腰椎椎板切除术(带或不带融合器)中静脉血栓栓塞化学预防的并发症。

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY International Journal of Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI:10.14444/8606
Elizabeth R Stiles, Ashish D Chakraborty, Priscilla Varghese, Aonnicha Burapachaisri, Lindsay Kim, Yong H Kim, Themistocles Stavros Protopsaltis, Charla Fischer
{"title":"腰椎椎板切除术(带或不带融合器)中静脉血栓栓塞化学预防的并发症。","authors":"Elizabeth R Stiles, Ashish D Chakraborty, Priscilla Varghese, Aonnicha Burapachaisri, Lindsay Kim, Yong H Kim, Themistocles Stavros Protopsaltis, Charla Fischer","doi":"10.14444/8606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefit of chemoprophylaxis (CPX) agents in preventing venous thromboembolism must be weighed against potential risks. Current literature regarding the efficacy of CPX after laminectomies with or without fusion is limited, with no clear consensus to inform guidelines.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluated the association between CPX and surgical complications after lumbar laminectomy with and without fusion.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study of patients at a single large academic institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The medical records of patients who underwent lumbar laminectomies with or without lumbar fusion from 2018 to 2020 were reviewed for demographics, surgical characteristics, CPX agents, postoperative complications, epidural hematomas, and wound drainage. Patients receiving CPX (<i>n</i> = 316) were compared with patients not receiving CPX (<i>n</i> = 316) via <i>t</i> test following propensity score matching, and patients on CPX were further stratified by fusion status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CPX group had higher body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists grades. Rates of venous thromboembolism, epidural hematomas, infections, postoperative incision and drainage, transfusions, wound dehiscence, and reoperation were not associated with CPX. Moist dressings were more frequent, and average days of drain duration were longer with CPX. Overall postoperative complication rate and length of stay (LOS) were greater with CPX. The fusion subgroup had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, was younger, had more women, and underwent more minimally invasive laminectomies. While estimated blood loss, operative times, and LOS were significantly greater in the fusion group, there was no difference in rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CPX after lumbar laminectomies with or without fusion was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation. Patients receiving CPX had more postoperative cardiac complications, but it is possible that surgeons were more likely to prescribe CPX for higher-risk patients. They also had higher rates of ileus and moist dressings, greater LOS, and longer length of drain duration. Patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy with fusion on CPX tended to be lower risk yet incurred greater blood loss, operative times, LOS, cardiac complications, and hematomas/seromas than patients not undergoing fusion.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This retrospective study compared surgical complications of lumbar laminectomies in patients who received chemoprophylaxis vs patients who did not. Chemoprophylaxis was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation, but it was associated with higher rates of postoperative cardiac complications and ileus.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 3: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":38486,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complications of Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis in Lumbar Laminectomy With and Without Fusion.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth R Stiles, Ashish D Chakraborty, Priscilla Varghese, Aonnicha Burapachaisri, Lindsay Kim, Yong H Kim, Themistocles Stavros Protopsaltis, Charla Fischer\",\"doi\":\"10.14444/8606\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefit of chemoprophylaxis (CPX) agents in preventing venous thromboembolism must be weighed against potential risks. Current literature regarding the efficacy of CPX after laminectomies with or without fusion is limited, with no clear consensus to inform guidelines.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluated the association between CPX and surgical complications after lumbar laminectomy with and without fusion.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study of patients at a single large academic institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The medical records of patients who underwent lumbar laminectomies with or without lumbar fusion from 2018 to 2020 were reviewed for demographics, surgical characteristics, CPX agents, postoperative complications, epidural hematomas, and wound drainage. Patients receiving CPX (<i>n</i> = 316) were compared with patients not receiving CPX (<i>n</i> = 316) via <i>t</i> test following propensity score matching, and patients on CPX were further stratified by fusion status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CPX group had higher body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists grades. Rates of venous thromboembolism, epidural hematomas, infections, postoperative incision and drainage, transfusions, wound dehiscence, and reoperation were not associated with CPX. Moist dressings were more frequent, and average days of drain duration were longer with CPX. Overall postoperative complication rate and length of stay (LOS) were greater with CPX. The fusion subgroup had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, was younger, had more women, and underwent more minimally invasive laminectomies. While estimated blood loss, operative times, and LOS were significantly greater in the fusion group, there was no difference in rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CPX after lumbar laminectomies with or without fusion was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation. Patients receiving CPX had more postoperative cardiac complications, but it is possible that surgeons were more likely to prescribe CPX for higher-risk patients. They also had higher rates of ileus and moist dressings, greater LOS, and longer length of drain duration. Patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy with fusion on CPX tended to be lower risk yet incurred greater blood loss, operative times, LOS, cardiac complications, and hematomas/seromas than patients not undergoing fusion.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This retrospective study compared surgical complications of lumbar laminectomies in patients who received chemoprophylaxis vs patients who did not. Chemoprophylaxis was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation, but it was associated with higher rates of postoperative cardiac complications and ileus.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 3: </strong></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14444/8606\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14444/8606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:必须权衡化学预防(CPX)药物在预防静脉血栓栓塞方面的益处和潜在风险。目前有关椎板切除术(带或不带融合术)后 CPX 疗效的文献有限,没有明确的共识可供指南参考:本研究评估了CPX与腰椎间盘切除术(带或不带融合器)后手术并发症之间的关系:研究设计:对一家大型学术机构的患者进行回顾性研究:回顾2018年至2020年接受腰椎板切除术(带或不带腰椎融合术)患者的病历,了解人口统计学、手术特征、CPX药物、术后并发症、硬膜外血肿和伤口引流情况。通过倾向得分匹配后的t检验,将接受CPX治疗的患者(n = 316)与未接受CPX治疗的患者(n = 316)进行比较,并根据融合状态对接受CPX治疗的患者进行进一步分层:结果:CPX 组患者的体重指数和美国麻醉医师协会等级较高。静脉血栓栓塞、硬膜外血肿、感染、术后切开引流、输血、伤口裂开和再次手术的发生率与 CPX 无关。CPX 的湿润敷料使用频率更高,引流时间平均天数更长。CPX 的总体术后并发症发生率和住院时间(LOS)更长。融合术亚组的夏尔森综合指数(Charlson Comorbidity Index)较低,美国麻醉医师协会分级较低,年龄较轻,女性较多,接受的微创椎板切除术较多。虽然融合组的估计失血量、手术时间和住院时间明显更长,但术中和术后并发症的发生率没有差异:结论:腰椎椎板切除术后进行 CPX 并不会增加硬膜外血肿、伤口并发症或再次手术的发生率。接受CPX治疗的患者术后心脏并发症较多,但可能是外科医生更倾向于为高风险患者开CPX处方。他们的回肠梗阻和潮湿敷料发生率也更高、住院时间更长、引流管持续时间更长。与未接受融合手术的患者相比,接受腰椎椎板切除术并在CPX上进行融合的患者风险较低,但失血量、手术时间、住院时间、心脏并发症和血肿/血丝瘤的发生率更高:这项回顾性研究比较了接受化学预防与未接受化学预防的腰椎间盘切除术患者的手术并发症。化学预防与硬膜外血肿、伤口并发症或再次手术的发生率增加无关,但与术后心脏并发症和回肠淤血的发生率增加有关:3:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Complications of Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis in Lumbar Laminectomy With and Without Fusion.

Background: The benefit of chemoprophylaxis (CPX) agents in preventing venous thromboembolism must be weighed against potential risks. Current literature regarding the efficacy of CPX after laminectomies with or without fusion is limited, with no clear consensus to inform guidelines.

Objective: This study evaluated the association between CPX and surgical complications after lumbar laminectomy with and without fusion.

Study design: Retrospective study of patients at a single large academic institution.

Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent lumbar laminectomies with or without lumbar fusion from 2018 to 2020 were reviewed for demographics, surgical characteristics, CPX agents, postoperative complications, epidural hematomas, and wound drainage. Patients receiving CPX (n = 316) were compared with patients not receiving CPX (n = 316) via t test following propensity score matching, and patients on CPX were further stratified by fusion status.

Results: The CPX group had higher body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists grades. Rates of venous thromboembolism, epidural hematomas, infections, postoperative incision and drainage, transfusions, wound dehiscence, and reoperation were not associated with CPX. Moist dressings were more frequent, and average days of drain duration were longer with CPX. Overall postoperative complication rate and length of stay (LOS) were greater with CPX. The fusion subgroup had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, was younger, had more women, and underwent more minimally invasive laminectomies. While estimated blood loss, operative times, and LOS were significantly greater in the fusion group, there was no difference in rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Conclusion: CPX after lumbar laminectomies with or without fusion was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation. Patients receiving CPX had more postoperative cardiac complications, but it is possible that surgeons were more likely to prescribe CPX for higher-risk patients. They also had higher rates of ileus and moist dressings, greater LOS, and longer length of drain duration. Patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy with fusion on CPX tended to be lower risk yet incurred greater blood loss, operative times, LOS, cardiac complications, and hematomas/seromas than patients not undergoing fusion.

Clinical relevance: This retrospective study compared surgical complications of lumbar laminectomies in patients who received chemoprophylaxis vs patients who did not. Chemoprophylaxis was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation, but it was associated with higher rates of postoperative cardiac complications and ileus.

Level of evidence: 3:

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
162
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Spine Surgery is the official scientific journal of ISASS, the International Intradiscal Therapy Society, the Pittsburgh Spine Summit, and the Büttner-Janz Spinefoundation, and is an official partner of the Southern Neurosurgical Society. The goal of the International Journal of Spine Surgery is to promote and disseminate online the most up-to-date scientific and clinical research into innovations in motion preservation and new spinal surgery technology, including basic science, biologics, and tissue engineering. The Journal is dedicated to educating spine surgeons worldwide by reporting on the scientific basis, indications, surgical techniques, complications, outcomes, and follow-up data for promising spinal procedures.
期刊最新文献
Beyond the Limits to Become a Leading Force in Global Spine Surgery: Present and Future of Spine Surgery in Asia-Pacific. Comparing ACDF Outcomes by Cervical Spine Level: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study. Editorial: Embracing Rasch Analysis for Enhanced Spine Surgery Outcomes-The Outsider's Viewpoint. Editors' Introduction: High-Value Endoscopic Techniques: Integrating Surgeon Skill and Experience in Spine Surgery With Rasch Analysis. Invited Commentary: Rasch Analysis and High-Value Spinal Endoscopy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1