Instrumented lumbar fusion in patients over 75 years of age: is it worthwhile?-a comparative study of the improvement in quality of life between elderly and young patients.
Félix Tomé-Bermejo, Fernando Moreno-Mateo, Ángel Piñera-Parrilla, Javier Cervera-Irimia, Charles Louis Mengis-Palleck, Jesús Gallego-Bustos, Francisco Garzón-Márquez, María G Rodríguez-Arguisjuela, Sylvia Sanz-Aguilera, Kelman Luis de la Rosa-Zabala, Carmen Avilés-Morente, Beatriz Oliveros-Escudero, Alexa Anaís Núñez-Torrealba, Luis Alvarez-Galovich
{"title":"Instrumented lumbar fusion in patients over 75 years of age: is it worthwhile?-a comparative study of the improvement in quality of life between elderly and young patients.","authors":"Félix Tomé-Bermejo, Fernando Moreno-Mateo, Ángel Piñera-Parrilla, Javier Cervera-Irimia, Charles Louis Mengis-Palleck, Jesús Gallego-Bustos, Francisco Garzón-Márquez, María G Rodríguez-Arguisjuela, Sylvia Sanz-Aguilera, Kelman Luis de la Rosa-Zabala, Carmen Avilés-Morente, Beatriz Oliveros-Escudero, Alexa Anaís Núñez-Torrealba, Luis Alvarez-Galovich","doi":"10.21037/jss-22-115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in the elderly is controversial. Elderly patients have an increased risk for medical and surgical complications commensurate with their comorbidities, and concerns over complications have led to frequent cases of insufficient decompression to avoid the need for instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcome between older and younger patients undergoing lumbar instrumented arthrodesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective, comparative study of prospectively collected outcomes. One hundred and fifty-four patients underwent 1- or 2-level posterolateral lumbar fusion. Patients were divided into two groups. Group 1: 87 patients ≤65 years of age who underwent decompression and posterolateral instrumented fusion; Group 2: 67 patients ≥75 years of age who underwent the same procedures with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) pedicle-screw augmentation. Mean follow-up 27.47 months (range, 76-24 months).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean age was 49.1 years old (range, 24-65) for the younger group and 77.8 (range, 75-86) in the elderly group. Patients ≥75 years of age showed higher preoperative comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiology, ASA: 1.7 <i>vs</i>. 2.4), and ≥2 systemic diseases with greater frequency (12.5% <i>vs</i>. 44.7%). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications, fusion, or revision rate. During follow-up, adjacent disc disease and adjacent fracture occurred significantly more in Group 2 (P<0.05). At the end of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the two groups in any of the clinical and health-related quality of life scores or satisfaction with treatment received.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Osteoporosis represents a major consideration before performing spine surgery. Despite an obvious increased risk of complications in elderly patients, PMMA-augmented fenestrated pedicle screw instrumentation in spine fusion represents a safe and effective surgical treatment option to elderly patients with poor bone quality. Age itself should not be considered a contraindication in otherwise appropriately selected patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":17131,"journal":{"name":"Journal of spine surgery","volume":"9 3","pages":"247-258"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1a/e9/jss-09-03-247.PMC10570654.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of spine surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-22-115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in the elderly is controversial. Elderly patients have an increased risk for medical and surgical complications commensurate with their comorbidities, and concerns over complications have led to frequent cases of insufficient decompression to avoid the need for instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcome between older and younger patients undergoing lumbar instrumented arthrodesis.
Methods: This is a retrospective, comparative study of prospectively collected outcomes. One hundred and fifty-four patients underwent 1- or 2-level posterolateral lumbar fusion. Patients were divided into two groups. Group 1: 87 patients ≤65 years of age who underwent decompression and posterolateral instrumented fusion; Group 2: 67 patients ≥75 years of age who underwent the same procedures with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) pedicle-screw augmentation. Mean follow-up 27.47 months (range, 76-24 months).
Results: Mean age was 49.1 years old (range, 24-65) for the younger group and 77.8 (range, 75-86) in the elderly group. Patients ≥75 years of age showed higher preoperative comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiology, ASA: 1.7 vs. 2.4), and ≥2 systemic diseases with greater frequency (12.5% vs. 44.7%). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications, fusion, or revision rate. During follow-up, adjacent disc disease and adjacent fracture occurred significantly more in Group 2 (P<0.05). At the end of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the two groups in any of the clinical and health-related quality of life scores or satisfaction with treatment received.
Conclusions: Osteoporosis represents a major consideration before performing spine surgery. Despite an obvious increased risk of complications in elderly patients, PMMA-augmented fenestrated pedicle screw instrumentation in spine fusion represents a safe and effective surgical treatment option to elderly patients with poor bone quality. Age itself should not be considered a contraindication in otherwise appropriately selected patients.