Is elective degenerative lumbar spine surgery in older adults safe in a short-stay clinic? Data from an institutional registry

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Siccoli ◽  
Victor E. Staartjes ◽  
Marlies P. de Wispelaere ◽  
Marc L. Schröder
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Short Stay ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine

scholarly journals Outcomes and Complications of Diabetes Mellitus on Patients Undergoing Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

Spine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (19) ◽  
pp. 1596-1604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Z. Guzman ◽  
James C. Iatridis ◽  
Branko Skovrlj ◽  
Holt S. Cutler ◽  
Andrew C. Hecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Complications Of Diabetes ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine

Outcomes of Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing Hemodialysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 154
Author(s):  
Hae-Dong Jang ◽  
Joonghyun Ahn ◽  
Jae Chul Lee ◽  
Sung-Woo Choi ◽  
Sijohn Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine

Management of Infected Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage in Posterior Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 126 ◽  
pp. e330-e341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Wei Chang ◽  
Tsai-Sheng Fu ◽  
Wen-Jer Chen ◽  
Chien-Wen Chen ◽  
Po-Liang Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

Postoperative Management Protocol for Incidental Dural Tears During Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

Spine ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (22) ◽  
pp. 2609-2613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa H. Khan ◽  
Jeffery Rihn ◽  
Garen Steele ◽  
Rick Davis ◽  
William F. Donaldson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Postoperative Management ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine ◽  
Management Protocol ◽  
Dural Tears

scholarly journals Characteristics and predicted outcome of patients lost to follow-up after degenerative lumbar spine surgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (12) ◽  
pp. 3063-3073
Author(s):  
C. Parai ◽  
O. Hägg ◽  
C. Willers ◽  
B. Lind ◽  
H. Brisby
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Global Assessment ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Lost To Follow Up ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Purpose The relatively large number of participants lost to follow-up (attrition) in spinal registers calls for studies that investigate the features of these individuals and their possible outcome. The aim was to explore the effect of attrition on patient-reported outcome in patients undergoing degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Three groups were studied: spinal stenosis (LSS), disc herniation (LDH) and degenerative disc disorder (DDD). Methods Patients who underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spine conditions during 2008–2012 according to registration in the Swespine national register were eligible for the study. Non-respondents were registered in Swespine prior to surgery, but not at follow-up. Swespine data were merged with hospital data from seven Swedish regions (65% of the population), Statistics Sweden, the National Patient Register and the Social Insurance Agency. Baseline characteristics of non-respondents were described and compared to those of the respondents. Coefficients from regression analyses on PROM values for respondents were used to estimate the levels of PROM values for non-respondents, assuming the same effects of baseline characteristics for the two subgroups. Regression analyses were then conducted to identify variables associated with non-response. The results from the regression analyses were used to predict outcomes for patients with the characteristics of a non-respondent. Primary outcome variable in LSS and LDH was Global Assessment for leg pain, and in DDD, Global Assessment for back pain. Results Age, sex, educational level, smoking, living alone, being born outside the EU, previous spine surgery and unexpected events before follow-up were factors that were significantly associated with non-response. Being born inside, the EU was important in all of the studied groups (LSS: OR 0.61 p =  < 0.000; LDH: OR 0.68 p = 0.001; DDD: OR 0.58 p = 0.04). For spinal stenosis patients, an unexpected event appeared particularly important (OR 3.40, p = 0.000). The predicted outcome of non-respondents was significantly worse than for respondents (LSS: 75.4% successful outcome vs. 78.7%; LDH: 53.9% vs. 58.2%; DDD: 62.7% vs. 67.5%. P-value in all groups =  < 0.000). Conclusion Attrition in Swespine cannot be ignored, as non-respondents were predicted to have worse outcome. The effect of attrition bias should always be considered when contemplating outcome recorded in a quality register with patients lost to follow-up.

Safety and Efficacy of Implant Removal for Patients With Recurrent Back Pain After a Failed Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 271-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmet Alanay ◽  
Raj Vyas ◽  
Arya Nick Shamie ◽  
Thomas Sciocia ◽  
Gannon Randolph ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Implant Removal ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine

Failed degenerative lumbar spine surgery

2003 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashish D Diwan ◽  
Hari Parvartaneni ◽  
Frank Cammisa
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document