No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Return-to-Work Rates after Single Level Cervical Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) Compared to Fusion for Radiculopathy in Workers’ Compensation (WC) Setting
Abstract
Study Design
A retrospective comparative cohort study.
Objective
To compare return to work (RTW) rates for patients who underwent single-level cervical fusion for radiculopathy compared with fusion for degenerative disc disease (DDD) as an indication for surgery.
Summary of Background Data
Studies have shown that workers’ compensation subjects have less favorable surgical and functional outcomes compared with the general population. Cervical decompression and fusion have provided great results with relieving radicular symptoms. Fusion for DDD, however, remains controversial.
Methods
We retrospectively collected data of 21 169 subjects with cervical comorbidities who filed their claims for work-related injuries with Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) between 1993 and 2011. The primary outcome was whether subjects met RTW criteria within 3-year follow-up after fusion. The secondary outcome measures and data on presurgical characteristics and secondary outcomes of each cohort were also collected.
Results
Successful RTW status was affected by a number of presurgical risk factors: DDD as an indication for surgery, age of more than 50 years, out of work for more than 6 months, psychological evaluation, opioid use, legal litigation, and permanent disability. The DDD group had lower rate of successful RTW status (50.9%) and was less likely to have a sustained RTW status (odds ratio = 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.48–0.79, P = 0.0001) compared with the radiculopathy group (successful RTW rate 62.9%). RTW rate within 1 year after surgery was lower in the DDD group (39.9%) compared with the radiculopathy group (53.1%; P = 0.0001). DDD patients were absent 112 days more on average after surgery compared with radiculopathy patients ( P = 0.0003).
Conclusion
Cervical fusion for DDD is associated with lower rate of successful RTW status when compared with fusion for radiculopathy in a worker's compensation setting. The decision to include surgical intervention in the management plan of cervical DDD should be approached with caution as the surgical outcome might not necessarily lead to improved postsurgical functionality and achieve sustained early RTW.
Level of Evidence: 4
The optimal timing of lumbar diskectomy in patients with lumbar disk herniation and radiculopathy has not been studied in the workers' compensation (WC) population. A total of 10,592 patients received lost-work compensation from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation for a lumbar disk herniation between 2005 and 2012. The primary outcome was whether subjects return to work (RTW). To determine the impact time to surgery had on RTW status, the authors performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis. They compared other secondary outcomes using chi-square and t tests. The authors identified 1287 WC patients with single-level disk herniation and radiculopathy. Average time from injury to surgery was 364 days (range, 2-2710 days). The WC patients with shorter duration of radiculopathy before diskectomy had higher RTW rates; fewer physical therapy, chiropractic, and psychotherapy sessions; and fewer postoperative diagnoses of psychological illnesses (P<.05). A multivariate logistic regression model showed that time to surgery was an independent, negative predictor of RTW (odds ratio [OR], 0.97 per month; P<.01). Legal representation (OR, 0.56; P<.01), psychological comorbidity (OR, 0.32; P=.01), and mean household income (OR, 1.01 per $1000; P<.01) also significantly affected RTW status. These results confirm that the duration of radiculopathy due to single-level lumbar disk herniation has a predictive value for the WC population undergoing diskectomy. Within 12 weeks of injury, post-diskectomy patients do reasonably well, with 70.0% of subjects returning to work. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(x):xx-xx.].
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.