Impact of Metabolic Syndrome on Early Postoperative Outcomes After Cervical Disk Replacement: A Propensity-matched Analysis.
Journal
Clinical spine surgery
ISSN: 2380-0194
Titre abrégé: Clin Spine Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101675083
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Feb 2024
05 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
01
02
2023
accepted:
29
11
2023
medline:
7
2
2024
pubmed:
7
2
2024
entrez:
7
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Retrospective cohort study. To compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following cervical disk replacement (CDR) among patients with and without metabolic syndrome (MetS). The prevalence of MetS-involving concurrent obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia-has increased in the United States over the last 2 decades. Little is known about the impact of MetS on early postoperative outcomes and complications following CDR. The 2005-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients with and without MetS were divided into 2 cohorts. MetS was defined, according to other National Surgical Quality Improvement Program studies, as concurrent diabetes mellitus, hypertension requiring medication, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, complications, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition were compared using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. One to 2 propensity-matching was performed, matching for demographics, comorbidities, and number of operative levels. A total of 5395 patients were included for unmatched analysis. Two hundred thirty-six had MetS, and 5159 did not. The MetS cohort had greater rates of 30-day readmission (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P=0.023), morbidity (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P=0.032), nonhome discharges (3% vs. 0.6%; P=0.002), and longer hospital stays (1.35±4.04 vs. 1±1.48 days; P=0.029). After propensity-matching, 699 patients were included. All differences reported above lost significance (P>0.05) except for 30-day morbidity (superficial wound infections), which remained higher for the MetS cohort (2.5% vs. 0.4%, P=0.02). We identified MetS as an independent predictor of 30-day morbidity in the form of superficial wound infections following single-level CDR. Although MetS patients experienced greater rates of 30-day readmission, nonhome discharge, and longer lengths of stay, MetS did not independently predict these outcomes after controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics. Level III.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following cervical disk replacement (CDR) among patients with and without metabolic syndrome (MetS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of MetS-involving concurrent obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia-has increased in the United States over the last 2 decades. Little is known about the impact of MetS on early postoperative outcomes and complications following CDR.
METHODS
METHODS
The 2005-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients with and without MetS were divided into 2 cohorts. MetS was defined, according to other National Surgical Quality Improvement Program studies, as concurrent diabetes mellitus, hypertension requiring medication, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, complications, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition were compared using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. One to 2 propensity-matching was performed, matching for demographics, comorbidities, and number of operative levels.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 5395 patients were included for unmatched analysis. Two hundred thirty-six had MetS, and 5159 did not. The MetS cohort had greater rates of 30-day readmission (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P=0.023), morbidity (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P=0.032), nonhome discharges (3% vs. 0.6%; P=0.002), and longer hospital stays (1.35±4.04 vs. 1±1.48 days; P=0.029). After propensity-matching, 699 patients were included. All differences reported above lost significance (P>0.05) except for 30-day morbidity (superficial wound infections), which remained higher for the MetS cohort (2.5% vs. 0.4%, P=0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We identified MetS as an independent predictor of 30-day morbidity in the form of superficial wound infections following single-level CDR. Although MetS patients experienced greater rates of 30-day readmission, nonhome discharge, and longer lengths of stay, MetS did not independently predict these outcomes after controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38321612
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001567
pii: 01933606-990000000-00257
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Seng C, Tow BPB, Siddiqui MA, et al. Surgically treated cervical myelopathy: a functional outcome comparison study between multilevel anterior cervical decompression fusion with instrumentation and posterior laminoplasty. Spine J. 2013;13:723–731.
Liu Z, Yang Y, Lan J, et al. Changes in cervical alignment of Zero-profile device versus conventional cage-plate construct after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg. 2022;17:510.
Zou S, Gao J, Xu B, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J. 2017;26:985–997.
Leven D, Meaike J, Radcliff K, et al. Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10:160–169.
Edwards CC, Heller JG, Murakami H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine. 2002;27:1168–1175.
Bohlman HH, Anderson PA. Anterior decompression and arthrodesis of the cervical spine: long-term motor improvement. Part I—Improvement in incomplete traumatic quadriparesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:671–682.
Bydon M, Mathios D, Macki M, et al. Long-term patient outcomes after posterior cervical foraminotomy: an analysis of 151 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21:727–731.
Wu XD, Wang XW, Yuan W, et al. The effect of multilevel anterior cervical fusion on neck motion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1368–1373.
Reitz H, Joubert MJ. Intractable headache and cervico-brachialgia treated by complete replacement of cervical intervertebral discs with a metal prosthesis. South Afr Med J. 1964;38:881–884.
Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;357:154–159.
Anderson PA, Rouleau JP. Intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Spine. 2004;29:2779–2786.
Zhong ZM, Zhu SY, Zhuang JS, et al. Reoperation after cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop. 2016;474:1307–1316.
Luo J, Huang S, Gong M, et al. Comparison of artificial cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Orthop Traumatol. 2015;25(suppl 1):S115–S125.
Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J. 2009;9:275–286.
Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, et al. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22:15–25.
Isomaa B, Almgren P, Tuomi T, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:683–689.
Lakka HM, Laaksonen DE, Lakka TA, et al. The metabolic syndrome and total and cardiovascular disease mortality in middle-aged men. JAMA. 2002;288:2709–2716.
Hirode G, Wong RJ. Trends in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in the United States, 2011-2016. JAMA. 2020;323:2526–2528.
Teraguchi M, Yoshimura N, Hashizume H, et al. Metabolic syndrome components are associated with intervertebral disc degeneration: the Wakayama Spine Study. PloS One. 2016;11:e0147565.
Memtsoudis SG, Kirksey M, Ma Y, et al. Metabolic syndrome and lumbar spine fusion surgery: epidemiology and perioperative outcomes. Spine. 2012;37:989–995.
Urban JPG, Smith S, Fairbank JCT. Nutrition of the intervertebral disc. Spine. 2004;29:2700–2709.
Urban JPG, Roberts S. Degeneration of the intervertebral disc. Arthritis Res Ther. 2003;5:120–130.
Malik AT, Jain N, Kim J, et al. The impact of metabolic syndrome on 30-day outcomes following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusions. Spine. 2019;44:E282–E287.
Khuri SF. The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery. 2005;138:837–843.
Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg. 1998;228:491–507.
Chooi YC, Ding C, Magkos F. The epidemiology of obesity. Metabolism. 2019;92:6–10.
Gulland A. Global life expectancy increases by five years. BMJ. 2016;353:i2883.
Sørensen TI. The changing lifestyle in the world. Body weight and what else? Diabetes Care. 2000;23(suppl 2):B1–B4.
Lovecchio F, Fu MC, Iyer S, et al. Does obesity explain the effect of the metabolic syndrome on complications following elective lumbar fusion? A propensity score matched analysis. Glob Spine J. 2018;8:683–689.
Passias PG, Brown AE, Lebovic J, et al. Metabolic syndrome has a negative impact on cost utility following spine surgery. World Neurosurg. 2020;135:e500–e504.
Passias P, Brown A, Pierce K, et al. Adult spinal deformity patients with metabolic syndrome have significantly higher costs. Spine J. 2020;20:S182.
Ye IB, Tang R, Schwartz JT, et al. Postoperative complications associated with metabolic syndrome following adult spinal deformity surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:E87–E91.
Guofeng C, Chen Y, Rong W, et al. Patients with metabolic syndrome have a greater rate of complications after arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Jt Res. 2020;9:120–129.
Shariq OA, Hanson KT, McKenna NP, et al. Does metabolic syndrome increase the risk of postoperative complications in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery? Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62:849–858.
Bhayani NH, Hyder O, Frederick W, et al. Effect of metabolic syndrome on perioperative outcomes after liver surgery: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) analysis. Surgery. 2012;152:218–226.
Sarna MJ, Giorgi M, Luhrs AR. Metabolic syndrome as a predictor of perioperative outcomes in primary bariatric surgery, a MBSAQIP survey. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:6122–6128.
Martin ET, Kaye KS, Knott C, et al. Diabetes and risk of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37:88–99.
Ata A, Lee J, Bestle SL, et al. Postoperative hyperglycemia and surgical site infection in general surgery patients. Arch Surg Chic Ill 1960. 2010;145:858–864.
Printen KJ, Paulk SC, Mason EE. Acute postoperative wound complications after gastric surgery for morbid obesity. Am Surg. 1975;41:483–485.
Houdek MT, Griffin AM, Ferguson PC, et al. Morbid obesity increases the risk of postoperative wound complications, infection, and repeat surgical procedures following upper extremity limb salvage surgery for soft tissue sarcoma. Hand NYN. 2019;14:114–120.
Conner SN, Verticchio JC, Tuuli MG, et al. Maternal obesity and risk of postcesarean wound complications. Am J Perinatol. 2014;31:299–304.
Chen JY, Chen YH, Lee YC, et al. The association between white blood cell count and insulin resistance in community-dwelling middle-aged and older populations in Taiwan: a community-based cross-sectional study. Front Med. 2022;9:813222.
Park JM, Lee DC, Lee YJ. Relationship between high white blood cell count and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) in Korean children and adolescents: Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-2010. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis NMCD. 2017;27:456–461.
Dandona P, Aljada A, Bandyopadhyay A. Inflammation: the link between insulin resistance, obesity and diabetes. Trends Immunol. 2004;25:4–7.
Xu H, Barnes GT, Yang Q, et al. Chronic inflammation in fat plays a crucial role in the development of obesity-related insulin resistance. J Clin Invest. 2003;112:1821–1830.
Monteiro R, Azevedo I. Chronic inflammation in obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Mediators Inflamm. 2010;2010:289645.
Monteiro R, de Castro PMST, Calhau C, et al. Adipocyte size and liability to cell death. Obes Surg. 2006;16:804–806.
Winer S, Chan Y, Paltser G, et al. Normalization of obesity-associated insulin resistance through immunotherapy. Nat Med. 2009;15:921–929.
Feuerer M, Herrero L, Cipolletta D, et al. Lean, but not obese, fat is enriched for a unique population of regulatory T cells that affect metabolic parameters. Nat Med. 2009;15:930–939.
Harman-Boehm I, Blüher M, Redel H, et al. Macrophage infiltration into omental versus subcutaneous fat across different populations: effect of regional adiposity and the comorbidities of obesity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:2240–2247.
Famuyiwa OO, Asuni T. A standardized schedule for burden on the family of sickle-cell anaemia sufferers. J Trop Med Hyg. 1991;94:277–282.
Bohl DD, Webb ML, Lukasiewicz AM, et al. Timing of complications after spinal fusion surgery. Spine. 2015;40:1527–1535.
Pepke W, Wantia C, Almansour H, et al. Peak timing for complications after spine surgery. Orthopade. 2020;49:39–58.
Santos AC, Ebrahim S, Barros H. Gender, socio-economic status and metabolic syndrome in middle-aged and old adults. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:62.
Matthews KA, Räikkönen K, Gallo L, et al. Association between socioeconomic status and metabolic syndrome in women: testing the reserve capacity model. Health Psychol. 2008;27:576–583.