The impact of anesthesia and surgical provider characteristics on outcomes after spine surgery

The Impact of Neuroanesthesia Fellowship Training and Anesthesiologist-Surgeon Dyad Volume on Patient Outcomes in Adult Spine Surgery: A Population-Based Study

INTRODUCTION

Extensive research has explored the impact of surgeons' characteristics on patient outcomes; however, the influence of anesthesiologists remains understudied. We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study to investigate the impact of anesthesiologists' characteristics on in-hospital morbidity after spine surgery.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent spine surgery at the London Health Science Centre, Ontario, Canada between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2023 were included in this study. Data was extracted from the local administrative database. Five anesthesiologists' characteristics (neuroanesthesia fellowship and residency training backgrounds, surgeon familiarity, annual case volume, and sex) were examined as primary exposures. The primary outcome was composite in-hospital morbidity, encompassing 141 complications. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between anesthesiologists' characteristics and postoperative morbidity with adjustment of patients' sex, Charlson Comorbidities Index, surgical complexity, and surgeon characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 7692 spine surgeries were included in the analysis. Being a neuroanesthesia fellowship-trained anesthesiologist and high anesthesiologist-surgeon annual dyad volume were associated with reduction in in-hospital comorbidity; adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) of 0.58 (0.49-0.69; P<0.001) and 0.93 (0.91-0.95; P<0.001), respectively. Conversely, anesthesiologist annual case volume, characteristics of residency training and anesthesiologist sex showed only nuanced associations with outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuroanesthesia fellowship training and high surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad familiarity was associated with a reduction in in-hospital morbidity following spine surgery. These findings underscore the superiority of structured fellowship education over case exposure experience alone, advocate for dedicated neuroanesthesia teams with high surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad volume and recognize neuroanesthesia as a crucial subspecialty in spine surgery.

High-Volume Centers Provide Superior Value of Care in the Surgical Treatment of Malignant Brain Tumor

BACKGROUND

Improved outcomes in surgical patients have been associated with increasing volume of cases. This has led to the development of centers that facilitate care for a specific patient population. This study aimed to evaluate associations of outcomes with hospital characteristics in patients undergoing resection of malignant brain tumors.

METHODS

The 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample was queried for patients undergoing resection of malignant brain tumors. Teaching hospitals with caseloads >2 standard deviations above the mean (140 cases) were categorized as high-volume centers (HVCs). Value of care was evaluated by adding one point for each of the following: short length of stay, low total charges, favorable discharge disposition, and lack of major comorbidity or complication.

RESULTS

In 3009 hospitals, 118,390 patients underwent resection of malignant brain tumors. HVC criteria were met by 91 (3%) hospitals. HVCs were more likely to treat patients of younger age or higher socioeconomic status (P < 0.01 for all). The Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions had the highest percentage of cases and number of HVCs. Value of care was higher at HVCs (P < 0.01). Care at HVCs was associated with decreased complications (P < 0.01 for all) and improved patient outcomes (P < 0.01 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing craniotomy for malignant brain neoplasms have superior outcomes in HVCs. Trends of centralization may reflect the benefits of multidisciplinary treatment, geographic preferences, publicity, and cultural impact. Improvement of access to care is an important consideration as this trend continues.

Are Clinical or Surgical Outcomes Different Based on Whether the Same Surgeon or Hospital System Performs the Spine Revision?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of discontinuity in care by changing surgeons, health systems, or increased time to revision surgery on revision spine fusion surgical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience worse outcomes than those undergoing primary lumbar surgery. Those requiring complex revisions are often transferred to tertiary or quaternary referral centers under the assumption that those institutions may be more accustomed at performing those procedures. However, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the impact of discontinuity of care in revision spinal fusions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion 2011-2021 were grouped based on (1) revision performed by the index surgeon versus a different surgeon, (2) revision performed within the same versus different hospital system as the index procedure, and (3) length of time from index procedure. Multivariate regression for outcomes controlled for confounding differences.

RESULTS

A total of 776 revision surgeries were included. An increased time interval between the index procedure and the revision surgery was predictive of a lower risk for subsequent revision procedure (odds ratio: 0.57, P =0.022). Revision surgeries performed by the same surgeon predicted a reduced length of hospital stay (β: -0.14, P =0.001). Neither time to revision nor undergoing by the same surgeon or same practice predicted 90-day readmission rates. Patients are less likely to report meaningful improvement in Mental Component Score-12 or Physical Component Score-12 if revision surgery was performed at a different hospital system.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have revision lumbar fusions have similar clinical outcomes regardless of whether their surgeon performed the index procedure. However, continuity of care with the same surgeon may reduce hospital length of stay and associated health care costs. The length of time between primary and revision surgery does not significantly impact patient-reported outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Optimizing Patient Outcomes in Spinal Surgery: An Investigation Into Anesthesiologists' Case Volume

Introduction Nearly one million patients in the United States undergo spine surgical procedures annually to seek relief from chronic back and neck pain. A multidisciplinary approach is key to ensuring the efficiency and safety of the surgical process, with the anesthesia team, nursing, surgeon, and healthcare facilities all playing a role. The purpose of this study is to capture potential associations between the anesthesiologists' case volume and patient postoperative outcomes in the early recovery period. Methods A retrospective review of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), lumbar decompression (LD), and lumbar fusion (LF) patients from July 2019 to June 2023 was performed. Anesthesiologists were categorized into low, medium, and high volumes of spine surgical cases. Univariate analysis was performed on patient demographics, intraoperative measures, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) measures, and postoperative measures by anesthesiologist volume. Results This study included 545 ACDF, 815 LD, and 1,144 LF patients. There were no differences between groups in ACDF patients by anesthesiologist volume. When examining patients undergoing LD, there was a difference in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of three or greater (low volume: 41.7% vs. medium volume: 53.7% vs. high volume: 45.0%; p=0.029). When examining patients undergoing LF, there were differences in patients with low temperatures in PACU (low volume: 2.8% vs. medium volume: 7.3% vs. high volume: 4.2%; p=0.044) and the percentage of patients with a 90-day emergency department return (low volume: 7.7% vs. medium volume: 11.9% vs. high volume: 7.0%; p=0.024). Conclusion While this study found a minimal impact of anesthesiologist volume on postoperative outcomes, recent literature has emphasized the critical role of teamwork and specialized surgical teams to enhance efficiency and patient care. Further studies are warranted to identify other variables in anesthesia, nursing, and surgical team workflow that may impact postoperative outcomes in spinal surgeries.

Increased Surgeon-specific Experience and Volume is Correlated With Improved Clinical Outcomes in Lumbar Fusion Patients

STUDY DESIGN

The present study design was that of a single center, retrospective cohort study to evaluate the influence of surgeon-specific factors on patient functional outcomes at 6 months following lumbar fusion. Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis identified the present study population.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to evaluate surgeon-specific variable effects on patient-reported outcomes such as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the effect of North American Spine Society (NASS) concordance on outcomes in the setting of variable surgeon characteristics.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar fusion is one of the fastest growing procedures performed in the United States. Although the impact of surgeon-specific factors on patient-reported outcomes has been contested, studies examining these effects are limited.

METHODS

This is a single center, retrospective cohort study analyzing a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis by 1 of 5 neurosurgery fellowship trained spine surgeons. The primary outcome was improvement of ODI at 6 months postoperative follow-up compared with preoperative ODI.

RESULTS

A total of 307 patients were identified for analysis. Overall, 62% of the study population achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI score at 6 months. Years in practice and volume of lumbar fusions were statistically significant independent predictors of MCID ODI on multivariable logistic regression ( P =0.0340 and P =0.0343, respectively). Concordance with evidence-based criteria conferred a 3.16 (95% CI: 1.03, 9.65) times greater odds of achieving MCID.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that traditional surgeon-specific variables predicting surgical morbidity such as experience and procedural volume are also predictors of achieving MCID 6 months postoperatively from lumbar fusion. Independent of surgeon factors, however, adhering to evidence-based guidelines can lead to improved outcomes.

Impact of Surgeon Experience on Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between surgeon experience and cervical fusion outcomes has yet to be assessed. We investigate perioperative characteristics, patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) by the volume of cases done throughout an orthopaedic spine surgeon's career.

METHODS

ACDF procedures between 2005 and 2020 were identified. Group I included the first half of ACDF cases (#1-#321). PROMs were introduced in the second half of the ACDF cases; thus, the next 322 cases were subdivided to compare PROM and MCID between subgroups (cases #322 to #483 = group II and #484 to #645 = group III). PROMs, including VAS back/leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-12 Physical Composite Score, and PROMIS-PF, were collected preoperatively/postoperatively. Demographics, perioperative variables, mean PROMs, and MCID achievement were compared between groups and subgroups using the Student t-test and chi-square. Logistic regression evaluated MCID achievement using the established threshold values.

RESULTS

A total of 642 patients were included (320 in group I, 161 in group II, and 161 in group III). The latter cases had significantly decreased surgical time, blood loss, and postoperative length of stay in comparison of groups and subgroups (P ≤ 0.002, all). CT-confirmed 1-year arthrodesis rates were increased among the latter cases (P = 0.045). Group II had significantly higher arthrodesis rates than group III (P = 0.039). The postoperative complication rates were lower in the latter cases (P < 0.001, all), whereas subgroup analysis revealed lower incidence of urinary retention and other complications in group III (P ≤ 0.031, all). Mean PROMs were significantly inferior in group II versus group III for VAS neck at 6 months (P = 0.030), Neck Disability Index at 6 months preoperatively (P ≤ 0.022, both), Short Form-12 Physical Composite Score at 12 weeks/2 years (P ≤ 0.047, both), and PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks/6 months (P ≤ 0.036, both). The MCID attainment rates were higher among group III for VAS neck/Neck Disability Index at 2 years (P ≤ 0.005) and overall achievement across all PROMs (P ≤ 0.015, all).

DISCUSSION

Increased ACDF case volume may lead to markedly decreased surgical time, blood loss, and length of postoperative stay as well as improved clinical outcomes in pain, disability, and physical function.

[Safer anesthesia and duty hour limits: are handovers of personnel allowed?]

Restrictions of duty hours in medicine are an ambivalent matter with respect to patient safety. Continuity of treatment carries the risk of medical errors from declining performance capability and must be balanced against the risk of communication failure and information loss due to personnel changes. Complete intraoperative changes of anesthetists are frequently carried out in the clinical routine but possibly have the potential to negatively influence the postoperative morbidity and mortality. The relevance of anesthesiological care for the perioperative outcome also seems to vary depending on the specialist discipline involved. While standardized handover protocols seem to be only of limited effectiveness for the improvement of transfer of information, they are nevertheless a reasonable approach for optimization of interprofessional communication and reduction of treatment errors.