当考虑颈椎病变的手术治疗时,患者和外科医生应考虑这些风险。
3。