Is Blood Loss Greater in Elderly Patients under Antiplatelet or Anticoagulant Medication for Cervical Spine Injury Surgery? A Japanese Multicenter Survey

The safety of perioperative antiplatelet continuation without selection biases in microsurgical decompression surgery for single level lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar disc herniotomy

PURPOSE

Each institution or physician has to decide on an individual basis whether to continue or discontinue antiplatelet (AP) therapy before spinal surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine if perioperative AP continuation is safe during single-level microsurgical decompression (MSD) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and lumbar disc hernia (LDH) without selection bias.

METHODS

Patients who underwent single-level MSD for LSS and LDH between April 2018 to December 2022 at our institute were included in this retrospective study. We collected data regarding baseline characteristics, medical history/comorbidities, epidural hematoma (EDH) volume, reoperation for EDH, differences between preoperative and one-day postoperative blood cell counts (ΔRBC), hemoglobin (ΔHGB), and hematocrits (ΔHCT), and perioperative thromboembolic complications. Patients were divided into two groups: the AP continuation group received AP treatment before surgery and the control group did not receive antiplatelet medication before surgery. Propensity scores for receiving AP agents were calculated, with one-to-one matching of estimated propensity scores to adjust for patient baseline characteristics and past histories. Reoperation for EDH, EDH volume, ΔRBC, ΔHGB, ΔHCT, and perioperative thromboembolic complications were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The 303 enrolled patients included 41 patients in the AP continuation group. After propensity score matching, the rate of reoperation for EDH, the EDH volume, ΔRBC, ΔHGB, ΔHCT, and perioperative thromboembolic complication rates were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative AP continuation is safe for single-level lumbar MSD, even without biases.

Safety of Continuing Aspirin Use in Cervical Laminoplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Introduction

Aspirin is commonly used for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke. Controversy exists concerning whether and when is the optimal time to stop aspirin before spinal surgery. Previous studies on this topic mainly focused on patients who received thoracolumbar spine surgeries. There are only a few literatures concerning the safety of aspirin use in cervical spine surgery patients.

Methods

This pilot study recruited patients who received cervical laminoplasty from January 2010 to December 2021. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications of the patients who had taken aspirin during the perioperative period were compared with age, sex, and comorbidity-matched control patients. Propensity score matching was utilized in the selection of control to minimize bias.

Results

Twenty-one patients who have received cervical laminoplasty while taking aspirin during the perioperative period were included. The control group included 21 age, sex, and comorbidity-matched patients who have not taken aspirin. The operation time and intraoperative and postoperative blood loss were higher in patients taking aspirin but were not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in the wound infection rate. No case of epidural hematoma was found.

Conclusions

In patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty, a continuation of aspirin is safe and does not increase the difficulty of the surgery, wound complication, or hemorrhage.

Factors Affecting the Waiting Time from Injury to Surgery in Elderly Patients with a Cervical Spine Injury: A Japanese Multicenter Survey

OBJECTIVE

The management of cervical spine injuries in the elderly is often complicated by the presence of multiple medical comorbidities, and it is not uncommon for preoperative testing to reveal other conditions that require the postponement of surgery. However, the factors that affect the waiting time from injury to surgery have not been clarified. The purpose of this multicenter database study was to analyze the clinical features and identify the factors affecting the number of days waited between injury and surgery in elderly patients with a cervical spine injury.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the case histories of 1512 Japanese patients with a cervical spinal injury, who were seen at 33 institutions. After excluding patients who were not initially receiving a surgery for cervical spinal injury, 694 patients were ultimately analyzed. Based on a multivariate mixed model, we determined the factors related to the number of days from injury to surgery.

RESULTS

The mean time from injury to surgery was 12.3 days. Multivariate analysis revealed delays of 10.7 days for a renal disorder, 7.3 days for anticoagulant use, and 15.2 days for non-surgical thoracolumbar fracture as factors prolonging wait time. In contrast, a C3 or lower spine injury was significantly associated with a shortening of 9.5 days to surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter database study identified several factors influencing the time between injury and cervical spine surgery in elderly patients. While renal impairment, anticoagulant use, and non-surgical thoracolumbar fracture may increase the number of days to surgery, trauma to C3 or lower may expedite surgical treatment.