Next Article in Journal
Prognostic Values of Combined Ratios of White Blood Cells in Glioblastoma: A Retrospective Study
Previous Article in Journal
Exercise throughout Pregnancy Prevents Excessive Maternal Weight Gain during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Clinical Trial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/jcm11123398
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perioperative Complications of Anterior Decompression with Fusion in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy—A Comparative Study between Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament and Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database

by
Shingo Morishita
1,2,
Toshitaka Yoshii
1,*,
Hiroyuki Inose
1,
Takashi Hirai
1,
Yu Matsukura
1,
Takahisa Ogawa
1,
Kiyohide Fushimi
3,
Junya Katayanagi
2,
Tetsuya Jinno
2 and
Atsushi Okawa
1
1
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8519, Japan
2
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center, 2-1-50 Minamikoshigaya, Koshigaya-shi, Saitama 343-8555, Japan
3
Department of Health Policy and Informatics, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8519, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(12), 3398; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123398
Submission received: 2 June 2022 / Accepted: 8 June 2022 / Published: 13 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Orthopedics)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
For ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) and cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), anterior decompression with fusion (ADF) can accurately achieve spinal decompression. However, the difference in perioperative complications in ADF between OPLL and CSM is poorly described. This study aimed to investigate the perioperative complication rates of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy undergoing ADF, represented by OPLL and CSM, using a large national inpatient database. In the OPLL and CSM groups, postoperative complication (systemic and local) rates, reoperation rates, medical costs during hospitalization, and mortality after propensity score matching were compared. After matching, 1197 matched pairs were made. The incidence of total systemic complications was similar between both groups (OPLL, 12.4%; CSM, 12.2%). In the OPLL group, more perioperative local complications (cerebrospinal fluid leakage: CSFL, [OPLL, 2.7%; CSM, 0.3%] and surgical site infection: SSI [OPLL, 2.1%; CSM, 0.9%]) were detected, and the hospitalization cost was approximately $3200 higher than that in the CSM group. Moreover, medical costs were significantly higher in patients who experienced complications in both OPLL and CSM. The frequency of perioperative complications of OPLL and CSM in ADF was detailed using large real-world data. Compared to CSM, OPLL had more perioperative complications such as CSFL and SSI, and higher medical costs. Regardless of the disease, medical costs were significantly increased when perioperative complications occurred.

1. Introduction

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a general term for symptomatic spinal cord compression caused by degenerative changes in the cervical spine [1]. The main diseases included in DCM are ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) and cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) [2]. OPLL is often detected in Asian countries, and heterotopic bone formation with OPLL causes nerve compression when the ossification foci are enlarged [3]. OPLL has also been linked to high body mass index (BMI) and metabolic diseases (e.g., diabetes) [4]. In contrast, CSM is a condition associated with neurological deterioration caused by spinal cord compression due to degenerative disk changes, osteophyte formation, and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy [5]. Although both diseases generally cause compressive spinal cord myelopathy, the patient backgrounds differ between OPLL and CSM.
As clinical symptoms progress in patients with DCM, conservative treatment may become ineffective; therefore, surgery is preferred in such patients [6]. Anterior decompression with fusion (ADF) is one of the treatment options for OPLL and CSM when the spinal cord is compressed from the front [7,8]. Anterior cervical approach surgery is considered a fundamental and sensible technique that allows for the direct relief of spinal cord compression [9]. In patients with both OPLL and CSM, ADF effectively improves neurological deficits and activity levels, as reported in several studies [10,11].
In general, surgery via the anterior approach for cervical DCM is challenging, particularly for OPLL, and perioperative complications are common [12,13]. The differences between OPLL and CSM were examined in few studies with a focus on perioperative complications after ADF even though several reviews have compared anterior and posterior surgery in both OPLL and CSM [14,15]. Therefore, using a nationwide inpatient database, this study aimed to determine the perioperative complication details by comparing post-ADF complication rates and medical costs between the two different diseases, OPLL and CSM. In addition, patients’ backgrounds were strictly matched to compare the diseases without biases.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Source and Study Population

We obtained all data for the current study from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database, which is a nationwide database of hospitalized patients in Japan [16,17]. Age, sex, BMI, smoking status, scheduled or unscheduled admission, emergency, academic or nonacademic hospital, scores of activities of daily living (ADL), preoperative comorbidities, perioperative complications according to ICD-10 codes, surgical procedure, reoperation due to complication, transfusion, cost, and mortality during hospitalization were all recorded in the database. The study included hospitalized patients who underwent ADF (including anterior cervical decompression and fusion: ACDF and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: ACCF) between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2016, with a principal diagnosis of OPLL or CSM. Patients who underwent ADF but were diagnosed with spinal cord injury, cervical radiculopathy, cervical disk herniation, and cervical amyotrophy and those diagnosed with OPLL or CSM but who underwent combined anterior and posterior surgery were excluded from the study.

2.2. Variables and Outcomes

Data on preoperative comorbidities and perioperative complications were obtained from the database. Preoperative comorbidities include diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, renal failure, hepatic failure, gastric ulcer and hemorrhage, malignant tumor, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoporosis. Perioperative complications include systemic complications (i.e., cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory failure, pneumonia, dysphagia, renal failure, hepatic failure, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, and delirium) and local complications (i.e., surgical site infection, paralysis, meningitis, spinal fluid leakage, and hematoma). Furthermore, reoperations for perioperative systemic complications (cardiac, cerebral, gastric complications, inferior vena cava filter placement, tracheotomy, and shunt formation) and local complications (treatment for wound and debridement) were included. The perioperative complications, reoperation rates, inpatient medical costs, mortality, and ADL scores at discharge were compared between patients with OPLL and CSM after propensity score matching. Surgical site infection in this study was defined as an infection that occurs after surgery in the part of the body where the surgery took place during the hospitalization according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition. Surgical site infection in this study were defined as those that occurred during the hospital stay, not within 30 days after surgery. Regarding the reoperation, closure for fluid leakage was defined as suture of the dura mater, and treatment for wound trouble was defined as re-suture at the superficial (skin and subcutaneous) layer of the wound. Patients were then further divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of complications (systemic, local, or total), and medical costs were compared.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Propensity scores were calculated using logistic regression analysis with the known preoperative items as explanatory variables [18,19,20]. Explanatory variables for logistic regression included age, sex, BMI, smoking, admission type, emergency, hospital type, ADL score, and preoperative comorbidities. In the OPLL and CSM groups, propensity score matching was performed using a caliper with a width of <0.2. After forming one-to-one pairs using matched patient backgrounds, a cohort was created and adapted to selection bias between the OPLL and CSM groups. Univariate analysis was first performed using raw data to examine patient backgrounds between the OPLL and CSM groups. Following the raw data analysis, univariate analysis was performed for patients matched by propensity scores to examine perioperative complication rates, reoperation rates, medical costs, mortality, and ADL scores. The complication rates for OPLL and CSM were also compared by age group (≥70 and <70). Furthermore, the length of hospital stay and medical costs in patients who developed complications were also examined by age (≥70 and <70). We performed an additional analysis for cases without perioperative complications. Categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test or chi-square test, and continuous variables were compared using a Student’s t-test. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata IC version 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Statistical significance was set at a p value of <0.05.

3. Results

A total of 2993 patients were included: OPLL (n = 1333) and CSM (n = 1660; Table 1). Before propensity score matching, patients in the OPLL group were younger than those in the CSM group (OPLL vs. CSM [aged 60.3 vs. 62.6 years]; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the OPLL group included patients with higher BMI (25.2 vs. 23.8 kg/m2; p < 0.001), higher scheduled admission (93.3% vs. 91.0%; p = 0.018), and lower emergency transport (1.4% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.012) than the CSM group. In contrast, patients in the CSM group were associated with more preoperative comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases (OPLL vs. CSM: 4.5% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.030), respiratory diseases (0.5% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.037), renal failure (1.0% vs. 2.8%; p < 0.001), malignant tumor (0.6% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.025), and osteoporosis (1.6% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.008). Other comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, were not significantly different between the two groups. After the one-to-one matching using propensity scores, 1197 pairs (2394 patients) were obtained and analyzed. Thus, the demographic characteristics of these 1197 pairs in the OPLL and CSM groups were well matched (Table 1).
After matching the OPLL and CSM groups, the perioperative systemic complication rates are displayed in Table 2. The total incidence of systemic complications was 12.4% in OPLL and 12.2% in CSM, respectively, without a significant difference. Between the OPLL and CSM groups, the incidence of respiratory problems, including pneumonia (OPLL vs. CSM [0.9% vs. 1.1%]; p = 0.68) and dysphagia (2.2% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.89) was also similar. For systemic complications, the reoperation rates were 0.9% and 0.8% in the OPLL and CSM groups, respectively, without difference between the two groups. The difference was not statistically significant, although in the OPLL group, perioperative blood transfusion tended to be higher (OPLL vs. CSM [7.4% vs. 5.8%]; p = 0.08; Table 2).
Table 3 demonstrates the local complications and reoperation rates for local complications after matching between the two groups. The incidence of local complications was higher in the OPLL compared to the CSM group (OPLL vs. CSM [6.1% vs. 2.9%], p < 0.001). The surgical site infection incidence (OPLL vs. CSM [2.1% vs. 0.9%]; p = 0.019) and spinal fluid leakage (2.7% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the OPLL compared to the CSM group. Moreover, in the OPLL group, fluid leakage closure (OPLL vs. CSM [0.4% vs. 0%]; p = 0.025), wound trouble treatment (1.8% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.027), and local complication reoperation (2.2% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.004) were more frequently needed (Table 3).
In addition, we compared patients ≥70 and those <70 in each disease (OPLL, CSM). Some of the systemic complications such as dysphagia, sepsis, and delirium showed significantly higher incidences in the ≥70 group for OPLL patients, but no differences were found for CSM patients. (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2). There was no difference in local complications between patients ≥70 and <70 years for both OPLL and CSM patients.
Table 4 shows the in-hospital medical costs after propensity score matching. In the OPLL group, the costs were almost $3200 higher (OPLL vs. CSM [$23,164 vs. $19.993]; p < 0.001). Mortality and ADL scores at discharge were not significantly different between the two groups (Table 4).
Table 5 compares the in-hospital medical costs in each OPLL and CSM group after matching, dividing them into two groups with or without complications. Either in OPLL or the CSM group, the costs were significantly higher in the group with complications. For patients with OPLL, the cost difference between the patients with and without complications was about $5200 ($26,920 vs. $21,714; p < 0.001) and $4000 ($26,115 vs. $22,113; p = 0.002) for systemic and local complications, respectively. Furthermore, for patients with CSM, the cost difference between the patients with and without complications was about $6500 ($25,013 vs. $18,502; p < 0.001) for systemic complications (Table 5). In cases without complications, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in OPLL cases than in CSM cases by about three to four days (Supplementary Table S3). The medical costs were higher in OPLL cases than in CSM cases even when complications did not occur.

4. Discussion

We focused on the comparison of different diseases, OPLL and CSM, in terms of perioperative complications and medical costs for ADF and to analyze them in a large national database. The comparison was performed under the strict matching of patients’ backgrounds between the OPLL and CSM. Japan is one of the countries with most aged individuals worldwide; therefore, a higher number of older patients (OPLL, 60.3 years; CSM, 62.6 years) were observed in the database used in this study than in a similar database study on anterior cervical spine surgery conducted in Western countries (aged 55 years) [21]. Thus, the present study results will provide important information that surgeons should focus on when surgical operations are performed on elderly patients. Patients in the current database had different backgrounds because those with CSM were older, had a lower mean BMI, and had a higher preoperative comorbidity rate than those with OPLL (e.g., cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, renal failure, malignancy, and osteoporosis). Therefore, using propensity scores, the patient’s backgrounds were strictly matched between the OPLL and CSM groups to assess ADF perioperative complication rates (Table 1) accurately.
The incidence of perioperative systemic complications was not significantly different between the two groups. However, when compared with the database study conducted in the USA (incidence of perioperative complications, 8.9%), the incidence of perioperative complications in the present study was relatively high (OPLL, 12.4%; CSM, 12.2%) [22]. Among them, high incidences were observed in cardiovascular complications (OPLL, 2.7%; CSM, 2.9%) and dysphagia (OPLL, 2.2%; CSM, 2.1%). A study on cardiac complications after cervical spine surgery found that age, multilevel spinal fusion, and bleeding were risk factors for postoperative cardiac events [23]. Anterior cervical surgery occasionally requires multilevel fusion, particularly in patients with OPLL, resulting in increased blood loss and transfusion [24]. According to the data collected in this study, patients were relatively older and had more transfusions in both the OPLL and CSM groups, which may cause perioperative cardiovascular stress and lead to various cardiac events. During surgery, continued medial retraction of the esophagus and pharynx is also required in the anterior cervical spine approach [25]. Esophageal irritation, laryngeal nerve injury, and edema of the posterior pharyngeal wall can cause dysphagia [26]. The incidence of postoperative dysphagia in anterior surgery was >10 times higher than that in posterior surgery [12]. Our data showed that the incidence of dysphagia was significantly higher in the ≥70 group for OPLL patients, but no differences were found for CSM patients. Thus, after anterior cervical spine surgery, careful attention should be given to dysphagia, especially for elderly OPLL patients.
This study showed that after anterior cervical spine surgery, the incidence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage in OPLL was approximately nine times higher than that in CSM. No previous studies have shown a higher incidence of CSF leakage in OPLL in direct comparison with CSM. A report stated that the incidence of dural tears and CSF leakage was at most 8% after anterior cervical corpectomy for all pathologies of the cervical spine [27]. However, regarding cervical OPLL, several studies have reported that after anterior cervical surgery, the incidence of CSF leakage is exceptionally high, ranging from 6.7% to 53.3% [28,29,30,31,32]. Consequently, ADF for OPLL causes CSF leakage because of the resection of the ossified dura and/or adhesion detachment [33]. CSF leakage after ADF for OPLL can be challenging and may cause pseudomeningocele, dyspnea, cutaneous CSF leakage fistula, and meningitis [34]. In this study, the frequency of surgical site infection in OPLL was more than twice than that in CSM. However, no cases of deep surgical site infection that required debridement were noted in this cohort. CSF leakage outside the skin and prolonged wound healing may contribute to the increased risk of infection in patients with OPLL. As previously reported, anterior decompression using the floating technique or anterior controllable antidisplacement and fusion (ACAF) instead of resecting OPLL may effectively reduce the risk of CSF leakage and related complications [9,35].
Postoperative complications were more frequently observed in patients with OPLL, resulting in higher medical costs. Medical costs during hospitalization were approximately $3200 higher in the OPLL group than in the CSM group (OPLL vs. CSM [$23,164 vs. $19,993]; p < 0.001; Table 4). Several previous studies have shown that perioperative complications in spine surgeries lead to increased medical costs [36,37]. The incremental cost of treating severe perioperative complications has been noted to exceed $20,000 [36]. In this cohort, perioperative complications increased hospitalization costs for patients with OPLL and CSM (Table 5). In particular, perioperative complications increased the medical costs in the OPLL and CSM groups by approximately $4000–$5000 and $2000–$6000, respectively. When perioperative complications were noted in the OPLL group, the total medical costs exceeded $26,000. In OPLL or CSM, reducing perioperative complications by devising surgical techniques is critically important. It is possible that the longer hospital stay may have an impact on higher costs.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. Because the DPC database only contained information during hospitalization, we could not consider mortality, postoperative complications, and reoperation after discharge. This is especially likely to affect complication rates for patients discharged earlier than 30 days, the Center of Disease Control and Prevention’s definition of surgical site infection [38]. Additionally, some clinically important findings could not be reflected in the database system because of the lack of images (including the canal occupancy ratio of OPLL) and laboratory data. For example, the database excluded some data, such as details of the surgical procedure (ACDF, ACCF or ACAF), number of surgical levels, details of death, severity of neurological symptoms, patients’ pathology, cervical spine alignment, date of complication diagnosis, and wound condition.
Despite the limitations, this study’s findings provide valuable information to surgeons and patients with DCM to know the characteristics that lead to higher complication rates and higher medical costs. In addition, it is necessary to construct a database containing detailed clinical and imaging findings in future studies.

5. Conclusions

We have detailed the frequency of perioperative complications of OPLL and CSM in ADF using large real-world data. An unbiased comparison using propensity score matching revealed that OPLL was clearly associated with more perioperative complications (i.e., CSF leakage and surgical site infection) and higher medical costs than CSM. Medical costs were significantly increased when perioperative complications occurred in both the OPLL group and the CSM group.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11123398/s1, Table S1: Systemic complications and local complications between ≥ 70 and < 70 in OPLL after matching; Table S2: Systemic complications and local complications between ≥ 70 and < 70 in CSM after matching; Table S3: Cost and length of stay without perioperative complications between OPLL and CSM after matching.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M., T.Y., H.I., T.H., Y.M., K.F., J.K., T.J. and A.O.; methodology, S.M., T.Y., H.I., T.H., Y.M., T.O., K.F., J.K., T.J. and A.O.; collected data, S.M., T.Y., H.I., T.H., Y.M., T.O., K.F., J.K., T.J. and A.O.; data analysis and interpretation, S.M., T.O. and T.Y.; writing of initial draft, S.M. and T.Y.; statistical analyses, S.M., T.O. and T.Y.; supervision, H.I., T.H., Y.M. and A.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, the use of all data in this study was approved by the ethics committee of the institution of the current study (protocol code M2000-788-22, 27 April 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent for individual patients was not required because the database in this study is completely anonymized.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Grodzinski, N.; Grodzinski, B.; Davies, B.M. Can co-authorship networks be used to predict author research impact? A machine-learning based analysis within the field of degenerative cervical myelopathy research. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0256997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nakashima, H.; Kanemura, T.; Satake, K.; Ito, K.; Ouchida, J.; Morita, D.; Ando, K.; Kobayashi, K.; Ishiguro, N.; Imagama, S. Reoperation for Late Neurological Deterioration after Laminoplasty in Individuals with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Comparison of Cases of Cervical Spondylosis and Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament. Spine 2020, 45, E909–E916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Fujimori, T.; Nakajima, N.; Sugiura, T.; Ikegami, D.; Sakaura, H.; Kaito, T.; Iwasaki, M. Epidemiology of symptomatic ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: A nationwide registry survey. J. Spine Surg. 2021, 7, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ren, Y.; Feng, J.; Liu, Z.Z.; Wan, H.; Li, J.H.; Lin, X. A new haplotype in BMP4 implicated in ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) in a Chinese population. J. Orthop. Res. 2012, 30, 748–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hori, M.; Hagiwara, A.; Fukunaga, I.; Ueda, R.; Kamiya, K.; Suzuki, Y.; Liu, W.; Murata, K.; Takamura, T.; Hamasaki, N.; et al. Application of Quantitative Microstructural MR Imaging with Atlas-based Analysis for the Spinal Cord in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Fehlings, M.G.; Ibrahim, A.; Tetreault, L.; Albanese, V.; Alvarado, M.; Arnold, P.; Barbagallo, G.; Bartels, R.; Bolger, C.; Defino, H.; et al. A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients. Spine 2015, 40, 1322–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kimura, A.; Seichi, A.; Hoshino, Y.; Yamazaki, M.; Mochizuki, M.; Aiba, A.; Kato, T.; Uchida, K.; Miyamoto, K.; Nakahara, S.; et al. Perioperative complications of anterior cervical decompression with fusion in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: A retrospective, multi-institutional study. J. Orthop. Sci. 2012, 17, 667–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xia, C.; Shi, F.; Chen, C.; Lv, J.; Chen, Q. Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Anterior Cervical Decompression versus Segmental Fusion and Posterior Expansive Canal Plasty in the Treatment of Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. J. Healthc. Eng. 2022, 2022, 7696209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yoshii, T.; Morishita, S.; Inose, H.; Yuasa, M.; Hirai, T.; Okawa, A.; Fushimi, K.; Fujiwara, T. Comparison of Perioperative Complications in Anterior Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Decompression with Fusion for Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: Propensity Score Matching Analysis Using a Nation-Wide Inpatient Database. Spine 2020, 45, E1006–E1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kwok, S.S.S.; Cheung, J.P.Y. Surgical decision-making for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament versus other types of degenerative cervical myelopathy: Anterior versus posterior approaches. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2020, 21, 823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sakai, K.; Yoshii, T.; Arai, Y.; Hirai, T.; Torigoe, I.; Inose, H.; Tomori, M.; Sakaki, K.; Yuasa, M.; Yamada, T.; et al. A comparative study of surgical outcomes between anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and selective laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J. Orthop. Sci. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Morishita, S.; Yoshii, T.; Okawa, A.; Fushimi, K.; Fujiwara, T. Perioperative complications of anterior decompression with fusion versus laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: Propensity score matching analysis using a nation-wide inpatient database. Spine J. 2019, 19, 610–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Morishita, S.; Yoshii, T.; Okawa, A.; Fushimi, K.; Fujiwara, T. Comparison of Perioperative Complications between Anterior Decompression with Fusion and Laminoplasty for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Propensity Score-matching Analysis Using Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database. Clin. Spine Surg. 2020, 33, E101–E107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, J.; Liang, Q.; Qin, D.; Song, J.; An, Q.; Wang, X.; Zhao, Z. The anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2021, 44, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Kim, D.H.; Lee, C.H.; Ko, Y.S.; Yang, S.H.; Kim, C.H.; Park, S.B.; Chung, C.K. The Clinical Implications and Complications of Anterior Versus Posterior Surgery for Multilevel Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament; An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neurospine 2019, 16, 530–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Honda, A.; Michihata, N.; Iizuka, Y.; Mieda, T.; Takasawa, E.; Ishiwata, S.; Matsui, H.; Fushimi, K.; Yasunaga, H.; Chikuda, H. Clinical features and early post-operative complications of isolated C2 odontoid fractures: A retrospective analysis using a national inpatient database in Japan. Eur. Spine J. 2021, 30, 3631–3638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sawada, R.; Yamana, H.; Shinoda, Y.; Tsuda, Y.; Matsui, H.; Fushimi, K.; Kobayashi, H.; Matsubayashi, Y.; Yasunaga, H.; Tanaka, S.; et al. Predictive factors of the 30-day mortality after surgery for spinal metastasis: Analysis of a nationwide database. J. Orthop. Sci. 2021, 26, 666–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Verhofste, B.P.; Emans, J.B.; Miller, P.E.; Birch, C.M.; Thompson, G.H.; Samdani, A.F.; Sanchez Perez-Grueso, F.J.; McClung, A.M.; Glotzbecker, M.P. Growth-Friendly Spine Surgery in Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2021, 103, 715–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bouknaitir, J.B.; Carreon, L.Y.; Brorson, S.; Pedersen, C.F.; Andersen, M.Ø. Wide Laminectomy, Segmental Bilateral Laminotomies, or Unilateral Hemi-Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Five-year Patient-reported Outcomes in Propensity-matched Cohorts. Spine 2021, 46, 1509–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, N.J.; Zuckerman, S.L.; Buchanan, I.A.; Boddapati, V.; Mathew, J.; Leung, E.; Park, P.J.; Pham, M.H.; Buchholz, A.L.; Khan, A.; et al. Is there a difference between navigated and non-navigated robot cohorts in robot-assisted spine surgery? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis of 2800 screws and 372 patients. Spine J. 2021, 21, 1504–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Taylor, B.E.S.; Hilden, P.; Hansen, R.T.B.; Nanda, A.; Gillick, J.L. National Rates, Reasons, and Risk Factors for 30- and 90-Day Readmission and Reoperation among Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: An Analysis Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Spine 2021, 46, 1302–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Cole, T.; Veeravagu, A.; Zhang, M.; Ratliff, J.K. Surgeon Procedure Volume and Complication Rates in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions: Analysis of a National Longitudinal Database. Clin. Spine Surg. 2017, 30, E633–E639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fineberg, S.J.; Oglesby, M.; Patel, A.A.; Singh, K. Incidence and mortality of perioperative cardiac events in cervical spine surgery. Spine 2013, 38, 1268–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Carabini, L.M.; Zeeni, C.; Moreland, N.C.; Gould, R.W.; Hemmer, L.B.; Bebawy, J.F.; Koski, T.R.; McClendon, J.; Koht, A.; Gupta, D.K. Predicting major adverse cardiac events in spine fusion patients: Is the revised cardiac risk index sufficient? Spine 2014, 39, 1441–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Palumbo, M.A.; Aidlen, J.P.; Daniels, A.H.; Bianco, A.; Caiati, J.M. Airway compromise due to laryngopharyngeal edema after anterior cervical spine surgery. J. Clin. Anesth. 2013, 25, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cavuşoğlu, H.; Tuncer, C.; Tanik, C.; Mutlu, Z.; Zengin, E.; Karabağli, M.; Aydin, Y. The impact of automatic retractors on the esophagus during anterior cervical surgery: An experimental in vivo study in a sheep model. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2009, 11, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Cardoso, M.J.; Koski, T.R.; Ganju, A.; Liu, J.C. Approach-related complications after decompression for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Neurosurg. Focus 2011, 30, E12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Abe, H.; Tsuru, M.; Ito, T.; Iwasaki, Y.; Koiwa, M. Anterior decompression for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine. J. Neurosurg. 1981, 55, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hanai, K.; Inouye, Y.; Kawai, K.; Tago, K.; Itoh, Y. Anterior decompression for myelopathy resulting from ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1982, 64, 561–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Harsh, G.R.; Sypert, G.W.; Weinstein, P.R.; Ross, D.A.; Wilson, C.B. Cervical spine stenosis secondary to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J. Neurosurg. 1987, 67, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Smith, M.D.; Bolesta, M.J.; Leventhal, M.; Bohlman, H.H. Postoperative cerebrospinal-fluid fistula associated with erosion of the dura. Findings after anterior resection of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J. Bone Jt. Surg Am. 1992, 74, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Koda, M.; Mochizuki, M.; Konishi, H.; Aiba, A.; Kadota, R.; Inada, T.; Kamiya, K.; Ota, M.; Maki, S.; Takahashi, K.; et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between laminoplasty, posterior decompression with instrumented fusion, and anterior decompression with fusion for K-line (-) cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Eur. Spine J. 2016, 25, 2294–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Egawa, S.; Yoshii, T.; Sakai, K.; Kusano, K.; Nakagawa, Y.; Hirai, T.; Kimura, A.; Furuya, T.; Kanchiku, T.; Nagamoto, Y.; et al. Prospective Investigation of Postoperative Complications in Anterior Decompression with Fusion for Severe Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Multi-institutional Study. Spine 2021, 46, 1621–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Odate, S.; Shikata, J.; Soeda, T.; Yamamura, S.; Kawaguchi, S. Surgical results and complications of anterior decompression and fusion as a revision surgery after initial posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2017, 26, 466–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Chen, Y.; Sun, J.; Yuan, X.; Guo, Y.; Yang, H.; Chen, D.; Shi, J. Comparison of Anterior Controllable Antedisplacement and Fusion with Posterior Laminoplasty in the Treatment of Multilevel Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Prospective, Randomized, and Control Study with at Least 1-Year Follow Up. Spine 2020, 45, 1091–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Culler, S.D.; Jevsevar, D.S.; Shea, K.G.; McGuire, K.J.; Schlosser, M.; Wright, K.K.; Simon, A.W. Incremental Hospital Cost and Length-of-Stay Associated with Treating Adverse Events Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Lumbar Spinal Fusion during Fiscal Year 2013. Spine 2016, 41, 1613–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chung, W.H.; Lee, Y.J.; Chiu, C.K.; Hasan, M.S.; Chan, C.Y.W.; Kwan, M.K. Severe Lenke 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis had poorer perioperative outcome, higher complication rate, longer fusion and higher operative cost compared to non-severe scoliosis. Eur. Spine J. 2022, 31, 1051–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Horan, T.C.; Andrus, M.; Dudeck, M.A. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am. J. Infect. Control 2008, 36, 309–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Patient characteristics between OPLL and CSM before and after matching.
Table 1. Patient characteristics between OPLL and CSM before and after matching.
Before Propensity Score-MatchingAfter Propensity Score-Matching
OPLL (n = 1333)CSM (n = 1660)p ValueOPLL (n = 1197)CSM (n = 1197)p Value
Age (years)60.3 ± 11.362.6 ± 13.0<0.001 ***61.3 ± 10.960.8 ± 12.90.35
Sex 0.60 0.89
  Male948 (71.1%)1166 (70.2%) 854 (71.4%)857 (71.6%)
  Female385 (28.9%)494 (29.8%) 343 (28.6%)340 (28.4%)
BMI (kg/m2)25.2 ± 4.223.8 ± 3.9<0.001 ***24.4 ± 3.224.7 ± 3.70.11
Smoking 0.99 0.41
  Yes682 (51.2%)849 (51.1%) 615 (51.4%)635 (53.0%)
  No651 (48.8%)811 (48.9%) 582 (48.6%)562 (47.0%)
Admission type 0.018 * 0.33
  Scheduled1244 (93.3%)1510 (91.0%) 1111 (92.8%)1123 (93.8%)
  Unscheduled89 (6.7%)150 (9.0%) 86 (7.2%)74 (6.2%)
Emergency transport 0.012 * 0.61
  Yes19 (1.4%)46 (2.8%) 19 (1.6%)16 (1.3%)
  No1313 (98.6%)1614 (97.2%) 1178 (98.4%)1181 (98.7%)
Hospital type 0.99 0.96
  Academic243 (18.2%)303 (18.2%) 215 (18.0%)214 (17.9%)
  Non-academic1090 (81.8%)1357 (81.8%) 982 (82.0%)983 (82.1%)
  ADL score for admission (points)17.3 ± 5.017.0 ± 5.50.2317.2 ± 5.117.3 ± 5.20.75
Preoperative comorbidities
  Diabetes mellitus296 (22.2%)334 (20.1%)0.16253 (21.1%)255 (21.3%)0.92
  Cardiovascular disease60 (4.5%)105 (6.3%)0.030 *57 (4.8%)65 (5.4%)0.46
  Cerebrovascular disease31 (2.3%)46 (2.8%)0.4431 (2.6%)27 (2.3%)0.60
  Respiratory disease7 (0.5%)21 (1.3%)0.037 *7 (0.6%)7 (0.6%)>0.99
  Renal failure13 (1.0%)46 (2.8%)<0.001 ***12 (1.0%)12 (1.0%)>0.99
  Hepatic failure39 (2.9%)53 (3.2%)0.6738 (3.2%)36 (3.0%)0.81
  Gastric ulcer and hemorrhage48 (3.6%)64 (3.9%)0.7243 (3.6%)43 (3.6%)>0.99
  Malignancy8 (0.6%)24 (1.5%)0.025 *8 (0.7%)4 (0.3%)0.25
  Rheumatoid arthritis3 (0.2%)12 (0.7%)0.063 (0.3%)8 (0.7%)0.13
  Osteoporosis21 (1.6%)51 (3.1%)0.008 **20 (1.7%)18 (1.5%)0.74
Data were presented as n (%) or mean ± SD. Significant values are given as follows. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. OPLL, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; CSM, cervical spondylotic myelopathy; SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; ADL, activities of daily living.
Table
Table 2. Systemic complications, reoperation, and blood transfusion after matching.
Table 2. Systemic complications, reoperation, and blood transfusion after matching.
After Propensity Score-Matching
OPLL (n = 1197)CSM (n = 1197)p Value
Systemic complications
  At least one complication148 (12.4%)146 (12.2%)0.90
  Cardiovascular disease32 (2.7%)35 (2.9%)0.71
  Cerebrovascular disease9 (0.8%)9 (0.8%)>0.99
  Respiratory failure13 (1.1%)16 (1.3%)0.58
  Pneumonia11 (0.9%)13 (1.1%)0.68
  Dysphagia26 (2.2%)25 (2.1%)0.89
  Renal failure3 (0.3%)0 (0%)0.08
  Hepatic failure2 (0.2%)6 (0.5%)0.16
  Deep venous thrombosis3 (0.3%)7 (0.6%)0.21
  Pulmonary embolism1 (0.1%)0 (0%)0.32
  Sepsis2 (0.2%)6 (0.5%)0.16
  Delirium3 (0.3%)3 (0.3%)>0.99
Reoperation
  At least one operation11 (0.9%)9 (0.8%)0.65
  Cardiac1 (0.1%)2 (0.2%)0.56
  Cerebral0 (0%)2 (0.2%)0.16
  Gastric (including endoscope)6 (0.5%)1 (0.1%)0.06
  Vena cava filter0 (0%)0 (0%)NA
  Tracheoplasty or Tracheotomy4 (0.3%)3 (0.3%)0.71
  Shunt form0 (0%)1 (0.1%)0.32
Blood transfusion88 (7.4%)67 (5.6%)0.08
Data are presented as n (%). OPLL, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; CSM, cervical spondylotic myelopathy; NA, not applicable.
Table
Table 3. Local complications and reoperation after matching.
Table 3. Local complications and reoperation after matching.
After Propensity Score-Matching
OPLL (n = 1197)CSM (n = 1197)p Value
Local complications
  At least one complication73 (6.1%)35 (2.9%)<0.001 ***
  Surgical site infection25 (2.1%)11 (0.9%)0.019 *
  Paralysis14 (1.2%)9 (0.8%)0.30
  Meningitis2 (0.2%)0 (0%)0.16
  Spinal fluid leakage32 (2.7%)4 (0.3%)<0.001 ***
  Hematoma7 (0.6%)12 (1.0%)0.25
Reoperation
  At least one reoperation26 (2.2%)9 (0.8%)0.004 **
  Treatment for wound trouble21 (1.8%)9 (0.8%)0.027 *
  Closure for fluid leakage5 (0.4%)0 (0%)0.025 *
  Debridement0 (0%)0 (0%)NA
Data are presented as n (%). Significant values are given as follows. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. OPLL, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; CSM, cervical spondylotic myelopathy; NA, not applicable.
Table
Table 4. Cost, mortality, and ADL score for discharge after matching.
Table 4. Cost, mortality, and ADL score for discharge after matching.
After Propensity Score-Matching
OPLL (n = 1197)CSM (n = 1197)p Value
Cost (mean ± SD) ($)23,164 ± 11,13419,993 ± 10,629<0.001 ***
Mortality1 (0.1%)2 (0.2%)0.56
ADL score for discharge (points)17.6 ± 4.517.8 ± 4.40.42
Data were presented as n (%) or mean ± SD. Significant values are given as follows. *** p < 0.001. OPLL, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; CSM, cervical spondylotic myelopathy; SD, standard deviation; ADL, activities of daily living.
Table
Table 5. Cost between complication (+) and (−) in OPLL and CSM after matching.
Table 5. Cost between complication (+) and (−) in OPLL and CSM after matching.
OPLL (n = 1197)Systemic Complication (+) (n = 148)Systemic Complication (−) (n = 1049)p Value
Cost ($)26,920 ± 15,33721,714 ± 9769<0.001 ***
Local complication (+) (n = 73)Local complication (−) (n = 1124)p Value
Cost ($)26,115 ± 12,64522,113 ± 10,5720.002 **
Total complication (+) (n = 209)Total complication (−) (n = 988)p Value
Cost ($)26,701 ± 14,74221,438 ± 9449<0.001 ***
CSM (n = 1197)Systemic Complication (+) (n = 146)Systemic Complication (−) (n = 1051)p Value
Cost ($)25,013 ± 18,79318,502 ± 8120<0.001 ***
Local complication (+) (n = 35)Local complication (−) (n = 1162)p Value
Cost ($)21,852 ± 875819,219 ± 10,2940.13
Total complication (+) (n = 177)Total complication (−) (n = 1020)p Value
Cost ($)24,508 ± 17,51418,392 ± 8063<0.001 ***
Data were presented as mean ± SD. Significant values are given as follows. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. OPLL, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; CSM, cervical spondylotic myelopathy; SD, standard deviation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Morishita, S.; Yoshii, T.; Inose, H.; Hirai, T.; Matsukura, Y.; Ogawa, T.; Fushimi, K.; Katayanagi, J.; Jinno, T.; Okawa, A. Perioperative Complications of Anterior Decompression with Fusion in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy—A Comparative Study between Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament and Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3398. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123398

AMA Style

Morishita S, Yoshii T, Inose H, Hirai T, Matsukura Y, Ogawa T, Fushimi K, Katayanagi J, Jinno T, Okawa A. Perioperative Complications of Anterior Decompression with Fusion in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy—A Comparative Study between Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament and Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(12):3398. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123398

Chicago/Turabian Style

Morishita, Shingo, Toshitaka Yoshii, Hiroyuki Inose, Takashi Hirai, Yu Matsukura, Takahisa Ogawa, Kiyohide Fushimi, Junya Katayanagi, Tetsuya Jinno, and Atsushi Okawa. 2022. "Perioperative Complications of Anterior Decompression with Fusion in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy—A Comparative Study between Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament and Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 12: 3398. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123398

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop