RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) with multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in posterior long-segment fusion. BACKGROUND: PSO and ALIF/LLIF are 2 techniques used to restore lumbar lordosis and correct sagittal alignment, with each holding its unique advantages and disadvantages. As there are situations where both techniques can be employed, it is important to compare the risks and benefits of both. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent PSO or multilevel ALIF/LLIF with posterior fusion of 7-12 levels and pelvic fixation were identified. 1:1 propensity score was used to match PSO and ALIF/LLIF cohorts for age, sex, and relevant comorbidities, including smoking status. Logistic regression was used to compare medical and surgical outcomes. Trends and costs were generated for both groups as well. RESULTS: ALIF/LLIF utilization in posterior long fusion has been steadily increasing since 2010, whereas PSO utilization has significantly dropped since 2017. PSO was associated with an increased risk of durotomy (P < 0.001) and neurological injury (P = 0.018). ALIF/LLIF was associated with increased rates of postoperative radiculopathy (P = 0.005). Patients who underwent PSO had higher rates of pseudarthrosis within 1 and 2 years (P = 0.015; P = 0.010), 1-year hardware failure (P = 0.028), and 2-year reinsertion of instrumentation (P = 0.009). Reoperation rates for both approaches were not statistically different at any time point throughout the 5-year period. In addition, there were no significant differences in both procedural and 90-day postoperative costs. CONCLUSIONS: PSO was associated with higher rates of surgical complications compared with anterior approaches. However, there was no significant difference in overall reoperation rates. Spine surgeons should select the optimal technique for a given patient and the type of lordotic correction required.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There are no guidelines on the routine or selective use of contrast upper gastrointestinal series (UGI) after omental patch repair (OPR) of a gastric (GP) or duodenal perforation (DP). This study aims to elucidate whether the use of selective versus routine contrast study will lead to worse clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 115 (n = 115) patients with OPR of GP or DP was performed. Data were obtained from seven Florida Hospital campuses. Patients aged 18 and older from 2006 to 2016 were identified by ICD9 billing information. Patients were divided into two groups: UGI and no UGI. The UGI group was subdivided into selective versus routine. A selective UGI was defined as one or more of the following after post-operative day 3: WBC >12,000, peritonitis, fever >100.4 F, tachycardia >110 bpm on three or more assessments, and any UGI performed after POD 7. Perioperative symptoms, perforation location, size, abdominal contamination, laparoscopic or open, leak detection, length of stay, mortality, and reoperation within 2 weeks were also examined. RESULTS: No differences between the UGI group and non-UGI group relating to preoperative symptoms, leak detection, death, and reoperation rate were revealed. Differences in length of stay were found to be statistically significant with the UGI group and non-UGI at a median of 15.5 and 8 days, respectively. In the UGI subgroup, 20 of the 29 patients received selective studies. There were no statistical differences identified in leak detection, death, and reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of leak detection, reoperation, and death in patients with GP or DP repaired with omental patch utilizing an UGI study were not statistically significant. An increased length of stay was observed within the UGI group. There was no advantage demonstrated between a selective versus routine UGI; therefore, the use of selective UGI should be based upon clinical indications.
