老年人群腰椎融合翻修术的临床效果。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2025-04-15 Epub Date: 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005216
Rajkishen Narayanan, Omar H Tarawneh, Jonathan Dalton, Robert J Oris, Mark Miller, Nicholas B Pohl, Tariq Z Issa, Matthew Meade, Olivia Opara, Emily Berthiaume, Yunsoo Lee, Yashas Reddy, Grace Bowen, Harry Lightsey, Ian D Kaye, Mark F Kurd, Jose A Canseco, Alan S Hilibrand, Alexander R Vaccaro, Christopher K Kepler, Gregory D Schroeder
{"title":"老年人群腰椎融合翻修术的临床效果。","authors":"Rajkishen Narayanan, Omar H Tarawneh, Jonathan Dalton, Robert J Oris, Mark Miller, Nicholas B Pohl, Tariq Z Issa, Matthew Meade, Olivia Opara, Emily Berthiaume, Yunsoo Lee, Yashas Reddy, Grace Bowen, Harry Lightsey, Ian D Kaye, Mark F Kurd, Jose A Canseco, Alan S Hilibrand, Alexander R Vaccaro, Christopher K Kepler, Gregory D Schroeder","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the profile of older patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion and to evaluate the impact that advancing age may have on outcomes following revision lumbar fusion.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The proportion of older patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion is increasing; however, the benefit of revision lumbar fusion in an aging demographic is not well documented.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients aged 55+ who underwent revision lumbar between 2011 and 2022 were included and were stratified into age groups: 55 to 64, 65 to 74, and 75+. Primary outcomes consisted of postoperative emergency department visits, 30 and 90-day readmissions, all-cause reoperations, and the need for secondary revisions. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) obtained preoperatively, and at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 914 patients were included: 55 to 64 years (n = 512, mean: 61.1 yr), 65 to 74 years (n = 296, mean: 69.1 yr), and 75+ (n = 106, mean: 78.9 yr). Adjacent segment disease as a revision indication significantly increased with age (P = 0.001). A circumferential approach was used most (N = 200, 39.7%) in patients 55 to 64, whereas a posterior-only approach was used in 86.3% of patients 75+ (P < 0.001). Levels decompressed increased with age, from 1.67 in the youngest group to 2.04 in the oldest (P < 0.001). The number of levels fused showed no significant difference (P = 0.068). Ninety-day readmissions and the need for secondary revisions did not vary by age. Age groups were not independently associated with ΔPROMs at 1 year, but the oldest groups continued to experience improvement in PROMs in line with their younger counterparts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients 75 years and older derive similar benefits from revision lumbar fusion compared with their younger counterparts with no increased risk of emergency department visits, readmissions, or reoperations. Clinicians should be advised that there remains significant value in revising older patients when indicated.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":"50 8","pages":"E151-E157"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Outcomes of Revision Lumbar Fusion in the Aging Population.\",\"authors\":\"Rajkishen Narayanan, Omar H Tarawneh, Jonathan Dalton, Robert J Oris, Mark Miller, Nicholas B Pohl, Tariq Z Issa, Matthew Meade, Olivia Opara, Emily Berthiaume, Yunsoo Lee, Yashas Reddy, Grace Bowen, Harry Lightsey, Ian D Kaye, Mark F Kurd, Jose A Canseco, Alan S Hilibrand, Alexander R Vaccaro, Christopher K Kepler, Gregory D Schroeder\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the profile of older patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion and to evaluate the impact that advancing age may have on outcomes following revision lumbar fusion.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The proportion of older patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion is increasing; however, the benefit of revision lumbar fusion in an aging demographic is not well documented.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients aged 55+ who underwent revision lumbar between 2011 and 2022 were included and were stratified into age groups: 55 to 64, 65 to 74, and 75+. Primary outcomes consisted of postoperative emergency department visits, 30 and 90-day readmissions, all-cause reoperations, and the need for secondary revisions. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) obtained preoperatively, and at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 914 patients were included: 55 to 64 years (n = 512, mean: 61.1 yr), 65 to 74 years (n = 296, mean: 69.1 yr), and 75+ (n = 106, mean: 78.9 yr). Adjacent segment disease as a revision indication significantly increased with age (P = 0.001). A circumferential approach was used most (N = 200, 39.7%) in patients 55 to 64, whereas a posterior-only approach was used in 86.3% of patients 75+ (P < 0.001). Levels decompressed increased with age, from 1.67 in the youngest group to 2.04 in the oldest (P < 0.001). The number of levels fused showed no significant difference (P = 0.068). Ninety-day readmissions and the need for secondary revisions did not vary by age. Age groups were not independently associated with ΔPROMs at 1 year, but the oldest groups continued to experience improvement in PROMs in line with their younger counterparts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients 75 years and older derive similar benefits from revision lumbar fusion compared with their younger counterparts with no increased risk of emergency department visits, readmissions, or reoperations. Clinicians should be advised that there remains significant value in revising older patients when indicated.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine\",\"volume\":\"50 8\",\"pages\":\"E151-E157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-15\",\"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.0000000000005216\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005216","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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:研究接受腰椎融合术翻修的老年患者的情况,并评估年龄增长对腰椎融合术翻修后预后的影响。背景:接受腰椎融合翻修术的老年患者比例正在增加;然而,在老年人群中腰椎融合翻修术的益处并没有得到很好的证明。患者和方法:纳入2011年至2022年期间接受腰椎翻修术的55岁以上患者,并将其分为55至64岁、65至74岁和75岁以上年龄组。主要结果包括术后急诊就诊、30天和90天再入院、全因再手术和需要二次翻修。次要结果包括术前、术后3个月和1年患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)。结果:共纳入914例患者:55 ~ 64岁(n = 512,平均:61.1 yr), 65 ~ 74岁(n = 296,平均:69.1 yr), 75+ (n = 106,平均:78.9 yr)。临近节段疾病作为翻修指征随着年龄的增长而显著增加(P = 0.001)。55 ~ 64岁的患者采用环周入路最多(N = 200, 39.7%),而75岁以上的患者采用后路入路的比例为86.3% (P < 0.001)。减压水平随年龄增长而增加,从最年轻组的1.67增加到最年长组的2.04 (P < 0.001)。融合的水平数无显著差异(P = 0.068)。90天的再入院和二次翻修的需要没有因年龄而变化。年龄组在1岁时与ΔPROMs没有独立关联,但年龄最大的组在prom方面的改善与年龄较小的组一致。结论:与年轻患者相比,75岁及以上的患者从翻修腰椎融合术中获得的益处相似,急诊就诊、再入院或再手术的风险没有增加。临床医生应被告知,在有指示的情况下修改老年患者仍有重要价值。证据等级:三级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical Outcomes of Revision Lumbar Fusion in the Aging Population.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Objective: To examine the profile of older patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion and to evaluate the impact that advancing age may have on outcomes following revision lumbar fusion.

Background: The proportion of older patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion is increasing; however, the benefit of revision lumbar fusion in an aging demographic is not well documented.

Patients and methods: Patients aged 55+ who underwent revision lumbar between 2011 and 2022 were included and were stratified into age groups: 55 to 64, 65 to 74, and 75+. Primary outcomes consisted of postoperative emergency department visits, 30 and 90-day readmissions, all-cause reoperations, and the need for secondary revisions. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) obtained preoperatively, and at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively.

Results: A total of 914 patients were included: 55 to 64 years (n = 512, mean: 61.1 yr), 65 to 74 years (n = 296, mean: 69.1 yr), and 75+ (n = 106, mean: 78.9 yr). Adjacent segment disease as a revision indication significantly increased with age (P = 0.001). A circumferential approach was used most (N = 200, 39.7%) in patients 55 to 64, whereas a posterior-only approach was used in 86.3% of patients 75+ (P < 0.001). Levels decompressed increased with age, from 1.67 in the youngest group to 2.04 in the oldest (P < 0.001). The number of levels fused showed no significant difference (P = 0.068). Ninety-day readmissions and the need for secondary revisions did not vary by age. Age groups were not independently associated with ΔPROMs at 1 year, but the oldest groups continued to experience improvement in PROMs in line with their younger counterparts.

Conclusion: Patients 75 years and older derive similar benefits from revision lumbar fusion compared with their younger counterparts with no increased risk of emergency department visits, readmissions, or reoperations. Clinicians should be advised that there remains significant value in revising older patients when indicated.

Level of evidence: Level III.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
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.
×
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