Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30775207›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2019

Early and Late Reoperation Rates With Various MIS Techniques for Adult Spinal Deformity Correction.

Robert K Eastlack, Ravi Srinivas, Gregory M Mundis, Stacie Nguyen, Praveen V Mummaneni, David O Okonkwo, Adam S Kanter, Neel Anand, Paul Park, Pierce Nunley and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Role of Robotics in Adult Spinal Deformity.International journal of spine surgery · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

15 authors.

Robert K EastlackScripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Ravi SrinivasScripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Gregory M MundisScripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Stacie NguyenSan Diego Spine Foundation, San Diego, CA, USA.
Praveen V MummaneniUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
David O OkonkwoUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Adam S KanterUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Neel AnandCedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Paul ParkUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Pierce NunleyLouisiana Spine Institute, Shreveport, LA, USA.
Juan S UribeUniversity of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Behrooz A AkbarniaSan Diego Spine Foundation, San Diego, CA, USA.
Dean ChouUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Vedat DevirenUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
International Spine Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designA multicenter retrospective review of an adult spinal deformity database.

objectiveWe aimed to characterize reoperation rates and etiologies of adult spinal deformity surgery with circumferential minimally invasive surgery (cMIS) and hybrid (HYB) techniques.

methodsInclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, and one of the following: coronal Cobb >20°, sagittal vertical axis >5 cm, pelvic tilt >20°, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis >10°. Patients with either cMIS or HYB surgery, ≥3 spinal levels treated with 2-year minimum follow-up were included.

resultsA total of 133 patients met inclusion for this study (65 HYB and 68 cMIS). Junctional failure (13.8%) was the most common reason for reoperation in the HYB group, while fixation failure was the most common reason in the cMIS group (14.7%). There was a higher incidence of proximal junctional failure (PJF) than distal junctional failure (DJF) within HYB (12.3% vs 3.1%), but no significant differences in PJF or DJF rates when compared to cMIS. Early (<30 days) reoperations were less common (cMIS = 1.5%; HYB = 6.1%) than late (>30 days) reoperations (cMIS = 26.5%; HYB = 27.7%), but early reoperations were more common in the HYB group after propensity matching, largely due to infection rates (10.8% vs 0%,

conclusionsAdult spinal deformity correction with cMIS and HYB techniques result in overall reoperation rates of 27.9% and 33.8%, respectively, at minimum 2-year follow-up. Junctional failures are more common after HYB approaches, while pseudarthrosis/fixation failures happen more often with cMIS techniques. Early reoperations were less common than later returns to the operating room in both groups, but cMIS demonstrated less risk of infection and early reoperation when compared with the HYB group.

Indexed as

adult spinal deformityminimally invasive surgeryreoperation

Identifiers

PMID30775207
PMCPMC6362559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.