Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28849429›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2017

What is the Rate of Revision Discectomies After Primary Discectomy on a National Scale?

Sohrab S Virk, Ashish Diwan, Frank M Phillips, Harvinder Sandhu, Safdar N Khan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The association between changes in multifidus muscle morphology and back pain scores following discectomy surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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
    Pooled it
  2. Comparison of biomechanical studies of disc repair devices based on a systematic review.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Complication rates of different discectomy techniques for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Reoperation of decompression alone or decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases: a systematic review.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 · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Artificial intelligence predicts disk re-herniation following lumbar microdiscectomy: development of the "RAD" risk profile.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 · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sohrab S VirkDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Ashish DiwanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. George Hospital, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Frank M PhillipsMidwest Orthopaedics at Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Harvinder SandhuHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Safdar N KhanDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. safdar.khan@osumc.edu.
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USHospital for Special Surgery · USRush University · USUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLumbar discectomy has been shown to be clinically beneficial in numerous studies for appropriately selected patients. Some patients, however, undergo revision discectomy, with previously reported estimates of revisions ranging from 5.1% to 7.9%. No study to date has been able to precisely quantify the rate of revision surgery over numerous years on a national scale. QUESTIONS/PURPOSE: We performed a survival analysis for lumbar discectomy on a national scale using a life-table analysis to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of revision discectomy on a national scale over 5 to 7 years for patients undergoing primary discectomy alone? (2) Are there differences in revision discectomy rates based on age of patient, region of the country, or the payer type?

methodsThe Medicare 5% National Sample Administrative Database (SAF5) and a large national database from Humana Inc (HORTHO) were used to catalog the number of patients undergoing a lumbar discectomy. Both of these databases have been cited in numerous peer-reviewed publications during the previous 5 years and routinely are audited by PearlDiver Inc. We identified patients using relevant ICD-9 codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, including ICD-9 72210 (lumbar disc displacement) for disc herniation. We used appropriate CPT codes to identify patients who had a lumbar discectomy. We analyzed patients undergoing additional surgery including those who had repeat discectomy (CPT-63042: laminotomy, reexploration single interspace, lumbar) and patients who had additional more-extensive decompressive procedures with or without fusion after their primary procedure. Revision surgery rates were calculated for patients 65 years and older and those younger than 65 years and for each database (Humana Inc and Medicare). Patients from the two databases also were analyzed based on four distinct geographic regions in the United States where their surgery occurred. There were a total of 7520 patients who underwent a lumbar discectomy for an intervertebral disc displacement with at least 5 years of followup in the HORTHO and SAF5 databases. We used cumulative incidence of revision surgery to estimate the survivorship of these patients.

resultsIn the HORTHO (2613 patients) and SAF5 (4907 patients) databases, 147 patients (5.6%; 95% CI, 1.8%-9.2%) and 305 patients (6.2%; 95% CI, 3.5%-8.9%) had revision surgery at 7 years after the index discectomy respectively. Survival analysis showed survival rates greater than 93% (95% CI, 91%-98%) for all of the cohorts for a primary discectomy up to 7 years after the surgery. The survivorship was lower for patients younger than 65 years (93% [95% CI, 87%-99%, 1016 of 1091] versus 95% [95% CI, 90%-100%, 1450 of 1522], p = 0.02). When nondiscectomy lumbar surgeries were included, the survivorship of patients younger than 65 years remained lower (83% [95% CI, 76%-89%, 902 of 1091] versus 87% [95% CI, 82%-92%, 1324 of 1522], p = 0.02). There was no difference in revision discectomy rates across geographic regions (p = 0.41) at 7 years. Similarly, there was no difference in additional nondiscectomy lumbar surgery rates (p = 0.68) across geographic regions at 7 years. There was no difference in survivorship rates between patients covered by Medicare (94% [95% CI, 91%-97%], 4602 of 4907) versus Humana Inc (94% [95% CI, 90%-98%], 2466 of 2613) (p = 0.31).

conclusionsOur study shows rates of cumulative survival after an index lumbar discectomy with revision discectomy as the endpoint. We hope these data allow physicians to offer accurate advice to patients regarding the risk of revision surgery for patients of all ages during 5 to 7 years after their index procedure to enhance shared decision making in spinal surgery. These data also will help public policymakers and accountable care organizations accurately allocate scarce resources to patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Administrative Claims, HealthcareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDatabases, FactualDiskectomyFemaleHumansIntervertebral DiscIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLife TablesLumbar VertebraeMaleMedicareMiddle AgedPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID28849429
PMCPMC5638742
OpenAlexW2745335305

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.