More postoperative complications and revision surgery after occipitocervical fusion than after atlantoaxial fusion: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.
{"title":"More postoperative complications and revision surgery after occipitocervical fusion than after atlantoaxial fusion: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.","authors":"Koji Uotani, Angel Oscar Paz Flores, Masato Tanaka, Shashank J Ekade, Shinya Arataki, Tadashi Komatsubara, Yoshiaki Oda, Kensuke Shinohara, Toshifumi Ozaki","doi":"10.31616/asj.2024.0374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective multicenter cohort study.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We sought to determine whether occipitocervical (OC) fusion is followed by more postoperative complications and revision surgery than is atlantoaxial (AA) fusion. We aim to compare postoperative complications and revision surgery associated with OC fusion and AA fusion.</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>OC and AA fusion are established techniques for restoring upper cervical stability. However, the outcomes of the two methods have not been compared.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 90 patients who underwent upper spinal fusion surgery for mechanical instability, performed by three surgeons in two hospitals from 2011 to 2023; OC fusion was indicated for irreducible AA subluxation, os odontoideum, and severe upper C1 fracture. Of the patients, 38 (mean age, 58.7 years) underwent OC fusion, and 52 (mean age, 62.8 years) underwent AA fusion. To evaluate surgical outcomes, we documented surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and the rate of revision surgery. Radiographs were obtained to identify screw malposition, rod breakage, and nonunion. To compare the outcomes of the two techniques, we used the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-square or Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>OC fusion took significantly longer (175.4 minutes) than AA fusion (150.7 minutes, p=0.020) and had a higher complication rate (39.5% vs. 11.5%, p <0.0001). The reoperation rate was 23.7% (9/38) after OC fusion and 3.8% (2/52) after AA fusion; the difference was statistically significant (p=0.0073). Average amounts of blood loss were 224 mL during OC fusion and 224 mL during AA fusion; the difference was not significant (p=0.947).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although OC fusion is indispensable for certain conditions, particularly basilar invagination, it entails more risk than dose AA fusion; the choice of technique thus warrants careful consideration.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study design: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Purpose: We sought to determine whether occipitocervical (OC) fusion is followed by more postoperative complications and revision surgery than is atlantoaxial (AA) fusion. We aim to compare postoperative complications and revision surgery associated with OC fusion and AA fusion.
Overview of literature: OC and AA fusion are established techniques for restoring upper cervical stability. However, the outcomes of the two methods have not been compared.
Methods: This study included 90 patients who underwent upper spinal fusion surgery for mechanical instability, performed by three surgeons in two hospitals from 2011 to 2023; OC fusion was indicated for irreducible AA subluxation, os odontoideum, and severe upper C1 fracture. Of the patients, 38 (mean age, 58.7 years) underwent OC fusion, and 52 (mean age, 62.8 years) underwent AA fusion. To evaluate surgical outcomes, we documented surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and the rate of revision surgery. Radiographs were obtained to identify screw malposition, rod breakage, and nonunion. To compare the outcomes of the two techniques, we used the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-square or Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables.
Results: OC fusion took significantly longer (175.4 minutes) than AA fusion (150.7 minutes, p=0.020) and had a higher complication rate (39.5% vs. 11.5%, p <0.0001). The reoperation rate was 23.7% (9/38) after OC fusion and 3.8% (2/52) after AA fusion; the difference was statistically significant (p=0.0073). Average amounts of blood loss were 224 mL during OC fusion and 224 mL during AA fusion; the difference was not significant (p=0.947).
Conclusions: Although OC fusion is indispensable for certain conditions, particularly basilar invagination, it entails more risk than dose AA fusion; the choice of technique thus warrants careful consideration.
研究设计:回顾性多中心队列研究。目的:我们试图确定枕颈(OC)融合是否比寰枢(AA)融合有更多的术后并发症和翻修手术。我们的目的是比较OC融合和AA融合的术后并发症和翻修手术。文献综述:OC和AA融合是恢复上颈椎稳定性的成熟技术。然而,两种方法的结果尚未进行比较。方法:本研究纳入了90例因机械不稳定而行上脊柱融合术的患者,由两家医院的三名外科医生于2011年至2023年进行;不可还原性AA半脱位、齿状突缺失和严重的上C1骨折均适用OC融合。38例(平均年龄58.7岁)行OC融合术,52例(平均年龄62.8岁)行AA融合术。为了评估手术结果,我们记录了手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症和翻修手术的发生率。x线片确定螺钉错位、杆断裂和骨不连。为了比较两种技术的结果,我们对连续变量使用Mann-Whitney U检验,对二分类变量使用卡方或Fisher精确检验。结果:OC融合术所需时间(175.4分钟)明显高于AA融合术(150.7分钟,p=0.020),并发症发生率(39.5% vs 11.5%, p)。结论:虽然OC融合术在某些情况下是必不可少的,特别是基底动脉内陷,但其风险高于剂量AA融合术;因此,技术的选择值得仔细考虑。