Reoperation, Readmission, and Discharge Disposition for Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Pathology Treated With Either Open or Minimally Invasive Techniques: A Single-Center Retrospective Review of 1435 Cases
- 15 June 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Neurosurgery
- Vol. 87 (6) , 1199-1205
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spine surgery has been transformed by the growth of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures. Previous studies agree that MIS has shorter hospitalization and faster recovery time when compared to conventional open surgery. However, the reoperation and readmission rates between the 2 techniques have yet to be well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of subsequent revision between MIS and open techniques for degenerative lumbar pathology. METHODS: A total of 1435 adult patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery between 2013 and 2016 were included in this retrospective analysis. The rates of need for subsequent reoperation, 30- and 90-d readmission, and discharge to rehabilitation were recorded for both MIS and traditional open techniques. Groups were divided into decompression alone and decompression with fusion. RESULTS: The rates of subsequent reoperation following MIS and open surgery were 10.4% and 12.2%, respectively (P = .32), which were maintained when subdivided into decompression and decompression with fusion. MIS and open 30-d readmission rates were 7.9% and 7.2% (P = .67), while 90-d readmission rates were 4.3% and 3.6% (P = .57), respectively. Discharge to rehabilitation was significantly lower for patients under 60 yr of age undergoing MIS (1.64% vs 5.63%, P = .04). CONCLUSION: The use of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of lumbar spine pathology does not result in increased reoperation or 30- and 90-d readmission rates when compared to open approaches. Patients under the age of 60 yr undergoing MIS procedures were less likely to be discharged to rehab.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody FusionChinese Medical Journal, 2016
- Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 2011
- Minimal Access Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody FusionSpine, 2010
- Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody FusionSpine, 2010
- Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2European Spine Journal, 2010
- The Quantitative Analysis of Back Muscle Degeneration after Posterior Lumbar Fusion: Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Conventional Open SurgeryAsian Spine Journal, 2009
- Adult Spinal Deformity SurgerySpine, 2007
- Comparison of One-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed With a Minimally Invasive Approach or a Traditional Open ApproachSpine, 2007
- PERIOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS OF POSTERIOR LUMBAR DECOMPRESSION AND ARTHRODESIS IN OLDER ADULTSJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2003
- Minimally Invasive Lumbar FusionSpine, 2003