Comparison of revision surgeries for one- to two-level cervical TDR and ACDF from 2002 to 2011
- PMID: 24704499
- DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.037
Comparison of revision surgeries for one- to two-level cervical TDR and ACDF from 2002 to 2011
Abstract
Background context: Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) provide comparable outcomes for degenerative cervical pathology. However, revisions of these procedures are not well characterized.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the rates, epidemiology, perioperative complications, and costs between the revision procedures and to compare these outcomes with those of primary cases.
Study design: This study is a retrospective database analysis.
Patient sample: A total of 3,792 revision and 183,430 primary cases from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2002 to 2011 were included.
Outcome measures: Incidence of revision cases, patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), in-hospital costs, mortality, and perioperative complications.
Methods: Patients who underwent revision for either one- to two-level cervical TDR or ACDF were identified. SPSS v.20 was used for statistical analysis with χ(2) test for categorical data and independent sample t test for continuous data. The relative risk for perioperative complications with revisions was calculated in comparison with primary cases using a 95% confidence interval. An alpha level of less than 0.05 denoted statistical significance.
Results: There were 3,536 revision one- to two-level ACDFs and 256 revision cervical TDRs recorded in the NIS database from 2002 to 2011. The revision cervical TDR cohort demonstrated a significantly greater LOS (3.18 vs. 2.25, p<.001), cost ($16,998 vs. $15,222, p=.03), and incidence of perioperative wound infections (13.6 vs. 5.3 per 1,000, p<.001) compared with the ACDF revision cohort (p<.001). There were no differences in mortality between the revision surgical cohorts. Compared with primary cases, both revision cohorts demonstrated a significantly greater LOS and cost. Furthermore, patients who underwent revision demonstrated a greater incidence and risk for perioperative wound infections, hematomas, dysphagia, and neurologic complications relative to the primary procedures.
Conclusions: This study demonstrated a significantly greater incidence of perioperative wound infection, LOS, and costs associated with a TDR revision compared with a revision ACDF. We propose that these differences are by virtue of the inherently more invasive nature of revising TDRs. In addition, compared with primary cases, revision procedures are associated with greater costs, LOS, and complications including wound infections, dysphagia, hematomas, and neurologic events. These additional risks must be considered before opting for a revision procedure.
Keywords: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; Cervical total disc replacement; Costs; Dysphagia; Infection; Outcomes; Revision.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Comparison between cervical total disc replacement and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion of 1 to 2 levels from 2002 to 2009.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Jan 1;39(1):53-7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000044. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014. PMID: 24108292
-
Trends in resource utilization and rate of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion throughout the United States from 2006 to 2013.Spine J. 2018 Jun;18(6):1022-1029. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.10.072. Epub 2017 Nov 8. Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29128581
-
Revision rates and complication incidence in single- and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures: an administrative database study.Spine J. 2014 Jul 1;14(7):1125-31. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.474. Epub 2013 Oct 11. Spine J. 2014. PMID: 24126076
-
Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes.Eur Spine J. 2015 Dec;24(12):2735-45. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4228-z. Epub 2015 Sep 12. Eur Spine J. 2015. PMID: 26363559 Review.
-
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Eur Spine J. 2017 Apr;26(4):985-997. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4655-5. Epub 2016 Jun 17. Eur Spine J. 2017. PMID: 27314663 Review.
Cited by
-
Presentation and management of infection in total disc replacement: A review.N Am Spine Soc J. 2024 Mar 6;18:100320. doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2024.100320. eCollection 2024 Jun. N Am Spine Soc J. 2024. PMID: 38590972 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Current Concepts of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.Int J Spine Surg. 2021 Dec;15(6):1174-1183. doi: 10.14444/8149. Int J Spine Surg. 2021. PMID: 35086875 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical and radiographic outcomes using third-generation bioactive glass as a bone graft substitute for multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion-a retrospective case series study.J Spine Surg. 2021 Jun;7(2):124-131. doi: 10.21037/jss-20-645. J Spine Surg. 2021. PMID: 34296024 Free PMC article.
-
Revision Surgery for a Failed Artificial Disc.Yonsei Med J. 2021 Mar;62(3):240-248. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2021.62.3.240. Yonsei Med J. 2021. PMID: 33635014 Free PMC article.
-
Cervical Disc Replacement: Trends, Costs, and Complications.Asian Spine J. 2020 Oct;14(5):647-654. doi: 10.31616/asj.2019.0246. Epub 2020 Mar 30. Asian Spine J. 2020. PMID: 32213792 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
