Abstract
Purpose
The objective of this paper was to compare the reoperation rates, timing and causes between decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases through a systematic review of the published data.
Methods
A search of the literature was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Reports that included reoperations after decompression alone and/or decompression plus fusion surgeries were selected using designed eligibility criteria. Comparative analysis of reoperation rates, timing and causes between the two surgeries was conducted.
Results
Thirty-two retrospective and three prospective studies were selected from 6401 papers of the literature search. The analysis of data reported in these studies revealed that both surgeries resulted in similar reoperation rates after the primary surgery. However, majority of reoperations following the fusion surgeries were due to adjacent-segment diseases, and following the decompression alone surgeries were due to the same-segment diseases. Reoperation rates were not found to decrease in patients operated more recently than those operated in early times.
Conclusions
Reoperation rates were similar following decompression alone or plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases. However, different underlying major causes exist between the two surgeries. There is no evidence showing that the reoperation rate has a trend to decline with newer surgical techniques used. The exact mechanisms of reoperation after both surgeries are still unclear. Further researches are necessary to investigate the mechanisms of reoperation for improvement of surgical techniques that aim to delay or prevent reoperation after lumbar surgery.
Graphical abstract
These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Low back pain is the most common cause of disability for adults, and its lifetime prevalence was estimated from 59 to 84% [1]. Degenerative lumbar spine disease (lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, disc herniation or disc diseases) is the most common aetiology of low back pain and can have profound effects on functionality and quality of patient life [2,3,4]. When conservative treatment fails, symptoms of lumbar spine diseases are relieved by appropriate lumbar decompression procedures, such as laminectomy and discectomy [5, 6]. However, decompression may compromise the structure of lumbar segments and lead to further degeneration, abnormal motion, or deformity [7]. Lumbar fusion, which intends to relieve back pain attributed to movement at degenerated joints and increase the foramen space, is considered as a stabilizing treatment that may reduce the need for additional surgery [8]. Lumbar fusion surgeries have grown dramatically in the past decades [9, 10]. The number reached 245,000 in 2011 in US alone, while lumbar discectomies occurred in approximately 197,000 inpatients in 2011 [11].
However, it is controversial on the clinical advantages of the decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries in treatment of lumbar degenerative patients [12,13,14,15]. Recent studies reported either similar [16] or slightly different [17] clinical outcomes between the two surgeries. Series of complications have been reported after lumbar surgeries using either techniques that resulted in reoperation of the patients [18, 19]. Reoperation is generally an undesirable outcome, implying persistent symptoms, progression of the underlying diseases, or complications related to the initial operation. The results of reoperation for lumbar degenerative diseases are generally worse than the results of the primary surgery [20, 21]. Patients with one reoperation after lumbar procedures are at considerable risks of further lumbar surgeries [22]. Therefore, reducing or preventing reoperation rate is a primary objective of contemporary spinal surgeries.
Most existing studies of lumbar patients focused on comparisons of clinical outcomes using different surgical techniques, with less focuses on the issue of reoperation [23,24,25,26]. Few studies have reported the timing and causes of reoperation of decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries [27,28,29]. A systematic knowledge is lacking on the aetiology behind the reoperation after the primary surgery. This information is necessary for further improvement in the surgeries for treatment of lumbar patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature that compared the reoperation rates, timing and causes between decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries. Our null hypothesis was that there is no difference in reoperation rates between these two procedures when used to treat lumbar disease patients.
Methods
A literature search of the following databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration Library) was performed. Key search terms included “decompression,” “laminectomy,” “discectomy,” “laminotomy,” “laminoplasty,” “fusion,” “fixation,” “instrumentation,” “implantation,” “revision,” “reoperation,” “lumbosacral,” and “lumbar” in different combinations. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting the reoperation rates with underlying causes or risk factors for lumbar decompression alone or plus fusion surgeries. Excluded were non-English articles; in vitro, animal, or cadaveric studies; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; case reports; letters and comments; and studies on paediatric population; studies on trauma, infection, tumour, inflammatory diseases, and deformity; studies involving dynamic stabilization devices or lumbar disc replacement devices; studies with less than twenty patients.
An initial search yielded 6401 articles (Fig. 1). All duplicate publications were excluded. Additional 4147 articles were removed based on the exclusion criteria by analysing their titles. The remaining 550 articles were further filtered by reading their abstracts. In this process, 515 articles were further excluded: 4 for having less than 20 patients; 148 for researching on cervical or thoracic or sacral spine; 363 for not analysing causes or risk factors for reoperation. The remaining 35 publications met all criteria and were included in this systematic review.
Decompression alone surgery
There are 28 studies discussing the reoperation rates and underlying causes following lumbar decompression alone surgery that are included in this systematic review (Table 1).
Reoperation rate
The reoperation rate is highly variable among different reports. It depends on the length of follow-up time and type of decompression surgeries. In general, the reoperation rate following decompression alone surgery ranges from 1.6 to 41.3% in follow-up times from 3 months to 17.7 years [17, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] (Table 1). Table 2 groups the reported reoperation rates based on follow-up time. Among these studies, the reoperation rates range from 1.6 to 10.8% within 1 year, 6.5–41.3% within 3 years, 3.6–34.0% within 5 years, 4.4–33.8% within 10 years after the primary surgery.
Kim et al. [37] showed that there were different reoperation rates for different decompression surgeries. In an over 5-year follow-up, the reoperation rates were 18.6, 13.8 and 12.4% for laminectomy, open discectomy and endoscopic discectomy, respectively. However, even for the same type of decompression, the reoperation rate could be different among different studies. Lad et al. [28] reported that the reoperation rate in the patients who underwent a laminectomy alone was 5.7% at 1 year, 10.2% at 2 years and 14.5% at 5 years. However, Ghogawala et al. [38] reported that the reoperation rate reached 29.4% in less than 3 years after the surgery.
The underlying aetiology of reoperation
Same-segment diseases (SSD, including disc herniation, recurrent stenosis, and others) are the major cause of reoperation after decompression alone surgery, accounting for 52.1–100% of the reoperation patients [30, 36, 39, 40]. Leven et al. [41] found that 62% of the reoperations were attributed to the recurrent disc herniation at the same level as in the primary surgery after a standard open discectomy. Similar observations were reported in many other studies [30, 31, 34,35,36, 39, 40, 42]. Recently, Ghogawala et al. [17] reported that reoperations were all at the index levels because of SSD. Besides of the SSD, other causes of reoperation included irrigation and debridement of surgical-site infection, haematoma evacuation, epidural fibrosis, cerebrospinal fluid leakage and so on [31, 34, 35]. In general, SSD accounts for majority of the causes in revision surgeries after decompression alone procedures.
Fusion surgery
There are 19 papers discussing the reoperation rates and underlying causes following fusion surgery that were included in this systematic review (Table 3).
Reoperation rate
The reoperation rate of fusion surgery is highly affected by the length of follow-up time. From 1 to 11 years of follow-up, the reoperation rates ranged from 0 to 29.3% (Table 3) [16, 17, 28, 29, 43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. If the patients are grouped by follow-up times, the reoperation rate ranges from 0.0 to 7.0% within 1 year, 7.4–19.6% within 3 years, 7.8–19.3% within 5 years, 3.0–29.3% within 10 years after primary surgery (Table 4). The highest reoperation rate after fusion surgery was reported as 37.5% in a 15-year follow-up [52].
The underlying aetiology of reoperation
Symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration or referred as adjacent-segment diseases (ASDis) [48] in the literature has been reported as a major cause of reoperation after fusion surgery in recent years, with the proportion ranging from 46.9 to 100% of total underlying causes [17, 49, 50]. For example, Irmola et al. [49] and Macki et al. [50] found that the most common pathology leading to reoperation following instrumented lumbar spine fusion was ASDis. Ghogawala et al. [17] recently reported that the reoperations were all at the adjacent levels after fusion surgery. Similar observation was reported at the 15-year follow-up study [52]. Other causes contributing to reoperation included irrigation and debridement for the treatment of surgical-site infection or haematoma, redecompression, screw or rod breakage for implant removal, implant revision for correcting screw position [49, 53, 54].
Comparison of decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries
Among the selected studies in this review, there are 12 papers that directly compared the reoperation rates of decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries (Table 5). Ten of these studies are retrospective and two are prospective. (The prospective study by Irmola et al. [49] only recruited patients with fusion surgery.)
Majority of the studies reported that patients with degenerative lumbar diseases treated with decompression alone tended to have reoperation early [27, 46, 55,56,57], but reoperation rates are similar at longer follow-up time between the two surgeries [16, 28, 44]. Lad et al. [28] revealed a significantly higher reoperation rate in patients who underwent a laminectomy alone than those who had a decompression plus fusion at 1-year follow-up (5.7 vs. 3.3%; p = 0.023); however, at over 5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between the two groups (17.0 vs. 13.2%; p = 0.347). The prospective study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine also stated that the percentage of patients who underwent additional operation within a mean follow-up period of 6.5 years was similar between the two surgeries [16].
In a study of patients with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis at an average of 5.9-year follow-up, 10 out of 13 reoperations were due to ASDis in fusion group and 18 out of 25 reoperations were due to SSD in the decompression alone group [29]. In another study of patients with degenerative diseases of lumbar spine, half of the reoperations following a fusion surgery (17/34) were due to ASDis, and 41 out of 72 reoperations after a decompression surgery were at the index levels [58]. In a randomized, controlled trial for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis patients at 4-year follow-up, Ghogawala et al. [17] found that all the reoperations performed in the decompression alone group were at the index levels due to subsequent clinical instability, and in contrast, all the reoperations performed in the fusion group were at the adjacent lumbar level (either disc herniation or clinical instability). In another prospective study for lumbar spinal stenosis at an average follow-up of 6.5 years, Forsth et al. [16] found that 31 patients received reoperations after lumbar fusion with 22 due to ASDis and 3 due to pseudoarthrosis; 28 patients received reoperations after decompression alone surgery with 18 due to restenosis at the index levels and 5 due to ASDis.
In general, these studies reported that the operation rates and clinical outcomes were similar among the patients operated using the two surgeries. ASDis is found to be the major cause of reoperation following the fusion surgeries, while SSD is the major cause of reoperation for decompression alone surgeries.
Reoperation rate with time
A review of the literature indicated that early reported studies showed lower reoperation rate than more recently reported studies [16, 17, 27,28,29, 31, 32, 34,35,36,37, 39,40,41, 43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51, 53, 54, 59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. Figure 2 groups the studies reported before 2014 and after 2014 to show the trend of reoperation with follow-up time, i.e., earlier than 2014 and between 2014 and 2017. For treatment of lumbar stenosis patients with the similar age and follow-up period, the reoperation reported by Shabat et al. [61] is 8.7%, which is lower than 23% reported by Forsth et al. [16]. The same phenomenon can also be observed in fusion studies. For treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis patients with the similar age and follow-up period, Lad et al. [28] reported a 13.2% reoperation rate in 2013, while Gerling et al. [44] reported a 21.2% reoperation rate in 2017. Analysis of these studies implies that the reoperation rate has not been reduced in patients reported in recent years compared to patients reported in earlier years.
Discussion
This paper presented a systematic review of published studies on reoperation rates after lumbar surgeries. Specifically, we compare two popular surgical treatments, decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries. Our review indicated that, on average, both surgeries resulted in similar reoperation rates after the primary surgery. However, majority of the reoperations following fusion surgeries are due to ASDis, and following decompression alone surgeries are due to SSD. Reoperation rates were not found to decrease in patients reported more recently than those reported in early times. These findings were largely consistent with our hypothesis that there is no difference between these two procedures in reoperation rate when used to treat lumbar disease patients.
Reoperation after primary surgery could heavily burden healthcare resources. Data from 2002 to 2004 showed that, within 2 years of reoperation, total direct cost of revision surgery was $10,272 for a repeated discectomy [66]. Another study analysed an institutional database from 1997 to 2007 and found that total direct cost of revision discectomy was $39,836 with a 1-year follow-up [67]. The cost for reoperation after fusion is even higher. Sherman et al. [66] reported that within 2 years of reoperation, total direct cost of revision fusion surgery was $27,740. Parker and Adogwa et al. [68] showed that overall mean two-year cost after a revision lumbar fusion was $32,915. Other studies showed that the mean total 2-year costs of revision fusion for pseudoarthrosis, same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis and adjacent-segment disease were $41,631, $49,431 and $47,846, respectively [69,70,71]. Therefore, improvement of surgical techniques to impede reoperation after lumbar surgery is critically important for reducing the healthcare expenditure.
Numerous studies have pursued to identify risk factors for reoperation following decompression alone or plus fusion surgeries with the aim to improve patient outcomes. Majority of the discussion on risk factors for both surgeries are related to patient age, gender, symptoms, coexisting degeneration and type of operation [27,28,29, 31, 32, 35,36,37, 39,40,41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 61, 62, 65, 72, 73]. However, due to different experimental set-up and patient population, inconsistent results have been reported on these risk factors. For example, age has been noted as a risk factor for reoperation but some reported younger ages and others reported older ages as being associated with reoperation [28, 37, 40, 41, 44, 65, 73]. Patients with instrumented arthrodesis have been found to have higher reoperation rates than those without instrumentation at 5-year or longer follow-ups [28]. Facet joint violation (FJV) has been suggested to alter load-bearing capability and to be an independent predictor of undergoing reoperation postoperatively [47]. Besides of the unchangeable inherent factors, smoking cessation [62], losing weight [29, 63], improving comorbidities (especially diabetes) [37, 51] and choosing appropriate operation types and surgical techniques [33, 40] have been reported to be helpful for reducing chances of reoperation after decompression alone surgeries.
For fusion surgery, clarifying the mechanisms of ASDis in order to modify the fusion surgeries has been consistently pursued [74,75,76,77,78]. The aetiology of ASDis has been thought to be multifactorial, stemming from existing spondylosis at adjacent levels [79,80,81], predisposed risk to degenerative changes [82,83,84,85] and altered biomechanical forces near a fusion site [78, 86, 87]. However, scientific data on the exact mechanisms of ASDis after fusion are lacking. Previous studies have mainly focused on the changes in the range of motion (ROM) of adjacent segments, but with inconsistent data reported due to different experiment designs [88, 89]. In addition, the ROMs measured under designed experimental conditions do not represent the intrinsic loading conditions of the spine people experience during activities of daily life [77, 90, 91]. The assumption that preservation of ROM at index level might diminish the incidence of ASDis resulted in the development and application of motion-preserving devices, such as total disc replacement (TDR) and other dynamic devices [92,93,94]. These devices are designed to prevent high stresses applied to the adjacent segment and to avoid the acceleration of structural and mechanical failure in the discs. However, there are insufficient data to support the reduction in ASDis with the use of motion-preserving devices [95,96,97,98]. Radcliff et al. [96] reported no statistically significant differences in reoperation rates at adjacent levels between TDR and fusion patients. No difference in the incidence of ASDis was also reported comparing dynamic devices with fusion surgeries [97, 98]. These results imply that the biomechanical mechanisms of ASDis are complicated and more investigations are warranted.
Recently, changes of disc height in the adjacent level after fusion were assumed as a possible mechanism of ASDis [99]. For example, Kaito et al. [99, 100] reported that increased disc height in the index level after fusion is associated with the development of adjacent-segment degeneration. Since contemporary fusion surgery is aimed to restore normal disc height [101], it could increase the index disc height and consequently increase the pressure at the adjacent segments, resulting in a decrease in the adjacent-segment disc height after fusion. This could lead to higher stresses inside the adjacent discs that could accelerate the disc degeneration. A prospective, longitudinal patient follow-up study is necessary to investigate the disc height changes of both index and adjacent segments that could help reveal the biomechanical mechanisms of ASDis.
It is interesting to find out that the more recently operated patients tend to have higher reoperation rates than patients operated earlier by comparing the data published before and after 2014, despite the advances in surgical techniques, instrumentation and uses of bone growth stimulators as evidenced by the findings that spinal fusion has been greatly improved recently [16, 17, 102]. There is no clear explanation for this observation. A possible reason could be because the threshold for patient reoperation is lower now than before. This observation might also suggest that surgical technique improvements and newer implantation devices do not result in reduced reoperation rate. As the mechanisms associated with the development of ASDis are still not well understood as discussed in this paper, it could be challenging to develop new surgical technologies that can effectively prevent the development of ASDis that leads to reoperation. It is critically important to determine the exact mechanisms that cause ASDis in order to develop new surgical technologies that aimed to delay or prevent reoperation after spinal surgeries.
It should be noted that there are limitations in this systematic review. There is a large variation in experimental conditions among different studies. These include different spine diseases, patient number, patient age, surgical techniques, length of follow-up time, etc. It is difficult to make a consistent comparison of the published data. Therefore, we selected studies for this systematic review using designed inclusion criteria. Further, we discussed the trend of reoperation rate changes with follow-up time. However, there are more studies reporting patient follow-up between 4 and 6 years and less patient reports in shorter or longer follow-up times. Despite these limitations, this systematic review does provide readers on the knowledge of current literature on decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries in treatment of lumbar patients. A prospective, longitudinal study using same patient cohort is necessary for investigation of mechanisms of reoperation after lumbar surgeries.
In conclusion, this review found that the reoperation rates were similar following decompression alone or plus fusion surgeries for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. The major cause of reoperation following fusion surgery is ASDis, and the major cause of reoperation following decompression alone surgery is SSD. There is no evidence showing that the reoperation rate has a trend to decline with newer surgical techniques used. The exact mechanisms of reoperation after both surgeries are still unclear. Further researches are warranted to clarify the biological and biomechanical factors that could lead to postoperative reoperations after spine surgeries.
References
Parker SL, Godil SS, Mendenhall SK, Zuckerman SL, Shau DN, McGirt MJ (2014) Two-year comprehensive medical management of degenerative lumbar spine disease (lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, or disc herniation): a value analysis of cost, pain, disability, and quality of life: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 21:143–149. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.spine1320
Ozdemir E, Paker N, Bugdayci D, Tekdos DD (2015) Quality of life and related factors in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a controlled study. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 28:749–753. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-140578
Drury T, Ames SE, Costi K, Beynnon B, Hall J (2009) Degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with neurogenic claudication effects functional performance and self-reported quality of life. Spine 34:2812–2817. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b4836e
Talaga S, Magiera Z, Kowalczyk B, Lubinska-Zadlo B (2014) Problems of patients with degenerative disease of the spine and their quality of life. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 16:617–627. https://doi.org/10.5604/15093492.1135122
Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Choudhri TF, Eck JC, Sharan A, Groff MW, Wang JC, Ghogawala Z, Dhall SS, Kaiser MG (2014) Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: lumbar fusion for stenosis without spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 21:62–66. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.spine14275
Bydon M, Macki M, Abt NB, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A (2015) Clinical and surgical outcomes after lumbar laminectomy: an analysis of 500 patients. Surg Neurol Int 6:S190–S193. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.156578
Yang JC, Kim SG, Kim TW, Park KH (2013) Analysis of factors contributing to postoperative spinal instability after lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis. Korean J Spine 10:149–154. https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2013.10.3.149
Hilibrand AS, Rand N (1999) Degenerative lumbar stenosis: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 7:239–249
Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine 37:67–76. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820cccfb
Jancuska JM, Hutzler L, Protopsaltis TS, Bendo JA, Bosco J (2016) Utilization of lumbar spinal fusion in New York State: trends and disparities. Spine 41:1508–1514. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001567
Gunnar A, Sylvia IW (2014) The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States, 3rd edn. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons official website. http://www.boneandjointburden.org/2014-report/ii0/spine-low-back-and-neck-pain
Chang W, Yuwen P, Zhu Y, Wei N, Feng C, Zhang Y, Chen W (2017) Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:637–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2685-z
Liang HF, Liu SH, Chen ZX, Fei QM (2017) Decompression plus fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 26:3084–3095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5200-x
Machado GC, Ferreira PH, Harris IA, Pinheiro MB, Koes BW, van Tulder M, Rzewuska M, Maher CG, Ferreira ML (2015) Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10:e0122800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122800
Ulrich NH, Burgstaller JM, Pichierri G, Wertli MM, Farshad M, Porchet F, Steurer J, Held U (2017) Decompression surgery alone versus decompression plus fusion in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a Swiss Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study with 3 years of follow-up. Spine 42:E1077–E1086. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002068
Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgstrom F, Fritzell P, Ohagen P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2016) A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 374:1413–1423. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513721
Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge SN, Coumans JV, Harrington JF, Amin-Hanjani S, Schwartz JS, Sonntag VK, Barker FG 2nd, Benzel EC (2016) Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 374:1424–1434. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1508788
Goz V, Weinreb JH, Schwab F, Lafage V, Errico TJ (2014) Comparison of complications, costs, and length of stay of three different lumbar interbody fusion techniques: an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Spine J 14:2019–2027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.11.050
Proietti L, Scaramuzzo L, Schiro GR, Sessa S, Logroscino CA (2013) Complications in lumbar spine surgery: a retrospective analysis. Indian J Orthop 47:340–345. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.114909
Ahn J, Tabaraee E, Bohl DD, Aboushaala K, Singh K (2015) Primary versus revision single-level minimally invasive lumbar discectomy: analysis of clinical outcomes and narcotic utilization. Spine 40:E1025–E1030. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000976
Kalakoti P, Missios S, Maiti T, Konar S, Bir S, Bollam P, Nanda A (2016) Inpatient outcomes and postoperative complications after primary versus revision lumbar spinal fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar disc disease: a National (nationwide) Inpatient Sample analysis, 2002–2011. World Neurosurg 85:114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.08.020
Österman H, Sund R, Seitsalo S, Keskimäki I (2003) Risk of multiple reoperations after lumbar discectomy: a population-based study. Spine 28:621–627. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200303150-00019
Phan K, Mobbs RJ (2016) Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine 41:E91–E100. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001161
Campbell RC, Mobbs RJ, Lu VM, Xu J, Rao PJ, Phan K (2017) Posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Spine J 7:482–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217701103
Shriver MF, Xie JJ, Tye EY, Rosenbaum BP, Kshettry VR, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2015) Lumbar microdiscectomy complication rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus 39:E6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.focus15281
Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, Park P (2015) Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 39:E4. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.focus15278
Deyo RA, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Jarvik JG, Angier H, Mirza SK (2011) Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1979–1986. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01292
Lad SP, Babu R, Baker AA, Ugiliweneza B, Kong M, Bagley CA, Gottfried ON, Isaacs RE, Patil CG, Boakye M (2013) Complications, reoperation rates, and health-care cost following surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:E1621–E16210. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00730
Sato S, Yagi M, Machida M, Yasuda A, Konomi T, Miyake A, Fujiyoshi K, Kaneko S, Takemitsu M, Machida M, Yato Y, Asazuma T (2015) Reoperation rate and risk factors of elective spinal surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine J 15:1536–1544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.009
Aizawa T, Ozawa H, Kusakabe T, Tanaka Y, Sekiguchi A, Hashimoto K, Kanno H, Morozumi N, Ishii Y, Sato T, Takahashi E, Kokubun S, Itoi E (2015) Reoperation rates after fenestration for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a 20-year period survival function method analysis. Eur Spine J 24:381–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3479-4
Klassen PD, Bernstein DT, Kohler HP, Arts MP, Weiner B, Miller LE, Thome C (2017) Bone-anchored annular closure following lumbar discectomy reduces risk of complications and reoperations within 90 days of discharge. J Pain Res 10:2047–2055. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S144500
Kukreja S, Kalakoti P, Ahmed O, Nanda A (2015) Predictors of reoperation-free survival following decompression-alone lumbar spine surgery for on-the-job injuries. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 135:41–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.04.012
Morgan-Hough CV, Jones PW, Eisenstein SM (2003) Primary and revision lumbar discectomy. A 16-year review from one centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:871–874
Erbayraktar S, Acar F, Tekinsoy B, Acar Ü, Güner EM (2002) Outcome analysis of reoperations after lumbar discectomies: a report of 22 patients. Kobe J Med Sci 48:33–41
Cheng J, Wang H, Zheng W, Li C, Wang J, Zhang Z, Huang B, Zhou Y (2013) Reoperation after lumbar disc surgery in two hundred and seven patients. Int Orthop 37:1511–1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1925-2
Hong X, Liu L, Bao J, Shi R, Fan Y, Wu X (2015) Characterization and risk factor analysis for reoperation after microendoscopic diskectomy. Orthopedics 38:E490–E496. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20150603-57
Kim CH, Chung CK, Park CS, Choi B, Kim MJ, Park BJ (2013) Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc disease: nationwide cohort study. Spine 38:581–590. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318274f9a7
Ghogawala Z, Benzel EC, Magge SN, Coumans JV, Harrington JF, Barker FG (2010) Lumbar spinal fusion reduces risk of re-operation after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis associated with grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis: initial results from the slip trial. Neurosurgery 67:542–543. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000386993.28390.FA
Hwang HJ, Park HK, Lee GS, Heo JY, Chang JC (2016) Predictors of reoperation after microdecompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. Korean J Spine 13:183–189. https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2016.13.4.183
Hirabayashi S, Kumano K, Ogawa Y, Aota Y, Maehiro S (1993) Microdiscectomy and second operation for lumbar disc herniation. Spine 18:2206–2211
Leven D, Passias PG, Errico TJ, Lafage V, Bianco K, Lee A, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Spratt KF, Morgan TS, Gerling MC (2015) Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for intervertebral disc herniation: a subanalysis of eight-year sport data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:1316–1325. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01287
Ebeling U, Kalbarcyk H, Reulen HJ (1989) Microsurgical reoperation following lumbar disc surgery. Timing, surgical findings, and outcome in 92 patients. J Neurosurg 70:397–404
Vaughan PA, Malcolm BW, Maistrelli GL (1988) Results of L4-L5 disc excision alone versus disc excision and fusion. Spine 13:690–695
Gerling MC, Leven D, Passias PG, Lafage V, Bianco K, Lee A, Morgan TS, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Spratt KF, Radcliff K, Errico TJ (2017) Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a subanalysis of the 8-year data from the SPORT trial. Spine 42:1559–1569. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002196
Martin BI, Mirza SK, Franklin GM, Lurie JD, MacKenzie TA, Deyo RA (2013) Hospital and surgeon variation in complications and repeat surgery following incident lumbar fusion for common degenerative diagnoses. Health Serv Res 48:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01434.x
Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA (2007) Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine 32:382–387. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000254104.55716.46
Levin JM, Alentado VJ, Healy AT, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2018) Superior segment facet joint violation during instrumented lumbar fusion is associated with higher reoperation rates and diminished improvement in quality of life. Clin Spine Surg 31:E36–E41. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000566
Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P, Jabbour P, Bono CM, Goldfarb N, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 33:1701–1707. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817bb956
Irmola TM, Hakkinen A, Jarvenpaa S, Marttinen I, Vihtonen K, Neva M (2018) Reoperation rates following instrumented lumbar spine fusion. Spine 43:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002291
Macki M, Bydon M, Weingart R, Sciubba D, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A, Witham T (2015) Posterolateral fusion with interbody for lumbar spondylolisthesis is associated with less repeat surgery than posterolateral fusion alone. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 138:117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.014
Kim CH, Chung CK, Shin S, Choi BR, Kim MJ, Park BJ, Choi Y (2015) The relationship between diabetes and the reoperation rate after lumbar spinal surgery: a nationwide cohort study. Spine J 15:866–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.01.029
Maruenda JI, Barrios C, Garibo F, Maruenda B (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 25:1550–1557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4469-5
Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Allam Y, Elsaghir H, Franke J (2004) Reoperation rate after instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a report on 1680 cases. Spine 29:2516–2520. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000144833.63581.c1
Nemani VM, Aichmair A, Taher F, Lebl DR, Hughes AP, Sama AA, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP (2014) Rate of revision surgery after stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 39:E326–E331. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000141
Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ (1993) Lumbar spinal fusion: a cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine 18:1463–1470
Malter AD, McNeney B, Loeser JD, Deyo RA (1998) 5-Year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery. Spine 23:814–820. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199804010-00015
Vorhies JS, Hernandez-Boussard T, Alamin T (2018) Treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with fusion or decompression alone results in similar rates of reoperation at 5 years. Clin Spine Surg 31:E74–E79. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000564
Baranowska A, Baranowska J, Baranowski P (2016) Analysis of reasons for failure of surgery for degenerative disease of lumbar spine. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 18:117–129. https://doi.org/10.5604/15093492.1205004
Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA (2007) Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology? Spine 32:2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318145a56a
Vik A, Zwart JA, Hulleberg G, Nygaard OP (2001) Eight year outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a comparison of reoperated and not reoperated patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 143:607–610
Shabat S, Arinzon Z, Gepstein R, Folman Y (2011) Long-term follow-up of revision decompressive lumbar spinal surgery in elderly patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:142–145. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181de4b61
Bydon M, Macki M, De La Garza-Ramos R, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Witham TF, Bydon A (2015) Smoking as an independent predictor of reoperation after lumbar laminectomy: a study of 500 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 22:288–293. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.SPINE14186
Bohl DD, Ahn J, Mayo B, Massel DH, Hijji FY, Narain AS, Long WW, Modi K, Basques B, Singh K (2016) Does greater body mass index increase the risk for revision procedures following a single-level minimally invasive lumbar discectomy? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:816–821. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001340
Gerling MC, Leven D, Passias PG, Lafage V, Bianco K, Lee A, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Spratt KF, Radcliff K, Errico TJ (2016) Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for lumbar stenosis a subanalysis of the 8-year data from the SPORT trial. Spine 41:901–909. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001361
Virk SS, Diwan A, Phillips FM, Sandhu H, Khan SN (2017) What is the Rate of revision discectomies after primary discectomy on a national scale? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:2752–2762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5467-6
Sherman J, Cauthen J, Schoenberg D, Burns M, Reaven NL, Griffith SL (2010) Economic impact of improving outcomes of lumbar discectomy. Spine J 10:108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.08.453
Ambrossi GL, McGirt MJ, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Long DM (2009) Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after single-level lumbar discectomy: incidence and health care cost analysis. Neurosurgery 65:574–578. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000350224.36213.f9
Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ (2012) Factors influencing 2-year health care costs in patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion procedures. J Neurosurg Spine 16:323–328. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.12.SPINE11750
Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau D, Mendelhall SK, Aaronson O, Cheng J, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2015) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of revision fusion for lumbar pseudoarthrosis: defining the value of surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:101–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318269cc4a
Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: defining the value of surgical intervention. J Neurosurg Spine 16:135–140. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11308
Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, Devin CJ, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of laminectomy and extension of instrumented fusion for adjacent-segment disease: defining the value of surgical intervention. J Neurosurg Spine 16:141–146. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11419
Glassman SD, Dimar JR, Johnson JR, Minkow R (1998) Preoperative SF-36 responses as a predictor of reoperation following lumbar fusion. Orthopedics 21:1201–1203
Narain AS, Hijji FY, Bohl DD, Yom KH, Kudaravalli KT, Singh K (2017) Is body mass index a risk factor for revision procedures after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? Clin Spine Surg 31:E85–E91. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000547
Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall H (2001) Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 10:309–313
Schulte TL, Leistra F, Bullmann V, Osada N, Vieth V, Marquardt B, Lerner T, Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L (2007) Disc height reduction in adjacent segments and clinical outcome 10 years after lumbar 360 degrees fusion. Eur Spine J 16:2152–2158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0515-7
Chen WJ, Lai PL, Tai CL, Chen LH, Niu CC (2004) The effect of sagittal alignment on adjacent joint mobility after lumbar instrumentation—a biomechanical study of lumbar vertebrae in a porcine model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19:763–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.05.010
Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR, Wilke HJ (2015) Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. Eur Spine J 24:1882–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4040-9
Chen CS, Ck Cheng, Liu CL (2002) A biomechanical comparison of posterolateral fusion and posterior fusion in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:53–63
Heo Y, Park JH, Seong HY, Lee YS, Jeon SR, Rhim SC, Roh SW (2015) Symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration at the L3-4 level after fusion surgery at the L4-5 level: evaluation of the risk factors and 10-year incidence. Eur Spine J 24:2474–2480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4188-3
Wang H, Ma L, Yang D, Wang T, Liu S, Yang S, Ding W (2017) Incidence and risk factors of adjacent segment disease following posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:E6032. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006032
Liang J, Dong Y, Zhao H (2014) Risk factors for predicting symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration requiring surgery in patients after posterior lumbar fusion. J Orthop Surg Res 9:97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-014-0097-0
Ou CY, Lee TC, Lee TH, Huang YH (2015) Impact of body mass index on adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. Neurosurgery 76:396–401. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000627
Lee JC, Kim Y, Soh JW, Shin BJ (2014) Risk factors of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after lumbar spinal fusion: comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion. Spine 39:E339–E345. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000164
Zhong ZM, Deviren V, Tay B, Burch S, Berven SH (2017) Adjacent segment disease after instrumented fusion for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis: incidence and risk factors. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 156:29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.02.020
Ghasemi AA (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion: an analysis of possible risk factors. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 143:15–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.02.004
Chen WJ, Lai PL, Niu CC, Chen LH, Fu TS, Wong CB (2001) Surgical treatment of adjacent instability after lumbar spine fusion. Spine 26:E519–E524
Srinivas GR, Kumar MN, Deb A (2017) Adjacent disc stress following floating lumbar spine fusion: a finite element study. Asian Spine J 11:538–547. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.4.538
Malakoutian M, Volkheimer D, Street J, Dvorak MF, Wilke HJ, Oxland TR (2015) Do in vivo kinematic studies provide insight into adjacent segment degeneration? A qualitative systematic literature review. Eur Spine J 24:1865–1881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3992-0
Zhong W, Driscoll SJ, Tsai TY, Wang S, Mao H, Cha TD, Wood KB, Li G (2015) In vivo dynamic changes of dimensions in the lumbar intervertebral foramen. Spine J 15:1653–1659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.015
Rao RD, David KS, Wang M (2005) Biomechanical changes at adjacent segments following anterior lumbar interbody fusion using tapered cages. Spine 30:2772–2776
Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Tim Yoon S, Minamide A, Su Kim K, Tomita K, Hutton WC (2003) Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 28:1560–1566
Frelinghuysen P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr (2003) Lumbar total disc replacement part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Spine 28:1560–1566
Sengupta DK (2004) Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 35:43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00087-7
Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Stoll TM, Dubois G (2005) Posterior dynamic stabilization systems: DYNESYS. Orthop Clin North Am 36:363–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2005.03.001
Van de Kelft E, Verguts L (2012) Clinical outcome of monosegmental total disc replacement for lumbar disc disease with ball-and-socket prosthesis (Maverick): prospective study with four-year follow-up. World Neurosurg 78:355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2011.10.043
Radcliff K, Spivak J, Darden B 2nd, Janssen M, Bernard T, Zigler J (2016) Five-year reoperation rates of 2-level lumbar total disk replacement versus fusion: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Clin Spine Surg 31:37–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000476
Kanayama M, Togawa D, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Oha F (2009) Motion-preserving surgery can prevent early breakdown of adjacent segments: comparison of posterior dynamic stabilization with spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:463–467. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181934512
Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G, Lambiris E (2004) Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine 29:735–742
Kaito T, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Makino T, Fuji T, Yonenobu K (2010) Induction of early degeneration of the adjacent segment after posterior lumbar interbody fusion by excessive distraction of lumbar disc space. J Neurosurg Spine 12:671–679. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.12.SPINE08823
Kaito T, Hosono N, Fuji T, Makino T, Yonenobu K (2011) Disc space distraction is a potent risk factor for adjacent disc disease after PLIF. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:1499–1507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1343-0
Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, Sugrue P, Salehi S, Ondra S, Liu JC (2007) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine 7:379–386. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi-07/10/379
Chun DS, Baker KC, Hsu WK (2015) Lumbar pseudarthrosis: a review of current diagnosis and treatment. Neurosurg Focus 39:E10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.focus15292
Kayaoglu CR, Calikoglu C, Binler S (2003) Re-operation after lumbar disc surgery: results in 85 cases. J Int Med Res 31:318–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/147323000303100410
Funding
This research was partially supported by National Institute of Health (R21AR057989).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Thomas D. Cha has received research grants from North American Spine Society and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lang, Z., Li, JS., Yang, F. et al. Reoperation of decompression alone or decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 28, 1371–1385 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5681-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5681-2