{"title":"Comparison of reoperation incidence after fusion versus decompression for lumbar degenerative disease: A propensity score-weighted study.","authors":"Soichiro Masuda, Toshiki Fukasawa, Shunsuke Fujibayashi, Bungo Otsuki, Koichi Murata, Takayoshi Shimizu, Shuichi Matsuda, Koji Kawakami","doi":"10.37737/ace.25001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reoperation after lumbar spine surgery is a major issue for both patients and physicians. It is uncertain whether fusion is superior to decompression alone for lumbar degenerative disease regarding reoperation rate. We aim to evaluate the reoperation rate after fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative disease compared with decompression alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted under a retrospective cohort design in patients undergoing fusion or decompression alone in one or two levels for lumbar degenerative disease using a Japanese claims-based database. Primary outcome was reoperation incidence during the follow-up period, and secondary outcome was reoperation incidence within 90 days postoperatively. Confounding factors were handled using propensity score overlap weighting. Cumulative incidence of reoperation was calculated from the Kaplan-Meier curve and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for reoperation were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>8497 patients (2051 patients in the fusion group and 6446 in the decompression alone group) were included in the study. There was no difference in reoperation rate between fusion and decompression alone (weighted HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.69 to 1.04]; p = 0.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among patients with lumbar degenerative disease who underwent fusion or decompression alone, no significant difference was observed between the two groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":517436,"journal":{"name":"Annals of clinical epidemiology","volume":"7 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11799856/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of clinical epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37737/ace.25001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Reoperation after lumbar spine surgery is a major issue for both patients and physicians. It is uncertain whether fusion is superior to decompression alone for lumbar degenerative disease regarding reoperation rate. We aim to evaluate the reoperation rate after fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative disease compared with decompression alone.
Methods: This study was conducted under a retrospective cohort design in patients undergoing fusion or decompression alone in one or two levels for lumbar degenerative disease using a Japanese claims-based database. Primary outcome was reoperation incidence during the follow-up period, and secondary outcome was reoperation incidence within 90 days postoperatively. Confounding factors were handled using propensity score overlap weighting. Cumulative incidence of reoperation was calculated from the Kaplan-Meier curve and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for reoperation were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models.
Results: 8497 patients (2051 patients in the fusion group and 6446 in the decompression alone group) were included in the study. There was no difference in reoperation rate between fusion and decompression alone (weighted HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.69 to 1.04]; p = 0.11).
Conclusions: Among patients with lumbar degenerative disease who underwent fusion or decompression alone, no significant difference was observed between the two groups.