Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2018 Aug;27(8):1972-1980.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5508-1. Epub 2018 Feb 8.

Reoperation within 2 years after lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Reoperation within 2 years after lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study

Kazuyoshi Kobayashi et al. Eur Spine J. 2018 Aug.

Abstract

Purpose: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) can have complications that require reoperation. The goal of the study was to identify risk factors for reoperation within 2 years after PLIF/TLIF.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter database was performed for patients who underwent PLIF/TLIF. A total of 1363 patients (689 males and 674 females) were identified, with an average age of 65.9 years old. Comorbidities, perioperative ASA grade, and operative factors were compared between patients with and without reoperation. Risk factors for reoperation were identified in multivariate logistic analysis.

Results: There were 38 reoperations within 2 years after PLIF/TLIF (2.8%). The original surgical procedures were open PLIF (n = 26), open TLIF (n = 10), and minimally invasive surgery (n = 2). Reoperation was due to adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) (n = 10), surgical site infection (SSI) (n = 9), screw misplacement (n = 6), postoperative epidural hematoma (n = 6), pseudoarthrosis (n = 4), and cage protrusion (n = 3). Number of levels fused and dural tear were significantly associated with reoperation. In analysis of complications requiring reoperation, SSI was related to diabetes mellitus and dural tear, and postoperative epidural hematoma was related to fusion of two or more levels, EBL, and operation time. In multivariate logistic regression, fusion of two or more levels (HR 2.19) was significantly associated with reoperation.

Conclusion: Surgical invasiveness, as reflected by number of fused levels, operation time, EBL and dural tear, was associated with reoperation. Fusion of two or more levels is a strong risk factor for reoperation within 2 years after initial PLIF/TLIF. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords: Adjacent segment degeneration; Complications; Dural tear; Epidural hematoma; Invasiveness; Multicenter; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF); Reoperation; Screw misplacement; Surgical site infection; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Briggs H, Milligan PR (1944) Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. J Bone Jt Surg Am 1944 26:125–130
    1. Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb (1982) 120:343–347 - DOI
    1. Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC (2007) Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:321–329 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J (2012) Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci 19:829–835 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G et al (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1:2–18 - PubMed - PMC

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources