Does obesity affect outcomes after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A multicenter observational registry-based study

Similar documents
BMJ Open. Comparative Effectiveness of Microdecompression and Laminectomy for Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis An Observational Study

Lumbar microdiscectomy for sciatica in adolescents: a multicentre observational registry-based study

Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study

Andreas Sørlie, Sasha Gulati, Charalampis Giannadakis, Sven M. Carlsen, Øyvind Salvesen 6, Øystein P. Nygaard 3-5, Tore K.

Clinical Outcome in Lumbar Decompression Surgery for Spinal Canal Stenosis in the Aged Population

Sigita Burneikiene, MD; Alan T. Villavicencio, MD; Alexander Mason, MD; Sharad Rajpal, MD

Disclosures. The Value Agenda in Spine Care Steven D. Glassman, M.D. 10/14/16. AllinaHealthSystems 1. Introduction. Introduction.

SWESPINE THE SWEDISH SPINE REGISTER 2010 REPORT

Segmental stability following minimally invasive decompressive surgery with tubular retractor for lumbar spinal stenosis

2016 OPAM Mid-Year Educational Conference, sponsored by AOCOPM Thursday, March 10, 2016 C-1

SWESPINE THE SWEDISH SPINE REGISTER THE 2009 REPORT

Washington State Spine Surgery

Interspinous Fusion Devices. Midterm results. ROME SPINE 2012, 7th International Meeting Rome, 6-7 December 2012

Spine Tango annual report 2012

Dingjun Hao, Baorong He, Liang Yan. Hong Hui Hospital, Xi an Jiaotong University College. of Medicine, Xi an, Shaanxi , China

QF-78. S. Tanaka 1, T.Yokoyama 1, K.Takeuchi 1, K.Wada 2, T. Tanaka 2, S.Abrakawa 2, G.Kumagai 2, T.Asari 2, A.Ono 2, Y.

Lumbar total disc replacement

5/27/2016. Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) vs. Supplemental Fixation. Disclosures. LLIF Approach

Syddansk Universitet. Published in: Danish Medical Journal. Publication date: Document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan. Brigham and Women s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Background Information

No Disclosures. The University of Michigan Rotator Cuff Registry: Lessons we have learned WHY I CHOSE TO STUDY ROTATOR CUFF DISEASE

A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF INCIDENTAL DURAL TEARS IN MICROENDOSCOPIC LUMBAR DECOMPRESSION SURGERY: INCIDENCE AND OUTCOMES

This procedure lacks scientific evidence of effectiveness, and is not covered.

Interlaminar Decompression & Stabilization. Reginald Davis, M.D., FAANS, FACS Director of Clinical Research

Supplementary Online Content

Rick C. Sasso MD Professor Chief of Spine Surgery Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery Indiana University School of Medicine

Pasquale Donnarumma 1, Roberto Tarantino 1, Lorenzo Nigro 1, Marika Rullo 2, Domenico Messina 3, Daniele Diacinti 4, Roberto Delfini 1.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE

Predicting Short Term Morbidity following Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

SWESPINE THE SWEDISH SPINE REGISTER THE 2011 REPORT

Corporate Medical Policy

Effects of Viewing an Evidence-Based Video Decision Aid on Patients Treatment Preferences for Spine Surgery. ACCEPTED

Incidental Durotomy/ Dural Tear.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis

Effect of body mass index on patient outcomes of surgical intervention for the lumbar spine

Copyright 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Lumbar Laminotomy DEFINING APPROPRIATE COVERAGE POSITIONS NASS COVERAGE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TASKFORCE

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (MILD )

External validation of a prediction model for surgical site infection after thoracolumbar spine surgery in a Western European cohort

Top spine papers of 2016

Samir Lapsiwala, MD. Fort Worth Brain and Spine Institute Fort Worth Brain and Spine Institute GEN-SP-32

ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study.

ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study

Comparison of staged reconstruction with extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) adult thoracolumbar kyphoscoliotic deformity

Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (IG-MLD) for Spinal Stenosis. Original Policy Date

PREOPERATIVE RETROLISTHESIS IS A RISK FACTOR OF LUMBAR DISC HERNIATION AFTER FENESTRATION WITHOUT DISCECTOMY

Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

The Evaluation of Bladder Symptoms in Patients With Lumbar Compression Disorders Who Have Undergone Decompressive Surgery

Does Multilevel Lumbar Stenosis Lead to Poorer Outcomes?

Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland 3

ASJ. Radiologic and Clinical Courses of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis (10 25 ) after a Short-Segment Fusion. Asian Spine Journal.

Evidence Table. Study Type: Randomized controlled trial. Study Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the X-Stop interspinous implant.

Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (IG-MLD) for Spinal Stenosis

Natural Evolution of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Adverse events in adult spinal deformity procedures.

KumaFix fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures: a prospective study on selective consecutive patients

Responses to Key Questions for Washington State Health Care Authority Health Technology Assessment of Surgery for Symptomatic Lumbar Radiculopathy

Prospective Data Collection Provider Perspective

Scoliosis and interspinous decompression with the X-STOP: prospective minimum 1-year outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis

Original Article Management of Single Level Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Decompression Alone or Decompression and Fusion

Surgery has long been an accepted treatment for. Patient-specific factors affecting hospital costs in lumbar spine surgery

Coflex TM for Lumbar Stenosis with

Cervical Spine Surgery: Approach related outcome

Original Article Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2017;9: /cios

SURGICAL COMPLICATIONS OF CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY

ILIF Interlaminar Lumbar Instrumented Fusion. Anton Thompkins, M.D.

Incidence and predictors of all-cause mortality within one year after adult spinal deformity surgery

Does functional evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging finding in a case of lumbar canal stenosis co-relate: a study of 50 cases

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Minimally Invasive Approaches: How to Choose

Exercise therapy versus surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

DEGENERATIVE SPONDYLOLISTHESIS

Low Back Pain. Measuring results that matter LOW BACK PAIN DATA COLLECTION REFERENCE GUIDE. Degree of disability

KEY WORDS lumbar spine; spinal surgery; surgical effectiveness; surgical outcomes; effective measures; long-term outcomes

Fusion and repeat discectomy following single level open lumbar discectomies. Survival analysis

5 Ivar M. Austevoll 1,2,8

Populations Interventions Comparators Outcomes Individuals: With lumbar spinal stenosis

Is the Sedimentation Sign Associated With Spinal Stenosis Surgical Treatment Effect in SPORT?

Spine Postoperative Infections: Risk Factors

when surgery is too much and medication isn t enough, there s now a less invasive alternative. introducing mildfor LSS patients.

VI. Behavioral Concerns

EBM. Comparative outcomes of Minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion. Fellow 陳磊晏

ProDisc-C versus fusion with Cervios chronos prosthesis in cervical degenerative disc disease: Is there a difference at 12 months?

Disability and health-related quality of life in patients undergoing spinal fusion: a comparison with a general population sample

Risk factors for 30-day reoperation and 3-month readmission: analysis from the Quality and Outcomes Database lumbar spine registry

All Posterior Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity

EuroSpine 2015 COPENHAGEN, DENMARK

2019 COLLECTION TYPE: MIPS CLINICAL QUALITY MEASURES (CQMS) MEASURE TYPE: Patient Reported Outcome High Priority

Same Segment Early Recurrence in Surgery of Lumbar Canal Stenosis- Role of Dissectomy

THRESHOLD POLICY T17 SPINAL SURGERY FOR ACUTE LUMBAR CONDITIONS

Disclosures. Outline. General Guideline 6/4/2011. Consultant Medtronic, Stryker, Depuy. Osteotomy Planning and the Impact of Reciprocal Changes

Traditionally, lumbar stenosis is treated with an

Comparative Analysis of outcome in patients of Lumbar Canal Stenosis undergoing decompression with and without Instrumentation

Evidence and practice in spine registries

EUROSPINE 2017 Scientific Programme oral presentations

POSTERIOR CERVICAL FUSION

ASJ. Asian Spine Journal. Introduction. Kang Taek Lim, Han Ga Wi Nam, Soo Beom Kim, Hyung Suk Kim, Jin Soo Park, Chun-Kun Park

MSSIC Final 2018 non-mips Measure Specifications

DEGENERATIVE SPINAL DISEASE PRABIN SHRESTHA ANISH M SINGH B&B HOSPITAL

Transcription:

Does obesity affect outcomes after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A multicenter observational registry-based study Charalampis Giannadakis, Ulf S. Nerland, Ole Solheim, Asgeir S. Jakola, Michel Gulati, Clemens Weber, Øystein P. Nygaard, Tore K. Solberg, Sasha Gulati

Objective To evaluate the association between obesity and outcomes at one year after laminectomy or microdecompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Obesity was defined as bodymass index (BMI) 30. Prospective data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine).

Results The improvement in ODI was 17.5 points in nonobese and 14.3 points in obese patients (p=0.007). Obese patients were less likely to achieve a minimal clinically important difference in ODI (defined as 8 points improvement) than non-obese patients (62.2 vs 70.3%, p=0.013). Obesity was identified as a negative predictor for ODI improvement in a multiple regression analysis (p<0.001). There was no difference in complication rates (10.4% vs 10.8%, p=0.84).

Conclusions Both non-obese and obese patients report considerable clinical improvement one year after surgery for LSS, but improvement was less in obese patients. Obese patients were less likely to achieve a minimal clinically important difference. Read more: Giannadakis C, Nerland US, Solheim O, Jakola AS, Gulati M, Weber C, Nygaard OP, Solberg TK, Gulati S: Does Obesity Affect Outcomes After Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis? A Multicenter, Observational, Registry-Based Study. World Neurosurg, Published online: June 19, 2015

Figure and Tables Figure 1. Study enrollment and follow-up 2745 Patients were screened 1272 were ineligible: 879 had other surgical procedures 258 without information about BMI 135 with other reasons 1473 were eligible (100%) 1120 non-obese (76.0%) 353 obese (24.0%) 1191 with complete 12 month follow-up with ODI (80.9%) 908 non-obese 283 obese

Table 1. Demographic characteristics, coexisting illnesses, and measures of health status for both groups (n=1473) Variable Non-obese (BMI<30) Obese (BMI 30) P-value Mean age yr 66.9 63.5 0.001 Body-mass index 25.46 33.20 <0.001 Attended college no. (%) 325 (29.0) 65 (18.4) <0.001 Daily tobacco smoking no. (%) 291 (26.4) 70 (20.0) 0.016 Diabetes mellitus no. (%) 64 (5.7) 44 (12.5) <0.001 Deformity (spondylolisthesis and/or scoliosis) no. (%) 131 (11.7) 31 (8.8) 0.143 ASA grade >2 224 (20.0) 94 (26.6) 0.009 Preoperative ODI 38.9 41.7 0.001 The bodymass index is the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters. *American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Grade I-V. Grade V is worst indicating lifethreating condition **Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) ranges from 0-100, lower scores indicating less severe symptoms

Table 2. Primary and secondary patient reported outcomes at one year Variable Non-Obese (n=1120) Obese(n=353) Difference (95% CI) P-value ODI change 17.5 14.3 3.2 (0.9-5.5) 0.007 Back pain NRS change 2.9 2.3 0.7 (0.2-1.1) 0.002 Leg pain NRS change 3.4 2.6 0.8 (0.3-1.3) 0.001

Table 3. Surgical treatments, complications, and events Variable Non-Obese Obese Difference (95% P- (n=1120) (n=353) CI) value Surgical procedure -Microdecompression no. (%) 756 (67.5) 209 (59.2) -Laminectomy no. (%) 364 (32.5) 144 (40.8) Operation time (minutes) 0.005 - Single-level microdecompression 73.4 83.8-10.4 (-17.0, -3.8) 0.002 - Two-level microdecompression 99.0 107.1-8.2 (-19.4, 3.1) 0.154 - Single-level laminectomy 93.9 101.0-7.1 (-18.8, 4.5) 0.229 - Two-level laminectomy 106.9 119.6-12.7 (-23.9, -1.6) 0.025 Days in hospital no. - Single-level microdecompression 2.1 2.0 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5) 0.725 - Two-level microdecompression 2.7 2.7 0.0 (-0.8, 0.9) 0.966 - Single-level laminectomy 4.5 5.0-0.6 (-1.3, 0.2) 0.153 - Two-level laminectomy 4.7 4.4 0.3 (-0.5, 1.0) 0.459 Any complication no. (%) 117 (10.4) 38 (10.8) 0.843 Perioperative complications no. (%) 39 (3.5) 19 (5.4) 0.117 - Dural tear or spinal fluid leak 32 (2.9) 16 (4.5) 0.124 - Nerve injury 1 (0.1) 2 (0.6) 0.145 - Blood replacement or postoperative hematoma 4 (0.4) 1 (0.3) 1.00 Complications within 3 months no. (%) 82 (7.3) 23 (6.5) 0.722 - Wound infection 30 (2.7) 10 (2.8) 0.852 - Urinary tract infection 49 (4.4) 10 (2.8) 0.217

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis with difference in ODI at one year as the dependent variable Variable Parameter 95% P-value estimate Confidence Interval Smoker 4.4 6.6, 2.2 <0.001 + Oswestry score 21-40, pre-surgery 11.6 8.6, 14.7 <0.001 + Oswestry score 41-60, pre-surgery 19.5 16.3, 22.7 <0.001 + Oswestry score > 61, pre-surgery 32.6 28.3, 37.0 <0.001 Deformity 0.2 3.0, 2.8 0.944 *Body Mass Index 30 34.99 kg/m 2 3.5 6.3, 0.8 0.011 *Body Mass Index >= 35 kg/m 2 9.8 14.1, 5.4 <0.001 Microdecompression 2.1 0.1, 4.1 0.043 A negative score means a worsening of ODI score 12 months after surgery. + Reference: Oswestry score < 21, pre-surgery. *Reference: Body Mass Index < 25 kg/m 2.

Disclosure information The Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine) receives funding from the University of Northern Norway and Norwegian health authorities. This study received a grant (Grant for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety) from the Norwegian Medical Association (www.legeforeningen.no). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We report no conflicts of interest.