Search

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study with chart review.Objective: To determine if there is a difference in risk of adverse outcomes following elective posterior instrumented lumbar spinal fusions for patients aged 80 years and above compared with patients aged 50 to 79 years.Summary Of Background Data: Patients aged 80 years and above are undergoing elective lumbar spinal fusion surgery in increasing numbers. There are conflicting data on the risks of intraoperative and postoperative complications in these patients.Materials and Methods: Patients aged 80 years and above were compared with 50 to 79 years (reference group) using time-dependent multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with a competing risk of death for longitudinal outcomes and multivariable logistic regression for binary outcomes. Outcome measures used were: (1) intraoperative complications (durotomy), (2) postoperative complications: 30-day outcomes (pneumonia); 90-day outcomes (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, emergency room visits, readmission, reoperations, and mortality); and two-year outcomes (reoperations and mortality).Results: The cohort consisted of 7880 patients who underwent primary elective posterior instrumented lumbar spinal fusion (L1-S1) for degenerative disk disease or spondylolisthesis. This was subdivided into 596 patients were aged 80 years and above and 7284 patients aged 50 to 79. After adjustment, patients aged 80 years and above had a higher likelihood of durotomy [odds ratio (OR)=1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.02-2.02] and 30-day pneumonia (OR=1.81, 95% CI=1.01-3.23). However, there was a lower risk of reoperation within two years of the index procedure (hazard ratio=0.69, 95% CI=0.48-0.99). No differences were observed for mortality, readmissions, emergency room visits, pulmonary embolism, or deep vein thrombosis.Conclusions: In a cohort of 7880 elective posterior instrumented lumbar fusion patients for degenerative disk disease or spondylolisthesis, we did not observe any significant risks of adverse events between patients aged 80 years and above and those aged 50 to 79 except for higher durotomies and 30-day pneumonia in the former. We believe octogenarians can safely undergo lumbar fusions, but proper preoperative screening is necessary to reduce the risks of 30-day pneumonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Multicenter retrospective cohort study.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare reoperation rates at 5-year follow-up of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus posterior decompression with instrumented fusion (Fusion) for patients with low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in a multicenter database.Summary Of Background Data: Controversy exists regarding whether fusion should be used to augment decompression surgery in patients with LSS with DS. For years, the standard has been fusion with standard laminectomy to prevent postoperative instability. However, this strategy is not supported by Level 1 evidence. Instability and reoperations may be reduced or prevented using less invasive decompression techniques.Methods: We identified 164 patients with DS and LSS who underwent ULBD between January 2007 and December 2011 in a multicenter database. These patients were propensity score-matched on age, sex, race, and smoking status with patients who underwent Fusion (n = 437). Each patient required a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome was 5-year reoperation. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative complication rates, blood loss during surgery, and length of stay. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratio of the 5-year reoperation rate between the two surgical groups.Results: The reoperation rate at 5-year follow-up was 10.4% in the ULBD group and 17.2% in the Fusion group. ULBD reoperations were more frequent at the index surgical level; Fusion reoperations were more common at an adjacent level. The two types of operations had similar postoperative complication rates, and both groups tended to have fusion reoperations.Conclusion: For patients with stable DS and LSS, ULBD is a viable, durable option compared to fusion with decreased blood loss and length stay, as well as a lower reoperation rate at 5-year follow-up. Further prospective studies are required to determine the optimal clinical scenario for ULBD in the setting of DS.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevention of medical and surgical harm remains an important public health problem despite increased awareness and implementation of safety programs. Successful introduction and maintenance of surgical safety programs require both surgeon leadership and collaborative surgeon-hospital alignment. Documentation of success of such surgical safety programs in orthopaedic practice is limited. Questions/purposes: We describe the scope of orthopaedic surgical patient safety issues, define critical elements of orthopaedic surgical safety, and outline leadership roles for orthopaedic surgeons needed to establish and sustain a culture of safety in contemporary healthcare systems. Methods: We identified the most common causes of preventable surgical harm based on adverse and sentinel surgical events reported to The Joint Commission. A comprehensive literature review through a MEDLINE database search (January 1982 through April 2012) to identify pertinent orthopaedic surgical safety articles found 14 articles. Where gaps in orthopaedic literature were identified, the review was supplemented by 22 nonorthopaedic surgical references. Our final review included 36 articles. Results: Six important surgical safety program elements needed to eliminate preventable surgical harm were identified: (1) effective surgical team communication, (2) proper informed consent, (3) implementation and regular use of surgical checklists, (4) proper surgical site/procedure identification, (5) reduction of surgical team distractions, and (6) routine surgical data collection and analysis to improve the safety and quality of surgical patient care. Conclusions: Successful surgical safety programs require a culture of safety supported by all six key surgical safety program elements, active surgeon champions, and collaborative hospital and/or administrative support designed to enhance surgical safety and improve surgical patient outcomes. Further research measuring improvements from such surgical safety systems in orthopaedic care is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]