Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revision Rate After Adult Deformity Surgery

  • Case Series
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

Epidemiological study.

Purpose

To establish the revision rate of adult spinal deformity surgery.

Summary of Background Data

Historically, surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity was limited by inadequate correction and high complication rates. More recently, improved techniques have produced more consistent clinical benefit. However, the need for revision surgery remains a persistent and inadequately defined problem.

Methods

Patients who had multilevel spinal fusion for adult spinal deformity were identified from a national insurance database containing private payer and Medicare records using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or Current Procedural Terminology codes from 2005 to 2011. Revision procedures were identified based on codes for spinal instrumentation and fusion.

Results

The Medicare sample included 1,879 patients (1,329 females and 550 males). The revision rate in this cohort was 6% in Year 1 postoperatively, 6% in Year 2, 4% in Year 3, and 3% in Year 4, for a cumulative 19% revision rate. In the private payer database, 803 patients (559 females and 244 males) were identified. Revision rate was 10% in Year 1 postoperatively, 3% in Year 2, 2% in Year 3, and 1% in Year 4, for a cumulative 16% revision rate. Pooling the databases yielded an overall 18% revision rate at 4 years postoperatively. Fewer revisions were noted at 1 year postoperatively in the Medicare sample and the 1-year revision rate was inversely proportional to age across the entire cohort. The revision rate equalized across age groups over time such that no differences were seen at 4 years postoperatively.

Conclusions

The value of an intervention depends on efficacy, safety, and durability. Despite improvements in technique and clinical outcome, an 18% revision rate at 4 years postoperatively is not sustainable from either a clinical or an economic standpoint. This study establishes a benchmark for the critical effort that is needed to reduce the revision rate in adult spinal deformity surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weidenbaum M. Considerations for focused surgical intervention in the presence of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31(19 Suppl):S139–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Halpin RJ, Sugrue PA, Gould RW, et al. Standardizing care for high-risk patients in spine surgery: the Northwestern high-risk spine protocol. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:2232–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sethi RK, Pong RP, Leveque JC, et al. The Seattle Spine Team approach to adult deformity surgery: a systems-based approach to perioperative care and subsequent reduction in perioperative complication rates. Spine Deformity 2013;2:95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Raynor BL, Bright JD, Lenke LG, et al. Significant change or loss of intraoperative monitoring data: a 25-year experience in 12,375 spinal surgeries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:E101–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Neill KR, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes after 3-column osteotomies with 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:424–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tsuchiya K, Bridwell KH, Kuklo TR, et al. Minimum 5-year analysis of L5-S1 fusion using sacropelvic fixation (bilateral S1 and iliac screws) for spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:303–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, et al. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2024–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, et al. Correlation of radio-graphic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:682–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, et al. Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38: E803–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Shaffrey CI, et al. The costs and benefits of nonoperative management for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:578–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bridwell KH, Glassman S, Horton W, et al. Does treatment (nonop-erative and operative) improve the two-year quality of life in patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: a prospective multicenter evidence-based medicine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34: 2171–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwab F, Lafage V, Farcy JP, et al. Surgical rates and operative outcome analysis in thoracolumbar and lumbar major adult scoliosis: application of the new adult deformity classification. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:2723–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Berven S, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of leg pain in adults with scoliosis: a retrospective review of a prospective multicenter database with two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:1693–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Terran J, McHugh BJ, Fischer CR, et al. Surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity: projected cost effectiveness at 5-year follow-up. Ochsner J 2014;14:14–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Mok JM, Cloyd JM, Bradford DS, et al. Reoperation after primary fusion for adult spinal deformity: rate, reason, and timing. Spine (Phi-la Pa 1976) 2009;34:832–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pichelmann MA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Revision rates following primary adult spinal deformity surgery: six hundred forty-three consecutive patients followed-up to twenty-two years postoperative. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:219–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bridwell KH, Edwards II CC, Lenke LG. The pros and cons to saving the L5-S1 motion segment in a long scoliosis fusion construct. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:S234–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR, et al. Risk factors of sagittal decompensation after long posterior instrumentation and fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:1595–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Edwards II CC, Bridwell KH, Patel A, et al. Long adult deformity fusions to L5 and the sacrum: a matched cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:1996–2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Pseudarthrosis in long adult spinal deformity instrumentation and fusion to the sacrum: prevalence and risk factor analysis of 144 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:2329–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Weistroffer JK, Perra JH, Lonstein JE, et al. Complications in long fusions to the sacrum for adult scoliosis: minimum five-year analysis of fifty patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:1478–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hassanzadeh H, Jain A, El Dafrawy MH, et al. Three-column osteotomies in the treatment of spinal deformity in adult patients 60 years old and older: outcome and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:726–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Neal JC, Koski T. Dorsal thoracic and lumbar combined and complex techniques. In: Benzel EC, editor. Spine surgery: techniques, complication avoidance, and management. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. p. 1465–72.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Papadopoulos EC, Boachie-Adjei O. Osteotomies and vertebral column resections for complex spinal deformities. In: Heary RF, Albert TJ, editors. Spinal deformities: the essentials. New York, NY: Thieme Medical; 2006. p. 230–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2179–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hostin R, McCarthy I, O’Brien M, et al. Incidence, mode, and location of acute proximal junctional failures following surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kim HJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis requiring revision surgery have higher postoperative lumbar lordosis and larger sagittal balance corrections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:E576–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Maruo K, Ha Y, Inoue S, Samuel S, et al. Predictive factors for proximal junctional kyphosis in long fusions to the sacrum in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:E1469–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hart RA, McCarthy I, Ames CP, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2013;24:213–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith MW, Annis P, Lawrence BD, et al. Early proximal junctional failure in patients with preoperative sagittal imbalance. Evid Based Spine Care J 2013;4:163–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yagi M, King AB, Boachie-Adjei O. Incidence, risk factors, and natural course of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Minimum 5 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:1479–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yagi M, Rahm M, Gaines R, et al. Characterization and surgical outcomes of proximal junctional failure in surgically treated patients with adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39: E607–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cho SK, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in primary adult deformity surgery: evaluation of 20 degrees as a critical angle. Neurosurgery 2013;72:899–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cahill PJ, Wang W, Asghar J, et al. The use of a transition rod may prevent proximal junctional kyphosis in the thoracic spine after scoli-osis surgery: a finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E687–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kebaish KM, Martin CT, O’Brien JR, et al. Use of vertebroplasty to prevent proximal junctional fractures in adult deformity surgery: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Spine J 2013;13:1897–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Glassman SD, Polly DW, Dimar JR, Carreon LY. The cost effectiveness of single-level instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion at 5 years after surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:769–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylo-listhesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:2061–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, et al. The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray Street, Suite 900, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA

    Steven D. Glassman MD & Leah Y. Carreon MD, MSc

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 550 S. Jackson Street, 1st Floor ACB, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA

    Steven D. Glassman MD & John R. Dimar II MD

Authors
  1. Steven D. Glassman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John R. Dimar II MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leah Y. Carreon MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leah Y. Carreon MD, MSc.

Additional information

Author disclosures: SDG (President, Scoliosis Research Society); JRD (none); LYC (none).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glassman, S.D., Dimar, J.R. & Carreon, L.Y. Revision Rate After Adult Deformity Surgery. Spine Deform 3, 199–203 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.08.005

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.08.005

Keywords

Search

Navigation