Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are Lumbar Spine Reoperation Rates Falling With Greater Use of Fusion Surgery and New Surgical Technology?

Martin, Brook I., Mirza, Sohail K., Comstock, Bryan A., Gray, Darryl T., Kreuter, William, Deyo, Richard A.·2007·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of population-based hospital discharge registry from all nonfederal acute care hospitals in Washington State. OBJECTIVE: We examined the cumulative incidence of second lumbar spine operation following an initial lumbar operation for degenerative conditions. We aimed to determine if the cumulative incidence of a second lumbar spine operation decreased in the 1990s following an increase in the rate of fusion surgery and the introduction of several newer fusion technologies. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Repeat lumbar spine operations are generally undesirable, implying persistent symptoms, progression of degenerative changes, or treatment complications. Improved technology is expected to improve alignment, healing, and instability, and to reduce repeat operations. METHODS: Among the patients who had an inpatient lumbar decompression or lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spine disorders in 1990 to 1993 (n = 24,882) or in 1997 to 2000 (n = 25,209), we examined rates of subsequent lumbar spine surgery during a 4-year follow-up. We performed a Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the probability of a reoperation between the 2 cohorts, adjusting for age, sex, primary diagnosis, type of insurance, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent surgery for lumbar degenerative disease, more than twice as many had a fusion procedure in the 1997 to 2000 cohort (19.1%) compared with the 1990 to 1993 cohort (9.4%). However, the 4-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was higher in the 1997 to 2000 cohort compared with the 1990 to 1993 cohort (14.0% vs. 12.4%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.22, P < 0.001). Among fusion patients, those in the 1997 to 2000 cohort were approximately 40% more likely to undergo a reoperation within the first year when compared with fusion patients in the 1990 to 1993 cohort. There was no difference in reoperation probability beyond 1 year. CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of fusion procedures and the introduction of new spinal implants between 1993 and 1997 did not reduce reoperation rates. Patients who had lumbar surgery for degenerative disease in the late 1990s were more likely to undergo a repeat operation within 4 years than patients who had surgery in the early 1990s.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/brs.0b013e318145a56a

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 162

Metadata

Authors
Martin, B. I., Mirza, S. K., Comstock, B. A., Gray, D. T., Kreuter, W., & Deyo, R. A.
Venue
Spine
Published
2007-09
Volume
32
Issue
19
Pages
2119-2126
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056331423
Cited by
162
References
2
FWCI
5.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are Lumbar Spine Reoperation Rates Falling With Greater Use of Fusion Surgery and New Surgical Technology? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/brs.0b013e318145a56a
The paper
Martin, B. I., Mirza, S. K., Comstock, B. A., Gray, D. T., Kreuter, W., & Deyo, R. A. (2007). Are Lumbar Spine Reoperation Rates Falling With Greater Use of Fusion Surgery and New Surgical Technology? Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e318145a56a

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.