Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures

Spine

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 382-387

  Martin, Brook I ^a,d   Mirza, Sohail K ^a,b   Comstock, Bryan A ^a   Gray, Darryl T ^a,c   Kreuter, William ^a   Deyo, Richard A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety   (United States)

^d Center for Cost and Outcomes Research   (United States)

Author keywords

Fusion; Lumbar; Reoperation; Spine; Surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; LUMBAR SPINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDARTHROSIS; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE FUSION; SPINE STABILIZATION; SPINE SURGERY; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION;

EID: 33846700772     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000254104.55716.46     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Gray DT, Deyo RA, Kreuter W, et al. Population-based trends in volumes and rates of ambulatory lumbar spine surgery. Spine 2006;31:1957-63.
2. Taylor VM. Low back pain hospitalization. Recent United States trends and regional variations. Spine 1994;19:1207-12.
3. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, et al. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 2005;30:1441-5.
4. Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 2004;29:455-63.
5. Lurie JD, Weinstein JN. Shared decision-making and the orthopaedic workforce. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001;385:68-75.
6. Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK. Spinal-fusion surgery - The case for restraint. N Engl J Med 2004;350:722-6.
7. Carragee EJ, Alamin TF, Miller JL, et al. Discographic, MRI and psychosocial determinants of low back pain disability and remission: a prospective study in subjects with benign persistent back pain. Spine J 2005;5:24-35.
8. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 2001;26:2521-32.
9. Brox JI, Sorensen R, Friis A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercise in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine 2003;28:1913-21.
10. Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, et al. Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ 2005;330:1233.
11. Kane W. Spinal pedicle fixation. In: Weinstein JH, ed. Clinical Efficacy and Outcome in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1992:175.
12. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Volinn E, et al. Use of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM) to identify hospitalizations for mechanical low back problems in administrative databases. Spine 1992;17:817-25.
13. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:613-9.
14. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:802-8.
15. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, et al. Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 1997;22:2807-12.
16. Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Kreuter W, et al. Characteristics in Medicare beneficiaries associated with reoperation after lumbar spine surgery. Spine 1994;19:1329-34.
17. Hu RW, Jaglal S, Axcell T, et al. A population-based study of reoperations after back surgery. Spine 1997;22:2265-70.
18. Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Ciol M, et al. Surgical treatment of patients with back problems covered by workers compensation versus those with other sources of payment. Spine 1996;21:2255-9.
19. Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Goldberg H, et al. Low back pain hospitalization in Washington State: recent trends and geographic variations. J Spinal Disord 1995;8:1-7.
20. Gioe TJ, Killeen KK, Grimm K, et al. Why are total knee replacements revised?: analysis of early revision in a community knee implant registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;428:100-6.
21. NIH Consensus Panel. NIH Consensus Statement on total knee replacement December 8-10, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:1328-35.
22. Aamodt A, Nordsletten L, Havelin LI, et al. Documentation of hip prostheses used in Norway: a critical review of the literature from 1996-2000. Acta Orthop Scand 2004;75:663-76.
23. Weinstein JN, Bronner KK, Morgan TS, et al. Trends and geographic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;(suppl Web exclusive):VAR81-9.
24. Malenka DJ, Kaplan AV, Sharp SM, et al. Postmarketing surveillance of medical devices using Medicare claims. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:928-37.