Wesley M Durand, Rajan Khanna, Gabriel I Nazario-Ferrer, Sang H Lee, Richard L Skolasky, Amit Jain
{"title":"Revision Surgery after Single Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With Plate vs Stand-Alone Cage over 2 to 5 Year Follow-Up.","authors":"Wesley M Durand, Rajan Khanna, Gabriel I Nazario-Ferrer, Sang H Lee, Richard L Skolasky, Amit Jain","doi":"10.1177/21925682241279528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study Designretrospective study.ObjectiveTo investigate the incidence of all-cause revision surgery between plated vs stand-alone cage constructs for single level ACDF.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed a commercial insurance claims database. Patients 18-65 years-old were included if they underwent single-level inpatient ACDF (defined with CPT codes) from 2010 - 2018, with a minimum of 2-year continuous insurance enrollment. The primary independent variable was the use of anterior plating vs zero profile device or stand-alone cage. Synthetic (ie, metal, PEEK, etc.) vs allograft interbody was a secondary independent variable. The primary outcome variable was revision cervical arthrodesis after the index operation.ResultsIn total, 21092 patients undergoing single-level inpatient ACDF were included. 10.0% received a stand-alone cage during the index operation. Mean follow-up duration was 4.5 years. Revision arthrodesis occurred in 8.2% of patients overall, at a mean of 2.4 years after the index surgery. Patients with anterior plating had a lower rate of all-cause revision surgery in unadjusted (overall rate 8.1% vs 9.6%, <i>P</i> = 0.0185) and adjusted analysis (OR 0.78, <i>P</i> = 0.0016) vs stand-alone cages. Patients with stand-alone cages had higher rates of revision with a posterior approach than did patients with plated constructs. In sub-analysis, the combination of a stand-alone interbody device with an allograft had significantly higher odds of revision than other combinations of devices.ConclusionAmong commercially insured patients ≤65 years-old undergoing single-level ACDF, anterior plating was associated with a reduced incidence of revision surgery compared to stand-alone cages within the follow up period of our study.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"2014-2019"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571586/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241279528","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study Designretrospective study.ObjectiveTo investigate the incidence of all-cause revision surgery between plated vs stand-alone cage constructs for single level ACDF.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed a commercial insurance claims database. Patients 18-65 years-old were included if they underwent single-level inpatient ACDF (defined with CPT codes) from 2010 - 2018, with a minimum of 2-year continuous insurance enrollment. The primary independent variable was the use of anterior plating vs zero profile device or stand-alone cage. Synthetic (ie, metal, PEEK, etc.) vs allograft interbody was a secondary independent variable. The primary outcome variable was revision cervical arthrodesis after the index operation.ResultsIn total, 21092 patients undergoing single-level inpatient ACDF were included. 10.0% received a stand-alone cage during the index operation. Mean follow-up duration was 4.5 years. Revision arthrodesis occurred in 8.2% of patients overall, at a mean of 2.4 years after the index surgery. Patients with anterior plating had a lower rate of all-cause revision surgery in unadjusted (overall rate 8.1% vs 9.6%, P = 0.0185) and adjusted analysis (OR 0.78, P = 0.0016) vs stand-alone cages. Patients with stand-alone cages had higher rates of revision with a posterior approach than did patients with plated constructs. In sub-analysis, the combination of a stand-alone interbody device with an allograft had significantly higher odds of revision than other combinations of devices.ConclusionAmong commercially insured patients ≤65 years-old undergoing single-level ACDF, anterior plating was associated with a reduced incidence of revision surgery compared to stand-alone cages within the follow up period of our study.
期刊介绍:
Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).