大型匹配队列中单节段前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和独立椎笼融合与前路钢板的再手术率。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Adeesya Gausper, Andrew M Miller, Vivien Chan, Suhas K Etigunta, Andy M Liu, David Skaggs, Tiffany Perry, Corey Walker, Alexander Tuchman
{"title":"大型匹配队列中单节段前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和独立椎笼融合与前路钢板的再手术率。","authors":"Adeesya Gausper, Andrew M Miller, Vivien Chan, Suhas K Etigunta, Andy M Liu, David Skaggs, Tiffany Perry, Corey Walker, Alexander Tuchman","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare reoperation rates between single-level standalone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and ACDF with anterior plating.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>ACDF is a widely performed procedure for cervical degenerative disc disease and may utilize standalone cages or cages with anterior plating. Reoperation rate serves as a critical measure of long-term success and durability of each technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PearlDiver national insurance claims database was used to identify patients who underwent single-level ACDF with a standalone cage or ACDF with a plate. 1:1 matched cohorts were created based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score, and year of surgery. The primary outcome was the reoperation rate at 2 years postoperatively. Secondary analyses included reoperation rate at 1-year and 5-years, reoperation stratified by surgical approach, and rate of epidural or facet injections at 2-years after index surgery. Statistical analyses included χ2 tests and Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare reoperation rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine thousand three hundred twenty-six patients were included in each cohort after matching. The 2-year reoperation rate was 3.26% for ACDF with plate and 3.31% for standalone ACDF (P=0.837). No significant difference was found in reoperation rates at 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year. Kaplan-Meier analysis additionally demonstrated no significant difference in reoperation-free survival over time. Patients undergoing standalone ACDF had higher rates of posterior approach reoperations within 2 years (1.22% vs. 0.84%, P=0.011). No significant differences were found in the rate of epidural or facet injections between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Standalone and plated single-level ACDF provide comparable long-term outcomes in terms of reoperation rates. This study is the largest matched cohort to date of patients who underwent single-level ACDF with and without anterior plating.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reoperation Rate Following Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With Standalone Cage Versus Anterior Plating in a Large Matched Cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Adeesya Gausper, Andrew M Miller, Vivien Chan, Suhas K Etigunta, Andy M Liu, David Skaggs, Tiffany Perry, Corey Walker, Alexander Tuchman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001917\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare reoperation rates between single-level standalone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and ACDF with anterior plating.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>ACDF is a widely performed procedure for cervical degenerative disc disease and may utilize standalone cages or cages with anterior plating. Reoperation rate serves as a critical measure of long-term success and durability of each technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PearlDiver national insurance claims database was used to identify patients who underwent single-level ACDF with a standalone cage or ACDF with a plate. 1:1 matched cohorts were created based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score, and year of surgery. The primary outcome was the reoperation rate at 2 years postoperatively. Secondary analyses included reoperation rate at 1-year and 5-years, reoperation stratified by surgical approach, and rate of epidural or facet injections at 2-years after index surgery. Statistical analyses included χ2 tests and Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare reoperation rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine thousand three hundred twenty-six patients were included in each cohort after matching. The 2-year reoperation rate was 3.26% for ACDF with plate and 3.31% for standalone ACDF (P=0.837). No significant difference was found in reoperation rates at 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year. Kaplan-Meier analysis additionally demonstrated no significant difference in reoperation-free survival over time. Patients undergoing standalone ACDF had higher rates of posterior approach reoperations within 2 years (1.22% vs. 0.84%, P=0.011). No significant differences were found in the rate of epidural or facet injections between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Standalone and plated single-level ACDF provide comparable long-term outcomes in terms of reoperation rates. This study is the largest matched cohort to date of patients who underwent single-level ACDF with and without anterior plating.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001917\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001917","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:回顾性研究。目的:比较单节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除术融合术(ACDF)与前路钢板手术(ACDF)的再手术率。背景资料总结:ACDF是一种广泛应用于颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病的手术,可以使用独立的cage或前板cage。再手术率是衡量每种技术长期成功和耐用性的关键指标。方法:使用PearlDiver国家保险索赔数据库来识别接受单节段ACDF(独立式cage)或ACDF(钢板)的患者。根据年龄、性别、Elixhauser合并症指数评分和手术年份创建1:1匹配队列。主要观察指标为术后2年的再手术率。二次分析包括1年和5年的再手术率,按手术入路分层的再手术率,以及指数手术后2年的硬膜外或小关节突注射率。统计学分析采用χ2检验和Kaplan-Meier分析比较再手术率。结果:配对后每个队列纳入9326例患者。ACDF合并钢板组2年再手术率为3.26%,单独ACDF组为3.31% (P=0.837)。1年、2年和5年的再手术率无显著差异。Kaplan-Meier分析还显示,随着时间的推移,无再手术生存率无显著差异。单独行ACDF的患者2年内后路再手术率较高(1.22%比0.84%,P=0.011)。两组间硬膜外或关节突注射率无显著差异。结论:单节段ACDF和单节段ACDF在再手术率方面具有可比性。该研究是迄今为止接受单节段ACDF伴或不伴前钢板的患者中最大的匹配队列。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。
Reoperation Rate Following Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With Standalone Cage Versus Anterior Plating in a Large Matched Cohort.

Study design: Retrospective study.

Objective: To compare reoperation rates between single-level standalone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and ACDF with anterior plating.

Summary of background data: ACDF is a widely performed procedure for cervical degenerative disc disease and may utilize standalone cages or cages with anterior plating. Reoperation rate serves as a critical measure of long-term success and durability of each technique.

Methods: The PearlDiver national insurance claims database was used to identify patients who underwent single-level ACDF with a standalone cage or ACDF with a plate. 1:1 matched cohorts were created based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score, and year of surgery. The primary outcome was the reoperation rate at 2 years postoperatively. Secondary analyses included reoperation rate at 1-year and 5-years, reoperation stratified by surgical approach, and rate of epidural or facet injections at 2-years after index surgery. Statistical analyses included χ2 tests and Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare reoperation rates.

Results: Nine thousand three hundred twenty-six patients were included in each cohort after matching. The 2-year reoperation rate was 3.26% for ACDF with plate and 3.31% for standalone ACDF (P=0.837). No significant difference was found in reoperation rates at 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year. Kaplan-Meier analysis additionally demonstrated no significant difference in reoperation-free survival over time. Patients undergoing standalone ACDF had higher rates of posterior approach reoperations within 2 years (1.22% vs. 0.84%, P=0.011). No significant differences were found in the rate of epidural or facet injections between groups.

Conclusions: Standalone and plated single-level ACDF provide comparable long-term outcomes in terms of reoperation rates. This study is the largest matched cohort to date of patients who underwent single-level ACDF with and without anterior plating.

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
Clinical Spine Surgery
Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
236
期刊介绍: Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure. Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信