Does extending a posterior cervical fusion construct into the upper thoracic spine impact patient-reported outcomes as long as 2 years after surgery in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy?

IF 3.2 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Economics of Innovation and New Technology Pub Date : 2022-05-06 Print Date: 2022-10-01 DOI:10.3171/2022.3.SPINE211529
Raphaële Charest-Morin, Christopher S Bailey, Greg McIntosh, Y Raja Rampersaud, W Bradley Jacobs, David W Cadotte, Jérome Paquet, Hamilton Hall, Michael H Weber, Michael G Johnson, Andrew Nataraj, Najmedden Attabib, Neil Manson, Philippe Phan, Sean D Christie, Kenneth C Thomas, Charles G Fisher, Nicolas Dea
{"title":"Does extending a posterior cervical fusion construct into the upper thoracic spine impact patient-reported outcomes as long as 2 years after surgery in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy?","authors":"Raphaële Charest-Morin, Christopher S Bailey, Greg McIntosh, Y Raja Rampersaud, W Bradley Jacobs, David W Cadotte, Jérome Paquet, Hamilton Hall, Michael H Weber, Michael G Johnson, Andrew Nataraj, Najmedden Attabib, Neil Manson, Philippe Phan, Sean D Christie, Kenneth C Thomas, Charles G Fisher, Nicolas Dea","doi":"10.3171/2022.3.SPINE211529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In multilevel posterior cervical instrumented fusion, extension of fusion across the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) at T1 or T2 has been associated with decreased rates of reoperation and pseudarthrosis but with longer surgical time and increased blood loss. The impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains unclear. The primary objective was to determine whether extension of fusion through the CTJ influenced PROs at 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The secondary objective was to compare the number of patients who reached the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the PROs, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, discharge disposition, adverse events (AEs), reoperation within 24 months of surgery, and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective observational cohort study of prospectively collected multicenter data of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion of 4 levels or greater (between C2 and T2) between January 2015 and October 2020 and received 24 months of follow-up were included. PROs (scores on the Neck Disability Index [NDI], EQ-5D, physical component summary and mental component summary of SF-12, and numeric rating scale for arm and neck pain) and mJOA scores were compared using ANCOVA and adjusted for baseline differences. Patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and surgical details were abstracted. The proportions of patients who reached the MCIDs for these outcomes were compared with the chi-square test. Operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, AEs, reoperation, discharge disposition, length of stay, and satisfaction was compared by using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the independent-samples t-test for continuous variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 198 patients were included in this study (101 patients with fusion not crossing the CTJ and 97 with fusion crossing the CTJ). Patients with a construct extending through the CTJ were more likely to be female and have worse baseline NDI scores (p > 0.05). When adjusted for baseline differences, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the PROs and mJOA scores at 3, 12, and 24 months. Surgical duration was longer (p < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss was greater in the group with fusion extending to the upper thoracic spine (p = 0.013). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of AEs (p > 0.05). Fusion with a construct crossing the CTJ was associated with reoperation (p = 0.04). Satisfaction with surgery was not significantly different between groups. The proportions of patients who reached the MCIDs for the PROs were not statistically different at any time point.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in PROs between patients with a posterior construct extending to the upper thoracic spine and those without such extension for as long as 24 months after surgery. The AE profiles were not significantly different, but longer surgical time and increased blood loss were associated with constructs extending across the CTJ.</p>","PeriodicalId":51485,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Innovation and New Technology","volume":"31 1","pages":"547-555"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics of Innovation and New Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.3.SPINE211529","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In multilevel posterior cervical instrumented fusion, extension of fusion across the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) at T1 or T2 has been associated with decreased rates of reoperation and pseudarthrosis but with longer surgical time and increased blood loss. The impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains unclear. The primary objective was to determine whether extension of fusion through the CTJ influenced PROs at 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The secondary objective was to compare the number of patients who reached the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the PROs, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, discharge disposition, adverse events (AEs), reoperation within 24 months of surgery, and patient satisfaction.

Methods: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of prospectively collected multicenter data of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion of 4 levels or greater (between C2 and T2) between January 2015 and October 2020 and received 24 months of follow-up were included. PROs (scores on the Neck Disability Index [NDI], EQ-5D, physical component summary and mental component summary of SF-12, and numeric rating scale for arm and neck pain) and mJOA scores were compared using ANCOVA and adjusted for baseline differences. Patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and surgical details were abstracted. The proportions of patients who reached the MCIDs for these outcomes were compared with the chi-square test. Operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, AEs, reoperation, discharge disposition, length of stay, and satisfaction was compared by using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the independent-samples t-test for continuous variables.

Results: A total of 198 patients were included in this study (101 patients with fusion not crossing the CTJ and 97 with fusion crossing the CTJ). Patients with a construct extending through the CTJ were more likely to be female and have worse baseline NDI scores (p > 0.05). When adjusted for baseline differences, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the PROs and mJOA scores at 3, 12, and 24 months. Surgical duration was longer (p < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss was greater in the group with fusion extending to the upper thoracic spine (p = 0.013). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of AEs (p > 0.05). Fusion with a construct crossing the CTJ was associated with reoperation (p = 0.04). Satisfaction with surgery was not significantly different between groups. The proportions of patients who reached the MCIDs for the PROs were not statistically different at any time point.

Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in PROs between patients with a posterior construct extending to the upper thoracic spine and those without such extension for as long as 24 months after surgery. The AE profiles were not significantly different, but longer surgical time and increased blood loss were associated with constructs extending across the CTJ.

将颈椎后路融合术延伸至上部胸椎是否会影响退行性颈椎病患者术后 2 年的患者报告结果?
目的:在多层次颈椎后路器械融合术中,在 T1 或 T2 椎间隙(CTJ)处延伸融合可降低再次手术率和假关节发生率,但手术时间更长,失血量更多。对患者报告结果(PROs)的影响仍不清楚。该研究的首要目标是确定通过 CTJ 进行融合是否会影响术后 3、12 和 24 个月的患者报告结果。次要目标是比较在PROs、改良日本骨科协会(mJOA)评分、手术时间、术中失血量、住院时间、出院处置、不良事件(AEs)、术后24个月内再次手术和患者满意度方面达到最小临床重要差异(MCIDs)的患者人数:这是对前瞻性收集的多中心退行性颈椎病患者数据进行的一项回顾性队列观察研究。研究纳入了在2015年1月至2020年10月期间接受4级或更高级别(C2和T2之间)后路器械融合术并接受24个月随访的患者。采用方差分析比较了PROs(颈部残疾指数[NDI]、EQ-5D、SF-12的躯体部分摘要和精神部分摘要以及手臂和颈部疼痛数字评分量表的评分)和mJOA评分,并对基线差异进行了调整。对患者的人口统计学特征、合并症和手术细节进行了摘要分析。通过卡方检验比较了达到这些结果的 MCIDs 的患者比例。对分类变量采用卡方检验,对连续变量采用独立样本 t 检验,比较手术时间、术中失血量、AEs、再次手术、出院处置、住院时间和满意度:本研究共纳入了 198 例患者(101 例融合后未穿过 CTJ,97 例融合后穿过 CTJ)。构造穿过CTJ的患者更可能是女性,其基线NDI评分也更差(P > 0.05)。在对基线差异进行调整后,两组患者在3、12和24个月的PROs和mJOA评分方面没有统计学意义上的显著差异。手术时间较长(p < 0.001)且术中失血较多(p = 0.013)的是融合延伸到上胸椎的一组。各组间的AE无明显差异(P > 0.05)。跨越 CTJ 的融合与再次手术有关(p = 0.04)。两组患者对手术的满意度无明显差异。在任何时间点,达到PROs MCIDs的患者比例均无统计学差异:结论:在术后长达24个月的时间里,后方结构延伸至胸椎上部的患者与没有这种延伸的患者在PROs方面没有明显的统计学差异。AE概况无明显差异,但手术时间延长和失血量增加与结构延伸至CTJ有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Economics of Innovation and New Technology is devoted to the theoretical and empirical analysis of the determinants and effects of innovation, new technology and technological knowledge. The journal aims to provide a bridge between different strands of literature and different contributions of economic theory and empirical economics. This bridge is built in two ways. First, by encouraging empirical research (including case studies, econometric work and historical research), evaluating existing economic theory, and suggesting appropriate directions for future effort in theoretical work. Second, by exploring ways of applying and testing existing areas of theory to the economics of innovation and new technology, and ways of using theoretical insights to inform data collection and other empirical research. The journal welcomes contributions across a wide range of issues concerned with innovation, including: the generation of new technological knowledge, innovation in product markets, process innovation, patenting, adoption, diffusion, innovation and technology policy, international competitiveness, standardization and network externalities, innovation and growth, technology transfer, innovation and market structure, innovation and the environment, and across a broad range of economic activity not just in ‘high technology’ areas. The journal is open to a variety of methodological approaches ranging from case studies to econometric exercises with sound theoretical modelling, empirical evidence both longitudinal and cross-sectional about technologies, regions, firms, industries and countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信