Predictors Of Revision Surgery Research Articles

Predictive factors of revision endoscopic sinus surgery.

Despite endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) being the standard best treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), there still remains a high recurrence rate of nasal polyps after ESS. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of ESS in the treatment of CRSwNP and identify possible predictors for revision surgery. We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study of patients with CRSwNP submitted to ESS between the years 2013 and 2021. We analyzed 517 cases, of which 15.1% were submitted to revision ESS. The presence of hyposmia/anosmia, asthma, intolerance/allergy to non-steroid inflammatory drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug exacerbated respiratory disease, and bilateral polyposis were more frequent in patients who needed revision surgery. Initial values of peripheral eosinophilia and Lund-Mackay scores were significantly higher in this sub-group of patients. Lund-Mackay score was the only independent risk factor for revision surgery. Factors like peripheral eosinophilia and Lund-Mackay score were associated with a higher probability of revision ESS. Applying these concepts to the clinical practice could help predict the evolution of patient's pathology in the post-operative period and identify in advance those cases that may need a multidisciplinary approach.

Risk of Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty After Anatomic and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

The objective of this study was to determine the survivorship of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse TSA (rTSA) over a medium-term follow-up in a large population-based sample and to identify potential risk factors for revision surgery. The State Inpatient Database from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project was used to identify patients who underwent aTSA or rTSA from 2011 through 2015 using ICD9 codes. We modeled the primary outcome of time to revision or arthroplasty using the Cox proportional hazards model. The predictors of revision surgery in the model include aTSA versus rTSA, indication for surgery, age, sex, race, urban versus rural residence, hospital length of stay zip code-based income quartile classification, and Elixhauser comorbidity readmission score. Among 43,990 patients in this study, 1,141 (4.0%) underwent revision or implant removal over the 4-year study period. The median age was 71 years, and 57% of patients were female. Indications for the index surgery included primary osteoarthritis (75.2%), cuff tear (8.5%), acute fracture (7.0%), malunion/nonunion (1.4%), and other (7.8%). Among these indications for surgery, the risk of revision or removal was greatest in patients who underwent the primary procedure for malunion/nonunion (hazard ratio [HR] 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69 to 3.39) compared with the reference of primary osteoarthritis. Male patients who underwent aTSA were less likely to need revision surgery than male patients who underwent rTSA (HR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.71), and the opposite relationship was observed in female patients (HR: 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69). Age, length of stay, and Elixhauser comorbidity score were predictive of revision surgery (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0005, P < 0.0001, respectively), whereas race, urban versus rural, and zip code-based income quartile were not. aTSA and rTSA showed excellent 4-year survivorship of 96.0% in a large population-based sample. aTSA and rTSA survivorships were similar at the 4-year follow-up.

Indications for early revision surgery for material failure in spinal instrumentation: experience at a level 1 center for spinal surgery - a single-center study.

Posterior instrumentation is an established treatment for a range of spinal disorders. Material failure is not uncommon, and the indications for a revision are very heterogeneous. This study aimed to evaluate the indications and timing for early revision spinal surgery due to material failure.In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, patients underwent spinal posterior instrumentation between January 2017 and July 2019. They were followed up at 3, 12, and 18 months postoperatively. The time of onset of material failure which led to revision surgery was analyzed. In addition, the relationship between the indications for revision surgery and independent variables was examined using a multivariate logistic regression model.A total of one hundred thirty-five patients were enrolled. Radiolucent zones were found in 30 patients (20%) after 3 months, whereas 48 patients (31%) had radiolucent zones after 12 months. Revision surgery was performed in 13 patients (8.5%). The peak time for revision due to instability was within the first four months of the primary surgery. Multivariate analysis revealed that location, pathology, ASA score, and smoking had no significant impact on the indication for revision surgery, and neither did BMI (P = .042). Non-fusion (P = .007) and radiolucent zones (P = .004), in combination with increased pain (P = .006), were predictors for revision.Our data show that the peak time for early revision of material failure after posterior instrumentation was within the first 4 months of primary surgery. The abnormalities (e.g., radiolucent zones) surrounding the screws without fusion, including persistence of pain, were predictors for revision surgery.

Predictive indicators for revisional surgery in nasal reconstruction after Mohs surgery

BackgroundReconstruction of nasal lesions is complex due to the topography, mobile free margins and borders of anatomical subunits. Reconstructive challenges can lead to multiple revisional surgeries to achieve the final aesthetic result. This study aimed to evaluate risk factors and predictors of revisional surgery in patients undergoing reconstruction after Mohs micrographic surgery for nasal tumours.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study from April 2, 2008 to February 26, 2019. The study population included all consecutive patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery for nasal skin cancer. Resection and reconstruction of nasal skin cancer was performed by the Mohs team.ResultsA total of 988 cases met our study inclusion criteria with 64 (6.5%) cases requiring unplanned surgical revision. Revision rates were highest in the ala (9.0%, p < 0.05) and complex anatomical subunits (16.7%, p < 0.0001). In contrast, revision rates for dorsum lesions were lowest (1.8%, p < 0.001). In terms of reconstructive modalities, local flaps resulted in significantly higher rates of revision when compared to grafts (relative risk, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.15–5.0; p < 0.01). In terms of histological diagnosis, squamous cell carcinoma had significantly higher revision rates when compared to basal cell carcinoma (p < 0.05).ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to report the risk factors and predictors of revision surgery in patients undergoing MMS for nasal tumours. This study highlights that the reconstructive modality utilised affects the functional and cosmetic outcome of MMS. We note that ala complex subunit lesions, squamous cell carcinoma and flap reconstruction were associated with an increased risk of revision after Mohs reconstruction of nasal lesions.Level of evidence: Level III, risk/prognostic; therapeutic study.Trial registration number(Ref: PLA-19-20_A03) 04/02/2020.

What Factors Increase Revision Surgery Risk When Treating Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures With Arthroplasty: A Secondary Analysis of the HEALTH Trial.

HEALTH was a randomized controlled trial comparing total hip arthroplasty with hemiarthroplasty in low-energy displaced femoral neck fracture patients aged ≥50 years with unplanned revision surgery within 24 months of the initial procedure being the primary outcome. No significant short-term differences between treatment arms were observed. The primary objective of this secondary HEALTH trial analysis was to determine if any patient and surgical factors were associated with increased risk of revision surgery within 24 months after hip fracture. We analyzed 9 potential factors chosen a priori that could be associated with revision surgery. The factors included age, body mass index, major comorbidities, independent ambulation, type of surgical approach, length of operation, use of femoral cement, femoral head size, and degree of femoral stem offset. Our statistical analysis was a multivariable Cox regression using reoperation within 24 months of index surgery as the dependent variable. Of the 1441 patients included in this analysis, 8.1% (117/1441) experienced reoperation within 24 months. None of the studied factors were found to be predictors of revision surgery (P > 0.05). Both total and partial hip replacements are successful procedures in low-energy displaced femoral neck fracture patients. We were unable to identify any patient or surgeon-controlled factors that significantly increased the need for revision surgery in our elderly and predominately female patient population. One should not generalize our findings to an active physiologically younger femoral neck fracture population. Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Disease-related expenditures and revision rates in chronic rhinosinusitis patients after endoscopic sinus surgery

Aims: The objective of this study was to quantify the treatment costs and revision surgery rates in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients, with and without nasal polyposis (CRSwNP and CRSsNP), who require treatment with endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The additive contributions of nasal polyposis (NP) and revision surgery to 1-year costs were a primary focus.Materials and methods: Adults (aged 18–64 years) undergoing ESS for CRS in 2012–2015 were identified within the Blue Health Intelligence database and used to estimate revision rates. Patients with ±1 year of enrollment around the index ESS were used to estimate 1-year healthcare expenditures. Revision ESS rates were evaluated via Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models. Disease-related healthcare and pharmacy expenditures were modeled with generalized linear regression to assess the impact of baseline patient characteristics.Results: A total of 86,052 patients underwent ESS for CRS (43.5 ± 12.4 years; 49.3% male), and a sub-set of 23,542 patients were available for 1-year healthcare expenditure analysis (44.0 ± 12.1 years; 50.0% male). Revision ESS rates within 1 year were 3.5% in the CRSwNP cohort and 1.6% in the CRSsNP cohort. NP, deviated septum, gender, and region were statistically significant predictors of revision surgery. Mean 1-year treatment expenditures, including the index ESS, were $8,824 for CRSsNP and $11,166 for CRSwNP patients without revision ESS. CRSwNP doubled the risk of revision surgery in the first year after ESS compared with CRSsNP and cost 24% more in the absence of a second procedure. Revision ESS within the first year increased mean 1-year expenditures by $11,150 and $13,139 for CRSsNP and CRSwNP, respectively.Limitations: The primary limitation was the limited length of follow-up available for estimating revision ESS rates.Conclusions: In a large commercially insured US population, disease-related expenditures for patients having ESS for CRS are substantial, as are the additive impacts of NP and revision surgery.

Graft subsidence as a predictor of revision surgery following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a less invasive surgical option commonly used for a variety of spinal conditions, including in high-risk patient populations. LLIF is often performed as a stand-alone procedure, and may be complicated by graft subsidence, the clinical ramifications of which remain unclear. The aim of this study was to characterize further the sequelae of graft subsidence following stand-alone LLIF. METHODS A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent stand-alone LLIF between July 2008 and June 2015; 297 patients (623 levels) met inclusion criteria. Imaging studies were examined to grade graft subsidence according to Marchi criteria, and compared between those who required revision surgery and those who did not. Additional variables recorded included levels fused, DEXA (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) T-score, body mass index, and routine demographic information. The data were analyzed using the Student t-test, chi-square analysis, and logistic regression analysis to identify potential confounding factors. RESULTS Of 297 patients, 34 (11.4%) had radiographic evidence of subsidence and 18 (6.1%) required revision surgery. The median subsidence grade for patients requiring revision surgery was 2.5, compared with 1 for those who did not. Chi-square analysis revealed a significantly higher incidence of revision surgery in patients with high-grade subsidence compared with those with low-grade subsidence. Seven of 18 patients (38.9%) requiring revision surgery suffered a vertebral body fracture. High-grade subsidence was a significant predictor of the need for revision surgery (p < 0.05; OR 12, 95% CI 1.29-13.6), whereas age, body mass index, T-score, and number of levels fused were not. This relationship remained significant despite adjustment for the other variables (OR 14.4; 95% CI 1.30-15.9). CONCLUSIONS In this series, more than half of the patients who developed graft subsidence following stand-alone LLIF required revision surgery. When evaluating patients for LLIF, supplemental instrumentation should be considered during the index surgery in patients with a significant risk of graft subsidence.

Predictors of Revision Surgery After Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Background:Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery occurs in 5% to 15% of individuals undergoing ACL reconstruction. Identifying predictors for revision ACL surgery is of essence in the pursuit of creating adequate prevention programs and to identify individuals at risk for reinjury and revision.Purpose:To determine predictors of revision ACL surgery after failed primary ACL reconstruction.Study Design:Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A total of 251 participants (mean age ± SD, 26.1 ± 9.9 years) who had undergone primary ACL reconstruction 1 to 5 years earlier completed a comprehensive survey to determine predictors of revision ACL surgery at a mean 3.4 ± 1.3 years after the primary ACL reconstruction. Potential predictors that were assessed included subject characteristics (age at the time of surgery, time from injury to surgery, sex, body mass index, preinjury activity level, return to sport status), details of the initial injury (mechanism; concomitant injury to other ligaments, menisci, and cartilage), surgical details of the primary reconstruction (Lachman and pivot shift tests under anesthesia, graft type, femoral drilling technique, reconstruction technique), and postoperative course (length of rehabilitation, complications). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors that predicted the need for revision ACL surgery.Results:Overall, 21 (8.4%) subjects underwent revision ACL surgery. Univariate analysis showed that younger age at the time of surgery (P = .003), participation in sports at a competitive level (P = .023), and double-bundle ACL reconstruction (P = .024) predicted increased risk of revision ACL surgery. Allograft reconstructions also demonstrated a trend toward greater risk of revision ACL surgery (P = .076). No other variables were significantly associated with revision ACL surgery. Multivariate analysis revealed that revision ACL surgery was only predicted by age at the time of surgery and graft type (autograft vs allograft).Conclusion:The overall revision ACL surgery rate after primary unilateral ACL reconstruction was 8.4%. Univariate predictors of revision ACL reconstruction included younger age at the time of surgery, competitive baseline activity level, and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. However, multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that age and reconstruction performed with allograft were the only independent predictors of revision ACL reconstruction.

Predictors of Revision Surgery in Adult Spinal Deformity and Impact on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction: Two-Year Follow-Up

Predictors of Revision Surgery in Adult Spinal Deformity and Impact on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction: Two-Year Follow-Up