Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025
Author Spotlight: Scope of LE-ULBD as a Safe, Effective, and Minimally Invasive Approach to Treat Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Published on: February 9, 2024
Patient acceptance of reoperation risk for lumbar decompression versus fusion
Alexa K Pius1, Yemisi D Joseph2, Danielle M Mullis2
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Background Context:
Lumbar decompression and lumbar fusion are effective methods of treating spinal compressive pathologies refractory to conservative management. These surgeries are typically used to treat different spinal problems, but there is a growing body of literature investigating the outcomes of either approach for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis. Different operations are associated with different risks and different potential needs for reoperation. Patient acceptance of reoperation rates after spinal surgery is currently not well understood.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to identify patient tolerance for reoperation rates following lumbar decompression and lumbar fusion surgery.
Design:
A qualitative and quantitative survey intended to capture information on patient preferences was administered.
Patient Sample:
Written informed consent was obtained from patients presenting to 2 spinal clinics.
Outcome Measures:
Patients were asked their threshold tolerance for reoperation rates in the context of choosing a smaller (decompression) versus larger (fusion) spinal surgery.
Methods:
A survey was administered to patients at 2 spinal clinics-1 surgical and 1 nonsurgical. A consecutive series of new patients over multiple clinic days who agreed to participate in the study and filled out the survey are reported on here. Patients were asked to assess, contemplating a problem that could either be treated with lumbar decompression or lumbar fusion, the level at which 1) the likelihood that needing a repeat surgery within 3 to 5 years would change their mind about choosing the decompression operation and cause them to choose the fusion operation and then 2) the likelihood of needing a repeat surgery within 3 to 5 years that would be acceptable to them after the fusion operation. The distribution of patient responses was assessed with histograms and descriptive statistics.
Results:
Ninety patients were surveyed, and of these, 73 patients (81.1%) returned fully completed questionnaires. The median reoperation acceptance rates after a decompression was <60%, while the median acceptable revision rate when contemplating the fusion surgery was 10%.
Conclusions:
Patient acceptance for the potential need for revision surgery is higher when considering a decompression compared to a fusion operation. Reoperation risk rates along with the magnitude of the surgical intervention are important considerations in determining patients' surgical preferences. Understanding patient preferences and risk tolerances can aid clinicians in shared decision-making, potentially improving patient satisfaction and outcomes in the several lumbar pathologies which can be ameliorated with either decompression or fusion.
