True Differences in Poor Outcome Risks Between Revision and Primary Lumbar Spine Surgeries

Abstract

Background: Previous studies have shown that the rates of complications associated with revision spine surgery are higher than those of primary spine surgery. However, there is a lack of research exploring the difference in magnitude of risk of poor outcomes between primary and revision lumbar spine surgeries. Purposes: We sought to compare the risks of poor outcomes for primary and revision lumbar spine surgeries and to analyze different measures of risk to better understand the true differences between the 2 forms of surgery. Methods: This retrospective observational study used data from the Quality Outcomes Database Lumbar Spine Surgical Registry from 2012 to 2018. We included individuals who received primary or revision surgery due to degenerative lumbar disorders. Outcome variables collected were complications within 30 days of surgery and 3 destination variables, specifically, (1) 30-day hospital readmission, (2) 30-day return to operating room, and (3) revision surgery within 3 months. Measures of risk considered were odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), relative risk increase (RRI), and absolute risk increase (ARI). Results: There were 31,843 individuals who received primary surgery and 7889 who received revision surgery. After controlling for baseline descriptive variables and comorbidities, revision surgery increased the odds of 4 complications and all 3 destination variables. Risk ratios reflected smaller magnitudes but similar findings as the statistically significant ORs. Conclusion: Revision surgery is related to higher overall risks than primary surgery, but the true magnitudes of these risks are very small. RRI and ARI should be included when reporting ORs to better clarify the significance.

Keywords

lumbar surgery registry revision surgery risk

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barratt

Wyer

Hatala

, et al. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. CMAJ. 2004;171(4):353–358.

Basil

Wang

MY.

Trends in outpatient minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(suppl 1):S108–S114.

Benchimol

Smeeth

Guttmann

, et al. The REporting of studies conducted using observational routinely-collected health data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885.

Bijur

Silver

Gallagher

EJ.

Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(12):1153–1157.

Chen

Cohen

Chen

How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2010;39(4):860–864.

Deyo

Mirza

Martin

, et al. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010;303(13):1259–1265.

Diebo

Passias

Marascalchi

, et al. Primary versus revision surgery in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a nationwide study on 10,912 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(21):1674–1680.

Doyle

Garmon

EH.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA Class). Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2019.

Elgafy

Vaccaro

Chapman

Dvorak

MF.

Rationale of revision lumbar spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2012;2(1):7–14.

10.

Fairbank

Pynsent

PB.

The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940–2952; discussion 2952.

11.

Fritsch

Heisel

Rupp

The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: a report of 182 operative treatments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(5):626–633.

12.

Chang

Crandall

Revella

Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes and complications in patients with degenerative scoliosis undergoing primary versus revision surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(10):805–811.

13.

Grotle

Smastuen

Fjeld

, et al. Lumbar spine surgery across 15 years: trends, complications and reoperations in a longitudinal observational study from Norway. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e028743.

14.

Jiang

Wang

Xia

JL.

[Prevention and handling of missing data in clinical trials]. Yao Xue Bao. 2015; 50(11):1402–1407.

15.

Kalakoti

Missios

Maiti

, et al. Inpatient outcomes and postoperative complications after primary versus revision lumbar spinal fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar disc disease: a national (nationwide) inpatient sample analysis, 2002–2011. World Neurosurg. 2016;85:114–124.

16.

Kurtz

Lau

Ong

, et al. Infection risk for primary and revision instrumented lumbar spine fusion in the Medicare population. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(4):342–347. https://doi.org/10.1371/10.3171/2012.7.SPINE12203.

17.

Lapp

Bridwell

Lenke

, et al. Long-term complications in adult spinal deformity patients having combined surgery a comparison of primary to revision patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:973–983.

18.

Lau

Chan

Deverin

Ames

CP.

Does prior spine surgery or instrumentation affect surgical outcomes following 3-column osteotomy for correction of thoracolumbar deformities?

Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43(6):E8.

19.

Linville

Bridwell

Lenke

Vedantam

Leicht

Complications in the adult spinal deformity patient having combined surgery. Does revision increase the risk?

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;26(8):355–363.

20.

Martin

Mirza

Comstock

Gray

Kreuter

Deyo

RA.

Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(3):382–387.

21.

Mueller

Carreon

Glassman

SD.

Comparison of the EuroQOL-5D with the Oswestry Disability Index, back and leg pain scores in patients with degenerative lumbar spine pathology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(9):757–761.

22.

Nasser

Yadla

Maltenfort

, et al. Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:144–157.

23.

Noordzij

van Diepen

Caskey

Jager

KJ.

Relative risk versus absolute risk: one cannot be interpreted without the other. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32:ii13–ii18.

24.

Papadakis

Aggeliki

Papadopoulos

Girardi

FP.

Common surgical complications in degenerative spinal surgery. World J Orthop. 2013;4(2):62–66.

25.

Poorman

Zhou

Vasquez-Montes

, et al. Differences in primary and revision deformity surgeries: following 1,063 primary thoracolumbar adult spinal deformity fusions over time. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(2):203–210.

26.

Ranganathan

Aggarwal

Pramesh

CS.

Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: odds versus risk. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6(4):222–224.

27.

Ranganathan

Pramesh

Aggarwal

Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and number needed to treat. Perspect Clin Res. 2016;7(1):51–53.

28.

Szumilas

Explaining odds ratios. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;19(3):227–229.

29.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(8):573–577.

30.

Zaina

Tomkins-Lane

Carragee

Negrini

Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(14):E857–E868.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

4.44 MB