Trends in lumbar interbody fusion: A study of American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS) candidate data
- PMID: 38213447
- PMCID: PMC10783666
- DOI: 10.25259/SNI_502_2023
Trends in lumbar interbody fusion: A study of American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS) candidate data
Abstract
Background: There has been an increase in posterior-based interbody fusions over the past two decades. Our objective was to evaluate trends in interbody fusion use among the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS) Part II candidates.
Methods: The ABOS database from 2003 to 2012 was queried for common procedural terminology (CPT) codes indicating lumbar interbody fusion (22,558 anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF] and 22,630 and 22,633 posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF] or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF]). Trends in the use of interbody fusion technique, associated complications, and geographical variation were evaluated. We also queried utilization of the anterior and posterior interbody fusions by the International Classification of Diseases-9 code.
Results: 6841 interbody fusion cases were identified (2329 ALIF and 4512 PLIF/TLIF). There was a significantly higher use of PLIF/TLIF than ALIF over the study period (P < 0.001). As compared to patients in the Midwest, those in the Northwest had significantly higher odds of undergoing PLIF/TLIF (odds ratio [OR]: 4.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.61-6.35, P <0.001), and those in the Southwest had significantly lower odds of PLIF/TLIF (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.69-0.95, P = 0.01). The overall complication rate was 22.2% (n = 1,519). Vascular-related complications were significantly higher among patients undergoing ALIF (31 vs. 1, P <0.001), while those undergoing TLIF/PLIF were more likely to experience unspecified medical complications. On multivariate analysis, patients undergoing PLIF/TLIF had lower odds of experiencing a complication (P = 0.03, OR 0.87, CI 95%).
Conclusion: Over the 10-year study period, there has been a significantly increased rate of posterior interbody fusion among candidates taking part II ABOS examination.
Keywords: American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS); Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF); Complications; Lumbar interbody fusion; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF); Trends.
Copyright: © 2023 Surgical Neurology International.
Conflict of interest statement
Addisu Mesfin: Travel/lodging: Medtronic, NuVasive.
Figures
References
-
- Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:936–43. - PubMed
-
- Bae HW, Rajaee SS, Kanim LE. Nationwide trends in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:916–26. - PubMed
-
- Deyo RA. Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A balancing act. Spine J. 2010;10:625–7. - PubMed
-
- Garrett WE, Jr, Swiontkowski MF, Weinstein JN, Callaghan J, Rosier RN, Berry DJ, et al. American board of orthopaedic surgery practice of the orthopaedic surgeon: Part-II, certification examination case mix. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:660–7. - PubMed
-
- Katz AD, Mancini N, Karukonda T, Greenwood M, Cote M, Moss IL. Approach-based comparative and predictor analysis of 30-day readmission, reoperation, and morbidity in patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion using the ACS-NSQIP Dataset. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019;44:432–41. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous