European Geriatric Medicine

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 79–88 | Cite as

Is elective degenerative lumbar spine surgery in older adults safe in a short-stay clinic? Data from an institutional registry

  • Alessandro Siccoli
  • Victor E. StaartjesEmail author
  • Marlies P. de Wispelaere
  • Marc L. Schröder
Research Paper



Physicians are increasingly confronted with degenerative spinal pathologies and the possibility of elective surgical treatment in older adults. Little is known on safety and effectiveness of short-stay, elective lumbar spine surgery in this population. We aim to describe patient profiles of older adults undergoing surgery at a specialized short-stay clinic, and describe associated risk profiles and outcomes.


From a prospective registry, patients older than 65 were compared to younger controls. All patients underwent a strict anesthesiologic screening preoperatively, leading to a carefully selected cohort of relatively robust older adults suited for safe treatment at a short-stay clinic. A range of perioperative data and reoperations were available from all patients, and a subgroup of patients completed outcome assessments for disability, pain, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).


Of the 3279 included patients, 382 (12%) were older than 65. Older patients presented more often with spinal stenosis, and index levels were placed higher (p < 0.001). While there was no difference in complications, reoperations, and blood loss (p > 0.05), older people had longer surgical times and length of stay, although not by a clinically relevant margin (p < 0.001). Long-term patient-reported outcomes were equal (p > 0.05). However, older adults had worse 6-week outcomes for leg pain, functional disability, and HRQOL (all p < 0.05).


Higher age should not be considered a contraindication for elective lumbar spine surgery at short-stay clinics. If the anesthesiologic risk can be controlled, conservative treatments have failed, and muscle-sparing techniques are applied, favorable outcomes can be achieved with an acceptable risk profile in a safe manner.


Short-stay Elective Outpatient Age Geriatric Degenerative 



We cordially thank Femke Beusekamp, BSc, Johan Miedema, MSc, and Nathalie Schouman for their assistance in data collection.


This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Medical Research Ethics Committees United, Registration Number: W16.065) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

41999_2018_132_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)


  1. 1.
    Kontis V, Bennett JE, Mathers CD, Li G, Foreman K, Ezzati M (2017) Future life expectancy in 35 industrialised countries: projections with a Bayesian model ensemble. Lancet 389:1323–1335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray CJL, Barber RM, Foreman KJ, Abbasoglu Ozgoren A, Abd-Allah F, Abera SF et al (2015) Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990–2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition. Lancet Lond. Engl. 386:2145–2191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cloyd JM, Acosta FL, Ames CP (2008) Complications and outcomes of lumbar spine surgery in elderly people: a review of the literature. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:1318–1327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shabat S, Folman Y, Leitner Y, Fredman B, Gepstein R (2007) Failure of conservative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 44:235–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shamji MF, Goldstein CL, Wang M, Uribe JS, Fehlings MG (2015) Minimally invasive spinal surgery in the elderly does it make sense? Neurosurgery 77:S108–S115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Best NM, Sasso RC (2007) Outpatient lumbar spine decompression in 233 patients 65 years of age or older. Spine 32:1135–1139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mazmudar A, Minhas S, Mayo BC, Massel DH, Patel A (2016) Outcomes and safety of outpatient spinal surgery in adult patients older than 65: contemp. Spine Surg 17:1–5. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staartjes VE, Schröder ML (2018) Effectiveness of a decision-making protocol for the surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 110:e355–e361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Staartjes VE, Vergroesen P-PA, Zeilstra DJ, Schröder ML (2017) Identifying subsets of patients with single-level degenerative disc disease for lumbar fusion: the value of prognostic tests in surgical decision making. Spine J 18(4):558–566. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Staartjes VE, de Wispelaere MP, Miedema J, Schröder ML (2017) Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after tubular microdiscectomy: analysis of learning curve progression. World Neurosurg 107:28–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zeilstra DJ, Staartjes VE, Schröder ML (2017) Minimally invasive transaxial lumbosacral interbody fusion: a ten year single-centre experience. Int Orthop 41:113–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shabat S, Leitner Y, Nyska M, Berner Y, Fredman B, Gepstein R (2002) Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in patients aged 65 years and older. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 35:143–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Slot KM, Peters JVM, Vandertop WP, Verbaan D, Peerdeman SM (2018) Meningioma surgery in younger and older adults: patient profile and surgical outcomes. Eur Geriatr Med 9:95–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) STROBE initiative: strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335:806–808. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saklad M (1941) Grading of patients for surgical procedures. J Am Soc Anesthesiol 2:281–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen BR, Abdulla J, Andersen HE, Schwarz P, Suetta C (2018) Sarcopenia and osteoporosis in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Geriatr Med 9:419–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Hooff ML, Spruit M, Fairbank JCT, van Limbeek J, Jacobs WCH (2015) The Oswestry disability index (version 2.1a): validation of a Dutch language version. Spine 40:E83–E90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schröder ML, de Wispelaere MP, Staartjes VE (2018) Are patient-reported outcome measures biased by method of follow-up? Evaluating paper-based and digital follow-up after lumbar fusion surgery. Spine J. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ostelo RWJG, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 33:90–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bovonratwet P, Ottesen TD, Gala RJ, Rubio DR, Ondeck NT, McLynn RP, Grauer JN (2017) Outpatient elective posterior lumbar fusions appear to be safely considered for appropriately selected patients. Spine J 0 18:1188–1196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR, Glassman SD, Johnson JR (2003) Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85:2089–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cloyd JM, Acosta FL, Cloyd C, Ames CP (2010) Effects of age on perioperative complications of extensive multilevel thoracolumbar spinal fusion surgery. J Neurosurg. Spine 12:402–408. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Cheh G, Stobbs G, Bridwell KH (2007) Adult spinal deformity surgery: complications and outcomes in patients over age 60. Spine 32:2238–2244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang MY, Widi G, Levi AD (2015) The safety profile of lumbar spinal surgery in elderly patients 85 years and older. Neurosurg Focus 39:E3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cassinelli EH, Eubanks J, Vogt M, Furey C, Yoo J, Bohlman HH (2007) Risk factors for the development of perioperative complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression and arthrodesis for spinal stenosis: an analysis of 166 patients. Spine 32:230–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jönsson B, Strömqvist B (1994) Lumbar spine surgery in the elderly. complications and surgical results. Spine 19:1431–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kilinçer C, Steinmetz MP, Sohn MJ, Benzel EC, Bingaman W (2005) Effects of age on the perioperative characteristics and short-term outcome of posterior lumbar fusion surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 3:34–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sanderson PL, Wood PL (1993) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in old people. Bone Jt J 75-B:393–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang X, Hu Y, Zhao B, Su Y (2017) Predictive validity of the ACS–NSQIP surgical risk calculator in geriatric patients undergoing lumbar surgery. Med (Baltim) 96:e8416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pinto M, Morgan R, Lonstein JE, Lam GJ, Wroblewski J (2006) Major surgical complications in spine surgery: is age a significant risk factor? J Bone Jt Surg Br 88-B:447. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG (2010) Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 303:1259–1265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Klein JD, Hey LA, Yu CS, Klein BB, Coufal FJ, Young EP, Marshall LF, Garfin SR (1996) Perioperative nutrition and postoperative complications in patients undergoing spinal surgery. Spine 21:2676–2682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Arinzon ZH, Fredman B, Zohar E, Shabat S, Feldman JS, Jedeikin R, Gepstein RJ (2003) Surgical management of spinal stenosis: a comparison of immediate and long term outcome in two geriatric patient populations. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 36:273–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brinjikji W, Luetmer PH, Comstock B, Bresnahan BW, Chen LE, Deyo RA, Halabi S, Turner JA, Avins AL, James K, Wald JT, Kallmes DF, Jarvik JG (2015) Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:811–816. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lama P, Le Maitre CL, Dolan P, Tarlton JF, Harding IJ, Adams MA (2013) Do intervertebral discs degenerate before they herniate, or after? Bone Jt J 95-B:1127–1133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dammers R, Koehler PJ (2002) Lumbar disc herniation: level increases with age. Surg Neurol 58:209–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Skaf GS, Ayoub CM, Domloj NT, Turbay MJ, El-Zein C, Hourani MH (2011) Effect of age and lordotic angle on the level of lumbar disc herniation. Adv Orthop 2011:950576. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Taylor TKF, Melrose J, Burkhardt D, Ghosh P, Claes LE, Kettler A, Wilke H (2000) Spinal biomechanics and aging are major determinants of the proteoglycan metabolism of intervertebral disc cells. Spine 25:3014–3020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee SH, Park SW, Kim YB, Nam TK, Lee YS (2017) The fatty degeneration of lumbar paraspinal muscles on computed tomography scan according to age and disc level. Spine J 17:81–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Glassman SD, Polly DW, Bono CM, Burkus K, Dimar JR (2009) Outcome of lumbar arthrodesis in patients 65 years of age or older. J Bone Jt Surg 91:783–790. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Dimar JR, Campbell MJ, Puno RM, Johnson JR (2007) Clinical outcomes in older patients after posterolateral lumbar fusion. Spine J 7:547–551. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nie H, Hao J, Peng C, Ou Y, Quan Z, An H (2013) Clinical outcomes of discectomy in octogenarian patients with lumbar disc herniation. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:74–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Galiano K, Obwegeser AA, Gabl MV, Bauer R, Twerdy K (2005) Long-term outcome of laminectomy for spinal stenosis in octogenarians. Spine 30:332–335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Okuda S, Oda T, Miyauchi A, Haku T, Yamamoto T, Iwasaki M (2006) Surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg 88:2714–2720. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Goldstein CL, Phillips FM, Rampersaud YR (2016) Comparative effectiveness and economic evaluations of open versus minimally invasive posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Spine 41(Suppl 8):S74–S89. Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Højmark K, Støttrup C, Carreon L, Andersen MO (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures unbiased by loss of follow-up. Single-center study based on DaneSpine, the Danish spine surgery registry. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 25:282–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Geriatric Medicine Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryBergman ClinicsAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Clinical InformaticsBergman ClinicsNaardenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations