Skip to main content
Download PDF

Obesity and perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing complex revision surgery for the thoracolumbar spine

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 23, Article number: 534 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There are no previous studies that evaluate the effect of obesity on patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery. The primary objective was to determine the relationship between obesity and perioperative adverse events (AEs) with patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery while controlling for psoas muscle index (PMI) as a confounding variable. The secondary objective was to determine the relationship between obesity and 30-day readmission rates, 30-day re-operation rates, rate of discharge to a facility, and post-operative length of stay (LOS).

Methods

Between May 2016 and February 2020, a retrospective analysis of individuals undergoing complex revision surgery of the thoracolumbar spine was performed at a single institution. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2. PMI < 500 mm2/m2 for males and < 412 mm2/m2 for females were used to define low muscle mass. A Spine Surgical Invasiveness Index (SSII) > 10 was used to define complex revision surgery. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to ascertain the effects of low muscle mass, obesity, age, and gender on the likelihood of the occurrence of any AE.

Results

A total of 114 consecutive patients were included in the study. Fifty-four patients were in the obese cohort and 60 patients in the non-obese cohort. There was not a significant difference in perioperative outcomes of both the obese and non-obese patients. There were 22 obese patients (40.7%) and 33 non-obese patients (55.0%) that experienced any AE (p = 0.130).

Multivariable analysis demonstrated that individuals with low muscle mass had a significantly higher likelihood for an AE than individuals with normal or high muscle mass (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.05-18.60). Obesity did not have a significant effect in predicting AEs.

Conclusions

Obesity is not associated with perioperative AEs, 30-day readmission rates, 30-day re-operation rates, rate of discharge to a facility, or post-operative length of stay (LOS) among patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery.

Level of evidence

III

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Currently, over 100 million adults living in the United States are considered obese and overweight [1]. The NIH utilizes body mass index (BMI) as a parameter of categorizing weight status, calculating BMI using body weight in kilograms dived by height in meters squared [2]. Obesity is a chronic disease recognized clinically as having a BMI > 30 in adults and has association with other comorbidities such as Type 2 Diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dyslipidemia [3]. The impact of obesity on spinal surgeries remains unclear, and complications related to obesity have been reported in some studies [4, 5]. Studies by Shamji et al. and Manson et al. found that obesity is associated with increased resources and perioperative transfusion requirements after elective thoracolumbar spine surgery; however, they reported no other associations between obesity and increased adverse events (AEs) [6, 7]. Another study by Yadla et al. investigating outcomes after primary elective thoracolumbar spine surgery found no associates between BMI and increased AEs [8]. Furthermore, a more recent study by Varshneya et al. reported that although obesity may be associated with overall health burdens outside of the perioperative environment, there is no significant relationship attributed between obesity and AEs after primary thoracolumbar deformity surgery [9].

Revision thoracolumbar spine surgeries have been associated with significantly higher perioperative AEs compared with primary surgeries [10,11,12]. An increase in surgical complexity has also been associated with higher perioperative AEs in spine surgery [13]. Therefore, identifying specific prognostic indicators for complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery is important in order to stratify pre-operative risk for these patients. A recent study by Hirase et al. demonstrated that low muscle mass, defined by psoas muscle index (PMI) below 500 mm2/m2 for males and 412 mm2/m2 for females, is predictive of increased perioperative AEs among patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery [14]. However, this study reported a significantly lower BMI among patients with low muscle mass, indicating the presence of a possible confounding factor for predicting perioperative AEs within this patient cohort. Our understanding is that there are no previous studies that evaluate the effect of obesity status on patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery. Thus, the primary purpose of this study was to elucidate the relationship between obesity and perioperative AEs among patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery while controlling for PMI as a confounding variable. The secondary objective was to determine the relationship between obesity and 30-day readmission rates, 30-day re-operation rates, rate of discharge to a facility, and post-operative length of stay (LOS).

Materials and methods

The local institutional review board approved the study procedure on April 13, 2020. Due to the retrospective observational nature of this study, the informed consent was waived.

Study population

Between May 2016 and February 2020, a retrospective analysis was performed at a single institution of patients receiving complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery by three board certified fellowship-trained orthopaedic spine surgeons. The same inclusion and exclusion criteria for the same cohort of patients from our previous publication by Hirase et al. was applied for this study [14]. Any patients age 18 or above undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery were included. Any history of prior surgical intervention of the same vertebral level was defined as revision surgery. A Spine Surgical Invasiveness Index (SSII) > 10 was used to define complex surgery [15]. Patients lacking a pre-operative CT or MRI of the lumbar spine obtained at our facility within 6 months of surgery, poor image quality, pre-operative MRI or CT acquired at any outside facilities, clinical evidence of L1 or L2 nerve root compression, a history of previous surgical treatment to or through the psoas muscle, and coronal deformity greater than 20 degrees were excluded as mentioned in our previous study [14].

Data collection

Electronic medical records were utilized retrospectively to obtain demographic data including age, gender, BMI, American Anesthesiologists’ Society (ASA) class, comorbidities, indication for revision operation, baseline ambulation status, and presence of neurologic deficits. BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2 was used to define obesity. Intraoperative data was acquired which included estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time defined as time of incision to post-operative dressing placement. SSII, a verified method of evaluation and comparison regarding spine surgery complexity was used, with a range of 0-48, which accounts for surgical approaches and the amount of decompressed, fused, and instrumented vertebral levels [15]. In regard to the included surgical population with revision surgeries, only the additional levels of fusion, instrumentation, or decompression were accounted for the SSII calculation as previously stated [14]. Each patients’ primary surgery SSII score was also obtained.

Assessment of low muscle mass

PMI was used to analyze low muscle mass, which was calculated by measuring the total cross-sectional area (CSA) of the bilateral psoas muscles at the L3 vertebral body using the pre-operative T1 weighted MRI or CT normalized to body height [2] (mm2/m2). The total CSA was measured using OsiriX DICOM Viewer software (Version 11.0, Bernex, Switzerland) by manual outlining the bilateral psoas muscles at the first axial cut in the craniocaudal direction in which both transverse processes were visible at the L3 level as previously described [14, 16]. All of the images were obtained at a single institution with the same scanning protocols ensuring identical scanning thickness among all images analyzed. Three separate reviewers performed all measurements to improve interobserver reliability. Each measurement was acquired three times by all reviewers to improve intraobserver reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities, where an ICC above 0.90 signifies excellent agreement, between 0.75 and 0.90 signifies good agreement, between 0.5 and 0.75 signifies moderate agreement, and below 0.5 signifies poor agreement [17]. Each of the mean values obtained by the three reviewers was divided by the square of patient height to calculate the PMI as previously described [14]. To minimize the risk of bias, all reviewers were blinded to their respective measurements as well as to patient demographics and outcomes. Low muscle mass was defined as PMI < 500 mm2/m2 for males and < 412 mm2/m2 for females as previously defined [14].

Outcome measures

Retrospective analysis of electronic medical records was used to review all perioperative outcomes. The primary outcome measures were perioperative AEs which included post-operative anemia that required transfusion, cardiac complication (cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction), sepsis, wound complication (wound dehiscence and deep wound infection), acute kidney injury (AKI), delirium, intra-operative dural tear, pneumonia, urinary tract infection (UTI), urinary retention, epidural hematoma, and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The secondary outcome measures used were 30-day readmission rates, 30-day re-operation rates, in-hospital mortality rates, discharge disposition (home vs facility) and post-operative hospital length of stay (LOS). The number of days from surgery (or the last surgery if staged procedure) to discharge to either home or facility was used to defined postoperative LOS.

Statistical analysis

SPSS statistical software (Version 25.0; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) was utilized to perform data analysis. The Chi-Square or Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze categorical data and continuous data was analyzed using two-tailed student t-test. Continuous variables with non-normal distribution was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Statistical significance was set to p-value < 0.05. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for comparing perioperative outcomes. Post hoc power analysis with a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was performed between obese and non-obese groups to evaluate the power of detecting differences between patients experiencing any perioperative. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine the effects of low muscle mass, obesity, age, and gender on the likelihood of the occurrence of any AE.

Results

In total, there were 166 patients that met the inclusion criteria and 52 were removed based on the exclusion criteria. Final analysis included 114 patients (mean age 60.1 ± 15.4 years, 45 males, 69 females). The overall mean PMI was 495.0 ± 182.9 mm2/m2. Interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities were considered excellent with ICC of 0.908 (95% CI 0.862-0.944) and 0.962 (95% CI 0.928-0.975), respectively. Fifty-four patients were in the obese cohort and 60 patients in the non-obese cohort. The obese patients had a higher BMI and PMI compared to non-obese patients; otherwise, there were no significant differences in baseline demographics, comorbidities, presence of motor/sensory deficits, ambulatory status, indication for reoperation, or SSII between the two groups (Table 1). No significant difference between the perioperative outcomes was found among the obese and non-obese patients including adverse events (Table 2). There were 22 obese patients (40.7%) and 33 non-obese patients (55.0%) that experienced any AE (p = 0.130).

Table 1 Demographics and characteristics of the study population
Full size table
Table 2 Comparison of perioperative outcomes
Full size table

The multivariable logistic regression model was statistically significant, χ2(4) = 28.572, p < .0005. The model explained 29.6% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in any AE and correctly classified 72.8% of cases. The model revealed that individuals with low muscle mass had a significantly higher likelihood for an AE than individuals with a normal or high muscle mass (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.05-18.60). Obesity, age, and gender did not have a significant effect in predicting AEs (Table 3). The post hoc power analysis between the obese and non-obese groups calculated a 95.2% power of detecting differences between patients experiencing any perioperative AEs.

Table 3 Multivariable logistic regression model to assess effects on adverse events (n = 114)
Full size table

Discussion

In this study, the use of BMI as a predictor of perioperative AEs among patients undergoing complex thoracolumbar spine surgery was investigated. The multivariable logistic regression model confirmed that individuals with low muscle mass were at a significantly higher likelihood to experience AE compared to individuals with a normal or high muscle mass; however, there were no associations between BMI and perioperative AEs, 30-day readmission rates, 30-day re-operation rates, rate of discharge to a facility, or post-operative LOS among patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery.

The relationship between obesity and perioperative AEs has been an area of debate over the past decade. Various studies have shown a significantly higher risk of AEs among obese patients after thoracolumbar surgery [15, 18,19,20,21]. The most recent study by Passias et al. determined that obese patients with a prior bariatric surgery had a significantly lower complication rate after thoracolumbar spine surgery compared with obese patients that did not undergo bariatric surgery [21]. Our findings contradict these series of studies as our analysis demonstrated no significant difference in post-operative AEs between obese and non-obese patients. There are likely multiple reasons that our study had different results. First, our study performed a multivariable analysis with low muscle mass, measured by PMI, which demonstrated a significantly higher association with post-operative AEs. None of the prior studies that investigated the association between obesity and AEs included low muscle mass as a potential confounding variable. Second, our patient cohort consisted solely of complex revision cases, which is a particularly unique population with high complication rates at baseline. From our study analysis, it may be speculated that amongst these complex patients, pre-operative low muscle mass, and the associated debility and frailty, is a much better predictor for post-operative complications compared with the risks associated with obesity. This can be speculated as obese patients within our cohort, had a significantly higher mean PMI compared to non-obese patients (p = 0.004, Table 1). Furthermore, studies have shown that although bariatric surgery is effective at lowering the BMI, this procedure may also induce low muscle mass post-operatively [22, 23]. Thus, with the known risks of low muscle mass shown within our study, it may be inadvisable to recommend bariatric surgery to improve BMI prior to undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery.

A particularly important process among patients undergoing complex revision surgeries known to have high perioperative complications is preoperative risk stratification. Our previous study by Hirase et al. identified low muscle mass measured by PMI as a predictor of perioperative AEs among patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery [14]. Our multivariable analysis within this study confirmed these findings and also demonstrated that obesity is not associated with perioperative AEs within this patient population. This combination of findings will specifically assist spine surgeons during pre-operative counseling and evaluation on two fronts. First, pre-operative optimization and overall conditioning to increase PMI among patients with low muscle mass may be beneficial to preventing post-operative AE. Second, obese patients may not benefit from aggressive weight loss prior to these surgeries, particularly, as studies have shown that improper weight loss methods may lead to low muscle mass [24, 25].

Our study has several limitations. Data accuracy is contingent on charting accuracy due to the retrospective nature of the study and may be susceptible to certain selection bias. Our results obtained from a single-center data may not be completely reflective of outcomes from other institutions due to variations in surgical technique or management. Our study also consisted of a relatively small patient cohort that may have led to underpowering to detect certain associations; however, our post hoc power analysis demonstrated that the absence of observed difference is unlikely due to lack of power. Furthermore, there may have been small discrepancies in inter-scan agreement between CT and MRI scans used to obtain the PMI; however, this is a previously established method with studies showing good inter-scan reliability with an ICC of 0.821 [14, 26]. Thus, to increase the power of the study, patients were included if they received either a CT or an MRI pre-operatively. Furthermore, although this study demonstrates that obesity is not a predictor of post-operative AEs within this surgical population, we cannot directly conclude that weight loss will not be beneficial in preventing post-operative AEs. Therefore, further studies that investigate the external validity of this study may be beneficial prior to application in practice.

In spite of the aforementioned limitations, to the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study examining the relationship between obesity and perioperative outcomes among patients receiving complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery. This study will serve to assist spine surgeons with additional information during pre-operative counseling and evaluation regarding risks and benefits associated with low muscle mass and obesity. For patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery, our findings may suggest that the benefits of weight loss among obese patients may not outweigh the risk of inducing low muscle mass prior to the operation.

Conclusions

Obesity is not associated with perioperative AEs, 30-day readmission rates, 30-day re-operation rates, rate of discharge to a facility, or post-operative length of stay (LOS) among patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to departmental patient privacy policy. Due to the complex and unique nature of each patient presented in this work, patients remain vulnerable to identification despite the removal of patient identifying information. However, the database will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AEs:

Adverse events

PMI:

Psoas muscle index

LOS:

Length of stay

BMI:

Body mass index

SSII:

Spine surgical invasiveness index

ASA:

American Anesthesiologists’ Society

EMR:

Electronic medical records

EBL:

Estimated blood loss

CSA:

Cross-sectional area

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

AKI:

Acute kidney injury

UTI:

Urinary tract infection

DVT:

Deep vein thrombosis

OR:

Odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kuczmarski RJ, Johnson CL. Overweight and obesity in the United States: prevalence and trends, 1960-1994. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998;22(1):39–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Semlitsch T, Stigler FL, Jeitler K, Horvath K, Siebenhofer A. Management of overweight and obesity in primary care-A systematic overview of international evidence-based guidelines. Obes Rev. 2019;20(9):1218–30.

  3. Purnell JQ. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Boyce A, Chrousos G, de Herder WW, Dhatariya K, Dungan K, Grossman A, Hershman JM, et al., editors. Definitions, classification, and epidemiology of obesity; 2018. http://www.endotext.org. Accessed Oct 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Park P, Upadhyaya C, Garton HJ, Foley KT. The impact of minimally invasive spine surgery on perioperative complications in overweight or obese patients. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(3):693–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cao J, Kong L, Meng F, Zhang Y, Shen Y. Impact of obesity on lumbar spinal surgery outcomes. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;28:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Manson NA, Green AJ, Abraham EP. Elevated patient body mass index does not negatively affect self-reported outcomes of thoracolumbar surgery: results of a comparative observational study with minimum 1-year follow-up. Global Spine J. 2016;6(2):108–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shamji MF, Parker S, Cook C, Pietrobon R, Brown C, Isaacs RE. Impact of body habitus on perioperative morbidity associated with fusion of the thoracolumbar and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery. 2009;65(3):490–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yadla S, Malone J, Campbell PG, Maltenfort MG, Harrop JS, Sharan AD, et al. Obesity and spine surgery: reassessment based on a prospective evaluation of perioperative complications in elective degenerative thoracolumbar procedures. Spine J. 2010;10(7):581–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Varshneya K, Pangal DJ, Stienen MN, Ho AL, Fatemi P, Medress ZA, et al. Postoperative complication burden, revision risk, and health care use in obese patients undergoing primary adult thoracolumbar deformity surgery. Global Spine J. 2021;11(3):345–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim SS, Michelsen CB. Revision surgery for failed back surgery syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(8):957–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fritsch EW, Heisel J, Rupp S. The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: a report of 182 operative treatments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(5):626–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sansur CA, Smith JS, Coe JD, Glassman SD, Berven SH, Polly DW Jr, et al. Scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality of adult scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(9):E593–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Camino Willhuber G, Elizondo C, Slullitel P. Analysis of postoperative complications in spinal surgery, hospital length of stay, and unplanned readmission: application of Dindo-Clavien classification to spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2019;9(3):279–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hirase T, Haghshenas V, Bratescu R, Dong D, Kuo PH, Rashid A, et al. Sarcopenia predicts perioperative adverse events following complex revision surgery for the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J. 2021;21(6):1001–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marquez-Lara A, Nandyala SV, Sankaranarayanan S, Noureldin M, Singh K. Body mass index as a predictor of complications and mortality after lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(10):798–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moskven E, Bourassa-Moreau E, Charest-Morin R, Flexman A, Street J. The impact of frailty and sarcopenia on postoperative outcomes in adult spine surgery. A systematic review of the literature. Spine J. 2018;18(12):2354–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Knutsson BB, Michaëlsson K, Sandén B. Obesity is associated with inferior results after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a study of 2633 patients from the Swedish spine register. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(5):435–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Buerba RA, Fu MC, Gruskay JA, Long WD 3rd, Grauer JN. Obese class III patients at significantly greater risk of multiple complications after lumbar surgery: an analysis of 10,387 patients in the ACS NSQIP database. Spine J. 2013;14(9):2008–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Christou NV, Sampalis JS, Liberman M, Look D, Auger S, McLean AP, et al. Surgery decreases long-term mortality, morbidity, and health care use in morbidly obese patients. Ann Surg. 2004;240(3):416–23–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Passias PG, Horn SR, Vasquez-Montes D, Shepard N, Segreto FA, Bortz CA, et al. Prior bariatric surgery lowers complication rates following spine surgery in obese patients. Acta Neurochir. 2018;160(12):2459–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pekař M, Pekařová A, Bužga M, Holéczy P, Soltes M. The risk of sarcopenia 24 months after bariatric surgery - assessment by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA): a prospective study. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2020;15(4):583–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Voican CS, Lebrun A, Maitre S, Lainas P, Lamouri K, Njike-Nakseu M, et al. Predictive score of sarcopenia occurrence one year after bariatric surgery in severely obese patients. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0197248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller SL, Wolfe RR. The danger of weight loss in the elderly. J Nutr Health Aging. 2008;12(7):487–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tournadre A, Vial G, Capel F, Soubrier M, Boirie Y. Sarcopenia. Joint Bone Spine. 2019;86(3):309–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Park J, Gil JR, Shin Y, Won SE, Huh J, You MW, et al. Reliable and robust method for abdominal muscle mass quantification using CT/MRI: an explorative study in healthy subjects. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0222042.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Takashi Hirase was supported by a Burroughs Wellcome Fund Physician Scientist Institutional Award to the Texas A&M University Academy of Physician Scientists.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, 6445 Main St Suite 2500, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Takashi Hirase, Varan Haghshenas, Richard Fuld III, David Dong, Darrell S. Hanson, B. Christoph Meyer & Rex A. W. Marco

  2. Texas A&M University Health Science Center College of Medicine, 8447 Riverside Pkwy, Bryan, TX, 77807, USA

    Takashi Hirase & Jeremiah F. Ling

Authors
  1. Takashi Hirase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremiah F. Ling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Varan Haghshenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard Fuld III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Darrell S. Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. B. Christoph Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rex A. W. Marco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design of work and provided final approval of the version to be published. Specific additional individual contribution includes: Takashi Hirase: Interpretation and analysis of data for the work. Drafted the introduction, the overall work outline, and made critical final revisions. Jeremiah Ling: Lead the acquisition of data and drafted the results section. Varan Haghshenas: Drafted a portion of the discussion section and made critical final revisions. Richard Fuld III: Assisted in the acquisition of data and drafted the results section. David Dong: Assisted in the acquisition of data and drafted the results section. Darrell Hanson: Senior surgeon with substantial contribution to design of work and made critical final revisions and approval of the version to be published. B Christoph Meyer: Senior surgeon with substantial contribution to design of work and made critical final revisions and approval of the version to be published. Rex AW Marco: Senior surgeon with substantial contribution to design of work and made critical final revisions and approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takashi Hirase.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from the Houston Methodist Hospital Institutional Review Board on April 13, 2020 (Approval No. PRO00024733). The study was in accordance with guidelines and regulations. The need for Informed Consent was waived by the Houston Methodist Hospital Institutional Review Board Ethics Committee due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Takashi Hirase, Jeremiah Ling, Varan Haghshenas, Richard Fuld III, David Dong, and B Christoph Meyer declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Rex AW Marco has the following disclosures:

DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid presenter or speaker; Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society: Board or committee member; Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker; Synaptive Medical: Paid presenter or speaker.

Darrell S Hanson has the following disclosures:

DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Medtronic Sofamor Danek: Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hirase, T., Ling, J.F., Haghshenas, V. et al. Obesity and perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing complex revision surgery for the thoracolumbar spine. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23, 534 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05505-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05505-4

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us