LAUSR

BACKGROUND Risk factors for surgical revision remain important because of additional readmission, anesthesia, and morbidity for the patient and significant cost for health care systems. Although the rate of reoperation (RRO) is well described for traditional open posterior (OP) approaches, the RRO in minimally invasive lateral (MIL) surgery remains poorly characterized. This study compares the RRO in patients undergoing decompressive lumbar spine surgery via MIL versus OP approaches. METHODS Patient demographics and comorbidities were retrospectively collected for 2060 patients undergoing single-stage elective lumbar spinal surgery at multiple institutions. A subset of 1484 patients had long-term data (long-term cohort [LT cohort]). The RRO was compared between approaches through univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS There were 1292 patients (62.7%) who underwent lateral access surgery, whereas 768 patients (37.3%) underwent OP surgery. The MIL cohort was significantly older, had a higher proportion of men, and had more comorbidities than the OP cohort. In the LT cohort, lateral patients were significantly older and had more comorbidities, with a lower body mass index and a lower proportion of men and smokers. Surgical complications between the groups trended to be similar. The MIL cohort had a significantly lower RRO at both 30 days (approximately 57% lower, MIL cohort: 1.01% vs. OP cohort: 2.36%, P = 0.02) and 2 years (approximately 61% lower, MIL cohort: 2.09% vs. OP cohort: 5.37%, P < 0.01) after surgery. On multivariate analysis, surgical approach was the only significant predictor for the RRO at both 30 days (open posterior approach odds ratio [OR], 4.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-15.09; P = 0.02) and 2 years (open posterior approach OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.26-8.42; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS This study shows that MIL surgical approaches, compared with OP approaches, have a significantly lower RRO after lumbar spine surgery.