Omar Zakieh, Maryam Jawid, Mitchell Bowers, Mason Young, Scott L Zuckerman, Julian G Lugo-Pico, Raymond J Gardocki, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens
{"title":"八十多岁的颈椎脊髓病或神经根病应该手术治疗吗?","authors":"Omar Zakieh, Maryam Jawid, Mitchell Bowers, Mason Young, Scott L Zuckerman, Julian G Lugo-Pico, Raymond J Gardocki, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective Cohort.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Investigate the disparities between octogenarians and non-octogenarians undergoing cervical spine surgery regarding perioperative, and postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>As the population ages, the demand for elective cervical spine surgery among older, more active adults increases. However, concerns remain regarding the optimal management of older patients undergoing cervical surgery, given the potential complexities associated with advanced age, comorbidities, and physiological decline. While the safety and efficacy of cervical spine surgery in younger cohorts have been extensively studied, there is a paucity of literature specifically addressing outcomes in octogenarians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Octogenarians undergoing elective cervical spine surgery were propensity matched 3:1 to patients <80 years old by baseline neck and arm pain, surgical approach, and total instrumented levels. Primary outcomes of interest were postoperative complications, unexpected 90-day hospital readmissions and 12-month reoperation. Secondary outcomes were 12-month patient satisfaction and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 3 and 12 months, including EuroQol-5D, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, neck disability index, and visual analog scale for neck and arm pain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 29 octogenarians and 87 nonoctogenarians identified. The mean age in each cohort was 82.4±2.2 vs. 59.1±11.1 years, respectively. There was no difference in postoperative complications (10.3% vs. 6.9%, P=0.548), 90-day readmission (10.3% vs. 6.9%, P=0.548), and 12-month reoperation (3.4% vs. 2.3%, P=0.736) between octogenarians and non-octogenarians. Similarly, octogenarians and nonoctogenarians experienced comparable 12-month patient satisfaction (65.2% vs. 55.3%, P=0.393), improvement in 3- and 12- month PROMs and MCID achievement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Postoperative complications, readmission, reoperation rate, patient satisfaction, and PROMs did not significantly differ between octogenarians and non-octogenarians undergoing cervical spine surgery. These findings suggest that age alone should not be a determining factor in surgical decision-making for elective cervical spine procedures, as octogenarians can achieve comparable outcomes to their younger counterparts.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should We Operate on Octogenarians with Cervical Myelopathy or Radiculopathy?\",\"authors\":\"Omar Zakieh, Maryam Jawid, Mitchell Bowers, Mason Young, Scott L Zuckerman, Julian G Lugo-Pico, Raymond J Gardocki, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective Cohort.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Investigate the disparities between octogenarians and non-octogenarians undergoing cervical spine surgery regarding perioperative, and postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>As the population ages, the demand for elective cervical spine surgery among older, more active adults increases. However, concerns remain regarding the optimal management of older patients undergoing cervical surgery, given the potential complexities associated with advanced age, comorbidities, and physiological decline. While the safety and efficacy of cervical spine surgery in younger cohorts have been extensively studied, there is a paucity of literature specifically addressing outcomes in octogenarians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Octogenarians undergoing elective cervical spine surgery were propensity matched 3:1 to patients <80 years old by baseline neck and arm pain, surgical approach, and total instrumented levels. Primary outcomes of interest were postoperative complications, unexpected 90-day hospital readmissions and 12-month reoperation. Secondary outcomes were 12-month patient satisfaction and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 3 and 12 months, including EuroQol-5D, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, neck disability index, and visual analog scale for neck and arm pain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 29 octogenarians and 87 nonoctogenarians identified. The mean age in each cohort was 82.4±2.2 vs. 59.1±11.1 years, respectively. There was no difference in postoperative complications (10.3% vs. 6.9%, P=0.548), 90-day readmission (10.3% vs. 6.9%, P=0.548), and 12-month reoperation (3.4% vs. 2.3%, P=0.736) between octogenarians and non-octogenarians. Similarly, octogenarians and nonoctogenarians experienced comparable 12-month patient satisfaction (65.2% vs. 55.3%, P=0.393), improvement in 3- and 12- month PROMs and MCID achievement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Postoperative complications, readmission, reoperation rate, patient satisfaction, and PROMs did not significantly differ between octogenarians and non-octogenarians undergoing cervical spine surgery. These findings suggest that age alone should not be a determining factor in surgical decision-making for elective cervical spine procedures, as octogenarians can achieve comparable outcomes to their younger counterparts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005232\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005232","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究设计:回顾性队列。目的:探讨八十多岁和非八十多岁颈椎手术患者围手术期和术后预后的差异。背景资料摘要:随着人口老龄化,老年人、活动量较大的成年人择期颈椎手术的需求增加。然而,考虑到与高龄、合并症和生理衰退相关的潜在复杂性,对接受颈椎手术的老年患者的最佳管理仍然值得关注。虽然对年轻人群颈椎手术的安全性和有效性进行了广泛的研究,但缺乏专门针对八十多岁人群的文献。方法:择期颈椎手术的80岁老人与患者的倾向性匹配为3:1。结果:共发现80岁老人29例,非80岁老人87例。每个队列的平均年龄分别为82.4±2.2岁和59.1±11.1岁。80岁与非80岁患者术后并发症(10.3% vs. 6.9%, P=0.548)、90天再入院(10.3% vs. 6.9%, P=0.548)、12个月再手术(3.4% vs. 2.3%, P=0.736)差异无统计学意义。同样,80岁老人和非80岁老人在12个月的患者满意度(65.2% vs. 55.3%, P=0.393)、3个月和12个月PROMs的改善和MCID的成就方面也具有可比性。结论:八十多岁与非八十多岁颈椎手术患者术后并发症、再入院率、再手术率、患者满意度、PROMs均无显著差异。这些研究结果表明,年龄本身不应该是择期颈椎手术决策的决定性因素,因为80多岁的老年人可以获得与年轻人相当的结果。
Should We Operate on Octogenarians with Cervical Myelopathy or Radiculopathy?
Study design: Retrospective Cohort.
Objective: Investigate the disparities between octogenarians and non-octogenarians undergoing cervical spine surgery regarding perioperative, and postoperative outcomes.
Summary of background data: As the population ages, the demand for elective cervical spine surgery among older, more active adults increases. However, concerns remain regarding the optimal management of older patients undergoing cervical surgery, given the potential complexities associated with advanced age, comorbidities, and physiological decline. While the safety and efficacy of cervical spine surgery in younger cohorts have been extensively studied, there is a paucity of literature specifically addressing outcomes in octogenarians.
Methods: Octogenarians undergoing elective cervical spine surgery were propensity matched 3:1 to patients <80 years old by baseline neck and arm pain, surgical approach, and total instrumented levels. Primary outcomes of interest were postoperative complications, unexpected 90-day hospital readmissions and 12-month reoperation. Secondary outcomes were 12-month patient satisfaction and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 3 and 12 months, including EuroQol-5D, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, neck disability index, and visual analog scale for neck and arm pain.
Results: There were 29 octogenarians and 87 nonoctogenarians identified. The mean age in each cohort was 82.4±2.2 vs. 59.1±11.1 years, respectively. There was no difference in postoperative complications (10.3% vs. 6.9%, P=0.548), 90-day readmission (10.3% vs. 6.9%, P=0.548), and 12-month reoperation (3.4% vs. 2.3%, P=0.736) between octogenarians and non-octogenarians. Similarly, octogenarians and nonoctogenarians experienced comparable 12-month patient satisfaction (65.2% vs. 55.3%, P=0.393), improvement in 3- and 12- month PROMs and MCID achievement.
Conclusion: Postoperative complications, readmission, reoperation rate, patient satisfaction, and PROMs did not significantly differ between octogenarians and non-octogenarians undergoing cervical spine surgery. These findings suggest that age alone should not be a determining factor in surgical decision-making for elective cervical spine procedures, as octogenarians can achieve comparable outcomes to their younger counterparts.
期刊介绍:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store.
Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.