Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30069508›Full record

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.

Gregory W Poorman, Peter L Zhou, Dennis Vasquez-Montes, Samantha Horn, Cole Bortz, Frank Segreto, Joshua Auerbach, John Y Moon, Jared C Tishelman, Michael C Gerling and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. True Differences in Poor Outcome Risks Between Revision and Primary Lumbar Spine Surgeries.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2021
    Article
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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gregory W PoormanNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Peter L ZhouNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Dennis Vasquez-MontesNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Samantha HornNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Cole BortzNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Frank SegretoNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Joshua AuerbachBronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, New York, NY, USA.
John Y MoonNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Jared C TishelmanNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Michael C GerlingNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Bassel G DieboNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Rafael De La Garza-RamosNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Justin C PaulNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Peter G PassiasNYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Orthopaedic Hospital · USBronx-Lebanon Hospital Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

adult spinal deformity (ASD)primary surgeryrevisionSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID30069508
PMCPMC6046343
OpenAlexW2806457478

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.