单层颈椎间盘关节置换术与颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术后的复发率:最少随访 5 年的观察性研究。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-25 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005079
Adam M Gordon, Faisal R Elali, Ahmed Saleh
{"title":"单层颈椎间盘关节置换术与颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术后的复发率:最少随访 5 年的观察性研究。","authors":"Adam M Gordon, Faisal R Elali, Ahmed Saleh","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective case-control study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare rates and risk factors for all-cause 5-year revisions for patients undergoing primary single-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Prospective studies have compared patient-reported outcomes, adjacent segment degeneration, and long-term revisions between CDA and ACDF. Despite these high-level evidence studies, well-powered, large investigations have not been adequately reported.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A nationwide database was queried for patients undergoing primary single-level CDA or ACDF for degenerative cervical spine pathology. Further inclusion criteria consisted of patients having a minimum 5-year follow-up. Patients undergoing CDA were in a 1:5 ratio matched to patients undergoing ACDF by age, sex, comorbidities, and overall Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI). Objectives were to compare the rates and risk factors of all-cause 5-year revisions for those undergoing single-level CDA versus ACDF. Multivariate logistic regression models computed the odds ratios (ORs) of revisions within 5 years. P values of less than 0.001 were significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32,953 patients underwent single-level CDA (N=5,640) or ACDF (N=27,313) with a 5-year minimum follow-up. The incidence of all-cause revisions within 5 years was 1.24% for CDA and 9.23% for ACDF ( P <0.001). After adjustment, patients undergoing single-level ACDF had significantly higher odds of all-cause revisions within 5 years (OR: 8.09; P <0.0001). Additional patient-specific factors associated with revisions were a history of reported drug abuse (OR: 1.51; P <0.0001), depression (OR: 1.23; P <0.0001), cardiac arrhythmias (OR: 1.21; P =0.0008), hypertension (OR: 1.20; P =0.0006), and tobacco use (OR: 1.18; P =0.0003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study of nearly 33,000 single-level cervical spine surgeries with minimum 5-year follow-up, all-cause revision rates were significantly lower for patients undergoing CDA. Surgeons may use this data to counsel patients regarding 5-year revisions following single-level CDA or ACDF.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":"19-25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revision Rates After Single-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: An Observational Study With 5-Year Minimum Follow-Up.\",\"authors\":\"Adam M Gordon, Faisal R Elali, Ahmed Saleh\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective case-control study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare rates and risk factors for all-cause 5-year revisions for patients undergoing primary single-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Prospective studies have compared patient-reported outcomes, adjacent segment degeneration, and long-term revisions between CDA and ACDF. Despite these high-level evidence studies, well-powered, large investigations have not been adequately reported.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A nationwide database was queried for patients undergoing primary single-level CDA or ACDF for degenerative cervical spine pathology. Further inclusion criteria consisted of patients having a minimum 5-year follow-up. Patients undergoing CDA were in a 1:5 ratio matched to patients undergoing ACDF by age, sex, comorbidities, and overall Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI). Objectives were to compare the rates and risk factors of all-cause 5-year revisions for those undergoing single-level CDA versus ACDF. Multivariate logistic regression models computed the odds ratios (ORs) of revisions within 5 years. P values of less than 0.001 were significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32,953 patients underwent single-level CDA (N=5,640) or ACDF (N=27,313) with a 5-year minimum follow-up. The incidence of all-cause revisions within 5 years was 1.24% for CDA and 9.23% for ACDF ( P <0.001). After adjustment, patients undergoing single-level ACDF had significantly higher odds of all-cause revisions within 5 years (OR: 8.09; P <0.0001). Additional patient-specific factors associated with revisions were a history of reported drug abuse (OR: 1.51; P <0.0001), depression (OR: 1.23; P <0.0001), cardiac arrhythmias (OR: 1.21; P =0.0008), hypertension (OR: 1.20; P =0.0006), and tobacco use (OR: 1.18; P =0.0003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study of nearly 33,000 single-level cervical spine surgeries with minimum 5-year follow-up, all-cause revision rates were significantly lower for patients undergoing CDA. Surgeons may use this data to counsel patients regarding 5-year revisions following single-level CDA or ACDF.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"19-25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005079\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005079","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计研究目的:回顾性病例对照研究:本研究旨在比较接受初级单水平颈椎间盘关节置换术(CDA)与前路颈椎椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)的患者5年全因翻修率和风险因素:前瞻性研究比较了CDA和ACDF的患者报告结果、邻近节段退变和长期翻修情况。尽管有这些高水平的证据研究,但尚未充分报告有充分证据支持的大型调查:在全国范围内的数据库中查询了因颈椎退行性病变而接受初级单水平CDA或ACDF手术的患者。进一步的纳入标准包括随访至少5年的患者。根据年龄、性别、合并症和总体埃利克豪斯合并症指数(ECI),接受CDA的患者与接受ACDF的患者按1:5的比例进行配对。目的是比较接受单层 CDA 和 ACDF 治疗的患者 5 年全因复发率和风险因素。多变量逻辑回归模型计算了5年内翻修的几率比(OR)。P值小于0.001为显著:共有 32953 名患者接受了单层 CDA(N=5640)或 ACDF(N=27313)手术,随访时间最短为 5 年。5年内所有原因的翻修发生率,CDA为1.24%,ACDF为9.23%(PConclusions:在这项对近 33,000 例单层次颈椎手术进行至少 5 年随访的研究中,接受 CDA 的患者因各种原因导致的翻修率明显较低。外科医生可利用这些数据就单层次 CDA 或 ACDF 术后 5 年翻修问题向患者提供咨询:证据等级:III。
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
Revision Rates After Single-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: An Observational Study With 5-Year Minimum Follow-Up.

Study design: A retrospective case-control study.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare rates and risk factors for all-cause 5-year revisions for patients undergoing primary single-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Summary of background data: Prospective studies have compared patient-reported outcomes, adjacent segment degeneration, and long-term revisions between CDA and ACDF. Despite these high-level evidence studies, well-powered, large investigations have not been adequately reported.

Patients and methods: A nationwide database was queried for patients undergoing primary single-level CDA or ACDF for degenerative cervical spine pathology. Further inclusion criteria consisted of patients having a minimum 5-year follow-up. Patients undergoing CDA were in a 1:5 ratio matched to patients undergoing ACDF by age, sex, comorbidities, and overall Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI). Objectives were to compare the rates and risk factors of all-cause 5-year revisions for those undergoing single-level CDA versus ACDF. Multivariate logistic regression models computed the odds ratios (ORs) of revisions within 5 years. P values of less than 0.001 were significant.

Results: A total of 32,953 patients underwent single-level CDA (N=5,640) or ACDF (N=27,313) with a 5-year minimum follow-up. The incidence of all-cause revisions within 5 years was 1.24% for CDA and 9.23% for ACDF ( P <0.001). After adjustment, patients undergoing single-level ACDF had significantly higher odds of all-cause revisions within 5 years (OR: 8.09; P <0.0001). Additional patient-specific factors associated with revisions were a history of reported drug abuse (OR: 1.51; P <0.0001), depression (OR: 1.23; P <0.0001), cardiac arrhythmias (OR: 1.21; P =0.0008), hypertension (OR: 1.20; P =0.0006), and tobacco use (OR: 1.18; P =0.0003).

Conclusions: In this study of nearly 33,000 single-level cervical spine surgeries with minimum 5-year follow-up, all-cause revision rates were significantly lower for patients undergoing CDA. Surgeons may use this data to counsel patients regarding 5-year revisions following single-level CDA or ACDF.

Level of evidence: III.

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
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Temporal Trends of Improvement After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Intraoperative Hypotension Is an Important Modifiable Risk Factor for Major Complications in Spinal Fusion Surgery. Clinical Outcome of Lumbar Hybrid Surgery in a Consecutive Series of Patients With Long-term Follow-up. Does Paraspinal Muscle Mass Predict Lumbar Lordosis Before and After Decompression for Degenerative Spinal Stenosis? The Utility of the Surgical Apgar Score in Assessing the Risk of Perioperative Complications Following Spinal Fusion Surgery for Pediatric Patients With Scoliosis and Cerebral Palsy.
×
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