Comparison of Perioperative Complications in Anterior Decompression With Fusion and Posterior Decompression With Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Propensity Score Matching Analysis Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database
Comparison of Perioperative Complications in Anterior Decompression With Fusion and Posterior Decompression With Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Propensity Score Matching Analysis Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database
复制标题
DOI:
10.1097/bsd.0000000000001209
复制
发表时间:
2021-08-01
影响因子:
1.9
通讯作者:
Fujiwara, Takeo
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Morishita, Shingo;Yoshii, Toshitaka;Fujiwara, Takeo
Study Design: A retrospective cohort study with a national inpatient database. Objective: This study aimed to research the perioperative complication rates of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) patients who underwent anterior decompression with fusion (ADF) and posterior decompression with fusion (PDF) using a large national inpatient database and propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Summary of Background Data: There are several ways to successfully achieve surgical spinal decompression in CSM patients; however, evidence of the systemic complications and reoperation rates in ADF and PDF is lacking. Materials and Methods: We identified patients who were hospitalized for CSM and underwent either ADF or PDF from 2010 to 2016 using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. In the ADF and PDF groups, we compared postoperative complications (systemic and local), medical costs during hospitalization, and mortality before and after PSM. In addition, multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for perioperative systemic complications. Results: A total of 1013 matched pairs were made after PSM. More perioperative systemic complications were detected in the ADF group than in the PDF group (at least 1 complication: ADF vs. PDF: 15.2% vs. 12.0%, P=0.038), especially for respiratory failure (1.4% vs. 0.4%, P=0.018), pneumonia (1.9% vs. 0.5%, P=0.004), and dysphagia (3.0% vs. 1.1%, P=0.003). The costs were similar to$8000 higher (P