Orthostatic intolerance following posterior lumbar interbody fusion: incidence, risk factors, and impact on postoperative recovery: a prospective cohort study.
Xiaoxia Kang, Jiayuan Wu, Andrew Y Xu, Audrey Y Su, Mingming Liu, Jie Huang, Wenli Zhu, Cheng Zeng, Fangfang Duan, Bassel G Diebo, Alan H Daniels, Da He
{"title":"Orthostatic intolerance following posterior lumbar interbody fusion: incidence, risk factors, and impact on postoperative recovery: a prospective cohort study.","authors":"Xiaoxia Kang, Jiayuan Wu, Andrew Y Xu, Audrey Y Su, Mingming Liu, Jie Huang, Wenli Zhu, Cheng Zeng, Fangfang Duan, Bassel G Diebo, Alan H Daniels, Da He","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Despite the well-established consensus about the importance of early ambulation, the causes of orthostatic intolerance and its impact on patient recovery after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) remain poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the incidence of orthostatic intolerance and relevant risk factors after PLIF in an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A prospective observational cohort study.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>This study investigated perioperative data collected from 378 patients who underwent PLIF at one center between September 2023 and July 2024.</p><p><strong>Outcome measure: </strong>Patients' postoperative orthostatic intolerance symptoms were recorded and graded by a standardized evaluation scale. The occurrence of any symptom that resulted in termination of ambulation (dizziness, nausea, vomiting, a feeling of heat, visual disturbances, hypotension, and syncope) was classified as orthostatic intolerance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Possible risk factors were identified through univariate and multivariate analysis. The length of postoperative hospitalization, catheterization, and ambulation delay in orthostatic intolerance patients versus orthostatic tolerant patients was compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For orthostatic intolerance patients, the median time to first attempted ambulation was 26.0 (IQR: 20.8-31.2) hours after surgery. Overall, the observed incidence of orthostatic intolerance was 15.3%. Univariate analysis showed that a higher incidence of orthostatic intolerance was associated with history of orthostatic intolerance (6 vs. 13, p=.044), low hemoglobin on postoperative day 1 (103.8±14.8g/L vs. 110.7±13.3g/L, p<.001), and high postoperative back pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores while supine (4.0 [2.0] [4.0±1.8] vs. 3.0 [1.0] [3.4±1.8], p=.015). Multivariate analysis through logistic regression controlling for covariates established the same three variables as independent risk factors: history of orthostatic intolerance (OR=3.029, 95% CI 1.021-8.988, p=.046), low hemoglobin on postoperative day 1 (OR=2.890, 95% CI 1.566-5.334, p<.001), and high postoperative back pain VAS scores while supine (OR=1.218, 95% CI 1.030-1.441, p=.021). Overall, orthostatic intolerance patients had a longer postoperative hospital stay (6.0 [2.0] [6.3±1.8] vs. 6.0 [2.0] [5.8±1.8], p=.013), catheterization period (24.1 [5.2] [26.0±8.9] vs. 22.6 [4.7] [22.8±4.0], p=.042), and ambulation delay (48.2 [6.3] [48.7±7.8] vs. 25.0 [4.5] [25.0±3.9], p<.001) than orthostatic tolerance patients. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences regarding postoperative hospital stay or catheterization period found between the two groups in this study.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Orthostatic intolerance is a common complication that prevents early ambulation in ERAS programs after PLIF. Careful monitoring of postoperative hemoglobin levels and administration of postoperative analgesia may reduce the incidence of orthostatic intolerance and promote early ambulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.020","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background context: Despite the well-established consensus about the importance of early ambulation, the causes of orthostatic intolerance and its impact on patient recovery after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) remain poorly understood.
Purpose: To determine the incidence of orthostatic intolerance and relevant risk factors after PLIF in an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.
Study design: A prospective observational cohort study.
Patient sample: This study investigated perioperative data collected from 378 patients who underwent PLIF at one center between September 2023 and July 2024.
Outcome measure: Patients' postoperative orthostatic intolerance symptoms were recorded and graded by a standardized evaluation scale. The occurrence of any symptom that resulted in termination of ambulation (dizziness, nausea, vomiting, a feeling of heat, visual disturbances, hypotension, and syncope) was classified as orthostatic intolerance.
Methods: Possible risk factors were identified through univariate and multivariate analysis. The length of postoperative hospitalization, catheterization, and ambulation delay in orthostatic intolerance patients versus orthostatic tolerant patients was compared.
Results: For orthostatic intolerance patients, the median time to first attempted ambulation was 26.0 (IQR: 20.8-31.2) hours after surgery. Overall, the observed incidence of orthostatic intolerance was 15.3%. Univariate analysis showed that a higher incidence of orthostatic intolerance was associated with history of orthostatic intolerance (6 vs. 13, p=.044), low hemoglobin on postoperative day 1 (103.8±14.8g/L vs. 110.7±13.3g/L, p<.001), and high postoperative back pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores while supine (4.0 [2.0] [4.0±1.8] vs. 3.0 [1.0] [3.4±1.8], p=.015). Multivariate analysis through logistic regression controlling for covariates established the same three variables as independent risk factors: history of orthostatic intolerance (OR=3.029, 95% CI 1.021-8.988, p=.046), low hemoglobin on postoperative day 1 (OR=2.890, 95% CI 1.566-5.334, p<.001), and high postoperative back pain VAS scores while supine (OR=1.218, 95% CI 1.030-1.441, p=.021). Overall, orthostatic intolerance patients had a longer postoperative hospital stay (6.0 [2.0] [6.3±1.8] vs. 6.0 [2.0] [5.8±1.8], p=.013), catheterization period (24.1 [5.2] [26.0±8.9] vs. 22.6 [4.7] [22.8±4.0], p=.042), and ambulation delay (48.2 [6.3] [48.7±7.8] vs. 25.0 [4.5] [25.0±3.9], p<.001) than orthostatic tolerance patients. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences regarding postoperative hospital stay or catheterization period found between the two groups in this study.
Conclusions: Orthostatic intolerance is a common complication that prevents early ambulation in ERAS programs after PLIF. Careful monitoring of postoperative hemoglobin levels and administration of postoperative analgesia may reduce the incidence of orthostatic intolerance and promote early ambulation.
背景背景:尽管关于早期活动的重要性已经达成了共识,但直立不耐受的原因及其对后路腰椎椎体间融合术(PLIF)后患者恢复的影响仍然知之甚少。目的:确定PLIF术后增强恢复(ERAS)项目中直立不耐受发生率及相关危险因素。研究设计:前瞻性观察队列研究。患者样本:本研究调查了2023年9月至2024年7月期间在一个中心接受PLIF治疗的378例患者的围手术期数据。结果测量:记录患者术后直立不耐受症状,并采用标准化评估量表进行评分。任何导致行走终止的症状(头晕、恶心、呕吐、发热感、视觉障碍、低血压和晕厥)的出现都被归类为直立性不耐受。方法:通过单因素和多因素分析,找出可能的危险因素。比较直立不耐受患者和直立耐受患者术后住院时间、置管时间和下床时间。结果:对于直立不耐受患者,术后第一次尝试下床的中位时间为26.0 (IQR: 20.8-31.2)小时。总的来说,观察到的直立不耐受发生率为15.3%。单因素分析显示,较高的直立性不耐受发生率与直立性不耐受史(6 vs 13, P=0.044)、术后第1天低血红蛋白(103.8±14.8g/L vs 110.7±13.3g/L)相关。结论:直立性不耐受是PLIF术后ERAS患者早期无法行走的常见并发症。仔细监测术后血红蛋白水平和术后镇痛可减少直立不耐受的发生率,促进早期活动。
期刊介绍:
The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.