Search

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Summary of Background Data: The optimal surgical approach for multilevel cervical stenosis in elderly patients is controversial because of the risk of life-threatening complication., Objective: To compare life-threatening early complication rates between ≥3 levels anterior and posterior cervical surgery in elderly patients., Methods: Data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (NSQIP) were queried for patients 65 years or older who underwent ACDF or PS between 2016 and 2021. Patients with subaxial cervical degenerative disorders were identified using ICD10 codes. Surgical procedures were defined with CPT code indicating ACDF (3-5 levels; ACDF3+), laminoplasty or laminectomy (3-5 levels), and posterior decompression and fusion (3-5 levels). Outcomes of interest including reoperation, airway complications, venous thromboembolism (VTE), surgical site infections (SSIs), and urinary tract infections (UTI) were compared by utilizing 1:1 propensity score matching between the 2 approaches., Results: We identified 568 patients who underwent ACDF3+ and 1590 patients who underwent PS. After propensity score matching, the cohorts with 568 patients each were well-balanced with a mean age of 70.9 years. All 17 patients with dialysis and 24 of 28 patients with congestive heart failure in the PS group before the matching were excluded through the matching process. Complications rates between ACDF3+ and PS group were similar in reoperation (2.1% vs. 3.3%; P=0.275), airway complications (0.9% vs. 0.9%; P=1.000), and VTE (1.1% vs. 0.7%; P=0.751), whereas the PS group had a higher rate of SSI (0.2% vs. 1.4%; P=0.045), UTI (1.1% vs. 3.0%; P=0.035), and LOS (2.5±6.1 vs, 4.3±3.9 d; P<0.001)., Conclusions: Among elderly patients undergoing 3 or more levels of cervical spine surgery, there were comparable rates of 30-day life-threatening complications between the 2 approaches. However, potential selection bias exists, with surgeons possibly favoring posterior surgery for patients with higher-risk comorbidities., Competing Interests: S.A.Q. has the following disclosures: AMOpportunities: Other financial or material support; Annals of Translational Medicine: Editorial or governing board; Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Contemporary Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Hospital Special Surgery Journal: Editorial or governing board; HS2, LLC: Stock or stock Options; International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS)—Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Lifelink.com: Other financial or material support; Lumbar Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group: Board or committee member; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Simplify Medical, Inc.: Other financial or material support; Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS)—Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Spinal Simplicity: Other financial or material support; SpineGuard, Inc.: Paid consultant; Stryker: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Surgalign: Paid consultant; Tissue Differentiation Intelligence: Stock or stock Options; Viseon, Inc.: Paid consultant; Clinical Spine Surgery: Deputy Editor. S.I. has the following disclosures: Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker; Vertebral Columns/International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS): Editorial or governing board. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: Decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has shown excellent clinical outcomes. In patients with symptomatic single level stenosis and asymptomatic adjacent level disease, it is unknown whether decompressing only the symptomatic level is sufficient. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes between single level and dual level minimally invasive (MIS) decompression in patients with adjacent level stenosis., Methods: The current study is a retrospective review of patients undergoing primary single or dual level MIS decompression for LSS. Radiographic stenosis severity was graded using the Schizas grading. Patients undergoing single level decompression (SLD) with moderate stenosis at the adjacent level were compared with patients undergoing dual level decompression (DLD) for multi-level LSS. Clinical outcomes, complications, and reoperations were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with the same Schizas grade at the adjacent level in the SLD group and the second surgical level in the DLD group., Results: 148 patients were included (126 SLD, 76 DLD). There were no significant differences in patient reported outcomes between the two groups at any timepoint up to 2 years postoperatively, including in the matched stenosis severity subgroups. Operative time was longer in the DLD cohort ( P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in complications or reoperation rates., Conclusion: In patients with single level symptomatic LSS and adjacent level stenosis, decompression of only the symptomatic level provided equivalent clinical outcomes compared to dual level decompression. The additional operative time and potential incremental risk of dual level surgery may not be justified., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: State: HS2, LLC Ownership/Equity/Investment Innovasis Research Support (either personally or through HSS) Globus Medical, Inc. Speakers’ Bureau Intrinsic Therapeutics Inc. Other Bioventus Consulting HSS AND ASC Development Network Ownership/Equity/Investment. Sheeraz Qureshi has the following disclosures: AMOpportunities: Other financial or material support; Annals of Translational Medicine: Editorial or governing board; Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Contemporary Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Hospital Special Surgery Journal: Editorial or governing board; HS2, LLC: Stock or stock Options; International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Lifelink.com: Other financial or material support; Lumbar Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group: Board or committee member; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Simplify Medical, Inc.: Other financial or material support; Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Spinal Simplicity: Other financial or material support; SpineGuard, Inc.: Paid consultant; Stryker: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Surgalign: Paid consultant; Tissue Differentiation Intelligence: Stock or stock Options; Viseon, Inc.: Paid consultant; Research support. Sravisht Iyer has the following disclosures: Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker; Vertebral Columns/International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS): Editorial or governing board.