Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26909764›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2016

Reoperation rates in minimally invasive, hybrid and open surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity with minimum 2-year follow-up.

D Kojo Hamilton, Adam S Kanter, Bryan D Bolinger, Gregory M Mundis, Stacie Nguyen, Praveen V Mummaneni, Neel Anand, Richard G Fessler, Peter G Passias, Paul Park and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Complications in adult spine deformity surgery: a systematic review of the recent literature with reporting of aggregated incidences.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Minimally invasive multiple-rod constructs with robotics planning in adult spinal deformity surgery: a case series.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

D Kojo HamiltonDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. dkojoh@gmail.com.
Adam S KanterDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Bryan D BolingerGeisinger Neurosurgery, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Gregory M MundisSan Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Stacie NguyenSan Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Praveen V MummaneniDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Neel AnandDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Richard G FesslerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Peter G PassiasDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Disease, New York, NY, USA.
Paul ParkDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Frank La MarcaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Juan S UribeDepartment of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Michael Y WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Behrooz A AkbarniaSan Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Christopher I ShaffreyDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
David O OkonkwoDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
International Spine Study Group (ISSG)
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center · USSan Diego Center for Spinal Disorders · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USGeisinger Medical Center · USUniversity of Miami · USUniversity of Michigan · USRush University Medical Center · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMinimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques are gaining popularity in the treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD). The premise is that MIS techniques will lead to equivalent outcomes and a reduction in perioperative complications when compared with open techniques. Potential issues with MIS techniques are a limited capacity to correct lumbar lordosis, unknown long-term efficacy, and the potential need for revision surgery. This study compares reoperation rates and reasons for reoperation following MIS, hybrid, and open surgery for ASD through multicenter database analysis.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a prospective multicenter ASD database comparing open and MIS correction techniques. Inclusion criteria were: age > 18 years with minimum 20° coronal lumbar Cobb angle, a minimum of three levels fused, and minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were propensity matched for preoperative sagittal vertebral axis (SVA), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), and number of levels fused. We included 189 patients from three propensity-matched subgroups of 63 patients each: (1) MIS: lateral or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) and percutaneous pedicle instrumentation, (2) Hybrid: MIS LIF with open posterior segmental fixation (PSF), and (3) OPEN: open posterior fixation ± osteotomies.

resultsWith propensity matching, there were significant differences between groups in pre-op SVA or PI-LL (p > 0.05). The MIS group had significantly fewer levels fused (5.4) (0-14) than the OPEN group (7.4) (p = 0.002) (0-17). The rate of revision surgery was significantly different between the groups with a higher rate of revision (27 %) amongst the HYB group versus MIS = 11.1 %, and OPEN = 12.0 %. The most common reason for reoperation in the OPEN and HYB groups was a postoperative neurological deficit (7.9 and 11.1 %), respectively. The most common reason for reoperation in the MIS group was pseudoarthrosis (7.9 %).

conclusionsReoperation rates were not statistically different among the MIS, and OPEN surgical groups, but differed significantly on multivariate analysis with HYB group. The incidence of reoperations was twice as high in the Hybrid group compared to OPEN and MIS.

Indexed as

Minimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedReoperationSpinal CurvaturesYoung AdultAdult spinal deformityHybridMinimally invasiveRevision

Identifiers

PMID26909764
OpenAlexW2281351115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.