Staged Versus Same-Day Circumferential Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disease: Which is the Safer Approach?
- PMID: 40228521
- PMCID: PMC11996812
- DOI: 10.1177/21925682251334122
Staged Versus Same-Day Circumferential Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disease: Which is the Safer Approach?
Abstract
Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectivesTo evaluate utilization trends and outcomes of same-day vs staged circumferential lumbar fusion (cLF) in lumbar degenerative disease.MethodsThe PearlDiver national database was queried for patients with lumbar degenerative disease who underwent same-day or staged cLF, defined as anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by posterior fusion within 1 to 14 days after. Annual utilization trends (2010-2021) were analyzed. Multivariate regression adjusted for age, gender, comorbidity index, obesity, smoking, and multi-level PSF was used to evaluate 30-day complications, readmissions, and revision rates at 1 and 2 years.ResultsOf 45,204 patients undergoing cLF, 40,052 (88.60%) underwent same-day cLF, and 5152 (11.40%) underwent staged procedures. Patients who underwent staged procedures had higher comorbidity rates and longer fusion constructs. Annual utilization of staged cLF increased on average by 3.76% from 2010. Staged procedures had higher risks of 30-day readmissions (aOR: 1.14), infection (aOR: 1.38), DVT (aOR: 2.62), epidural hematoma (aOR: 1.73), seroma (aOR:1.77), AKI (aOR: 1.34), cardiac arrest (aOR: 2.45), blood loss anemia (aOR: 1.56), urinary retention (aOR: 1.50), UTI (aOR: 1.36), ileus (aOR: 1.64), durotomy (aOR: 4.67), mechanical complications (aOR: 3.39), and blood transfusions (aOR: 2.57) (all P < 0.05). No significant differences in revision rates were found.ConclusionStaged cLF, utilized in 11.40% of cases, particularly for longer fusions and patients with higher comorbidity risk, is associated with higher risks of hospital readmissions and complications, but is not an independent risk factor. Further research is needed to identify patients who may benefit most from staging.
Keywords: circumferential; complications; degenerative; fusion; lumbar.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Henry Avetisian, Mirbahador Athari, William Karakash, Jordan O. Gasho, and Matthew C. Gallo have nothing to disclose. Jeffrey C. Wang has received intellectual property royalties from Zimmer Biomet, NovApproach, SeaSpine, and DePuy Synthes. Raymond J. Hah has received grant funding from SI bone, consulting fees from NuVasive, and support from the North American Spine Society to attend meetings. Ram K. Alluri has received grant funding from NIH, consulting fees from HIA Technologies, and payment from Eccential Robotics for lectures and presentations.
Figures
References
-
- Kwon BK, Hilibrand AS, Malloy K, et al. A critical analysis of the literature regarding surgical approach and outcome for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(Suppl):S30-40. - PubMed
-
- Swan J, Hurwitz E, Malek F, et al. Surgical treatment for unstable low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults: a prospective controlled study of posterior instrumented fusion compared with combined anterior-posterior fusion. Spine J. 2006;6(6):606-614. - PubMed
-
- Tye EY, Tanenbaum JE, Alonso AS, et al. Circumferential fusion: a comparative analysis between anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior pedicle screw fixation and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine J. 2018;18(3):464-471. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
