ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2026
Patient-reported Outcomes in Primary versus Revision Cervical and Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Analysis of the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo see whether there are differences between primary and revision surgeries while stratifying results by cervical and lumbar regions.
methodsMichigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative is a multi-institutional quality-improvement collaborative across Michigan. The analytic sample included patients who underwent spine surgery between February 24, 2014, and January 31, 2025. Descriptive statistics were used to compare demographic characteristics and patient-reported outcomes between primary and revision procedures.
resultsA total of 49,577 patients undergoing primary lumbar surgery and 3745 undergoing revision were identified. For cervical procedures, 20,473 primary and 3281 revision cases were included. Patients undergoing revision surgery were slightly older across both spinal regions. In unadjusted analyses, revision lumbar patients consistently demonstrated worse outcomes than those undergoing primary surgery. Return to work at 1 year was lower among revision patients, and they also had markedly higher odds of opioid use and emergency department visits. In the cervical cohort, similar differences were observed. In addition, cervical revision patients demonstrated higher odds of readmission and return to the operating room. After adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical factors, revision surgery remained an independent predictor of worse outcomes in both spinal regions.
conclusionsRevision spine surgery is associated with worse outcomes compared with primary procedures even after adjusting for baseline risk factors. The results are consistent across cervical and lumbar revisions about pain scores, physical function, opioid use, and patient satisfaction. Opioid usage continued to be higher, while return to work was delayed for lumbar revision patients. STUDY
designRetrospective database.
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.