Outcomes following spinal instrumented fusions in patients with parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background Parkinson’s Disease (PD) patients represent challenging spinal surgery candidates due to associated frailty and deformity. This study consolidates the literature concerning spinal surgery outcomes in PD versus non-PD patients, to evaluate if PD predisposes patients to worse post-operative outcomes, so that treatment protocols can be optimised. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar databases per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies of interest included comparative (PD versus non-PD) cohorts undergoing spinal instrumented fusions. Post-operative clinical outcomes were collated and compared for significance between cohorts. Further analysis was made on outcomes based on the different surgical procedures performed (Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), Thoracolumbar or Lumbar fusions, Thoracolumbar or Lumbar fusions without Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression fracture (OVCF) patients). All statistical analysis was performed using The R Project for Statistical Computing (version 4.1.2), with a p-value of < 0.05 deemed statistically significant. Results In total, 2,323,650 patients were included across 16 studies. Of those, 2,308,949 (99.37%) were patients without PD (non-PD), while 14,701 (0.63%) patients had PD at time of surgery. The collective mean age was 68.23 years (PD: 70.14 years vs non-PD: 64.86 years). Comparatively, there were 844,641 males (PD: 4,574; non-PD: 840,067) and 959,908 females (PD: 3,213; non-PD: 956,695). Overall, there were more post-operative complications in the PD cohort. Specifically, PD patients experienced significantly more surgical site infections (p = 0.01), increased rates of revision surgeries (p = 0.04) and increased venous thromboembolic events (p = 0.02) versus the non-PD cohort. In thoracolumbar/lumbar spinal fusions without OVCF patients, the PD cohort had increased rates of revision surgeries (p < 0.01) in comparison to the non-PD cohort. However, when including OVCF patients in thoracolumbar/lumbar spinal fusions, the PD cohort had significantly higher amounts of postoperative complications (p = 0.01), pneumonia (p = 0.02), and revision surgeries (p < 0.01) when compared to the non-PD cohort. Conclusion Although more robust prospective studies are needed, the results of this study highlight the need for advanced wound care management in the postoperative period, both in-hospital and in the community, in addition to comprehensive multidisciplinary care from allied health professionals, with potential for the use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols in PD patients undergoing spinal instrumented fusions.