ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2018
Differences in primary and revision deformity surgeries: following 1,063 primary thoracolumbar adult spinal deformity fusions over time.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world outcomes of minimally invasive posterior thoracic and lumbar spine fusion surgery versus open surgery in the Finnish Spine Registry.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Primary and Revision Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Surgeries: Predictors, Outcomes, and Clinical Implications Using Big Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Defining modern iatrogenic flatback syndrome: examination of segmental lordosis in short lumbar fusion patients undergoing thoracolumbar deformity correction.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 · 2024Article
- An Extended Follow-up of Spinal Instrumentation Rescue with Cement Augmentation.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Determining the utility of three-column osteotomies in revision surgery compared with primary surgeries in the thoracolumbar spine: a retrospective cohort study in the United States.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Fusion Mass Screws in Revision Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Simple and Safe Alternative Fixation.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- True Differences in Poor Outcome Risks Between Revision and Primary Lumbar Spine Surgeries.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to describe properties of adult spinal deformity (ASD) revisions relative to primary surgeries and determine clinical variables that can predict revision. ASD is a common pathology that can lead to decreased quality of life, pain, physical limitations, and dissatisfaction with self-image. Durability of interventions for deformity treatment is of paramount concern to surgeons, as revision rates remain high.
methodsPatients undergoing thoracolumbar fusion, five or more levels, for scoliosis (primary diagnosis ICD-9 737.x) were identified on a state-wide database. Primary and revision (returning for re-fusion procedure) surgeries were compared based on demographic, hospital stay, and clinical characteristics. Differences between primary and revision surgeries, and predictors of primary surgeries requiring revision, utilized binary logistic regression controlling for age, comorbidity burden, and levels fused.
resultsA total of 1,063 patients (average 7.4 levels fused, mean age: 47.6 years, 69.0% female) undergoing operative treatment for ASD were identified, of which 123 (average 7.1 levels fused, 11.6%, mean age 61.43, 80.5% female) had surgical revision. Primary surgeries were ~0.3 levels longer (P=0.013), used interbody ~11% more frequently (P=0.020), and used BMP ~12% less frequently (P=0.008). Revisions occurred 176.4 days after the primary on average. The most frequent causes of revisions were: 43.09% implant failure, 24.39% acquired kyphosis, and 14.63% enduring scoliosis. After controlling for age, comorbidities, and levels fused older, more comorbid, female, and white-race patients were more likely to be revised. Upon multivariate regression, after controlling for age and levels fused, overall complications remained non-different (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.6-1.2). However, revision remained an independent predictor for infection (OR: 5.5, 95% CI: 2.8-10.5).
conclusionsIn a statewide database with individual patient follow up of up to 4 years 10% of ASD patients undergoing scoliosis correction required revision. Revision surgeries had higher infection incidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.