Early outcomes and safety of outpatient (surgery center) vs inpatient based L5-S1 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Comparison of the Safety of Inpatient Versus Outpatient Lumbar Fusion : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to synthesize the early data regarding and analyze the safety profile of outpatient lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Performing lumbar fusion in an outpatient or ambulatory setting is becoming an increasingly employed strategy to provide effective value-based care. As this is an emerging option for surgeons to employ in their practices, the data is still in its infancy.

METHODS

This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that described outcomes of inpatient and outpatient lumbar fusion cohorts were searched from PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, and Embase. Rates of individual medical and surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation were collected when applicable. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were additionally collected if reported. Individual pooled comparative meta-analysis was performed for outcomes of medical complications, surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation. PROMs were reviewed and qualitatively reported.

RESULTS

The search yielded 14 publications that compared outpatient and inpatient cohorts with a total of 75,627 patients. Odds of readmission demonstrated no significant difference between outpatient and inpatient cohorts [OR=0.94 (0.81-1.11)]. Revision surgery similarly was no different between the cohorts [OR=0.81 (0.57-1.15)]. Pooled medical and surgical complications demonstrated significantly decreased odds for outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts [OR=0.58 (0.34-0.50), OR=0.41 (0.50-0.68), respectively]. PROM measures were largely the same between the cohorts when reported, with few studies showing better ODI and VAS Leg outcomes among outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary data regarding the safety of outpatient lumbar fusion demonstrates a favorable safety profile in appropriately selected patients, with PROMs remaining comparable in this setting. There is no data in the form of prospective and randomized trials which is necessary to definitively change practice.

The Safety and Efficacy of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions in the Outpatient Setting

Introduction Outpatient surgical procedures have shown reduced costs, improved patient outcomes, and decreased postoperative complications. Interest in moving orthopedic and neurosurgical spine procedures to the outpatient setting has grown in recent years because of these factors. Studies investigating open posterior lumbar interbody fusions (PLIFs) in the outpatient setting are sparse. Methods The patients who underwent an open PLIF with pedicle screw and rod construct from 2014 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Outpatient procedures were defined by patient discharge being on the same day of the procedure, without admittance to an inpatient ward. Pertinent demographic, clinical, radiographic, and surgical data were collected and analyzed. Results The current study included 36 outpatient PLIF cases with 94.4% of the study cohort undergoing a single-level PLIF. The average Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score improved by 20.4 points from preoperative measurements (p = 0.0002), and the visual analog scale (VAS) score improved by 27.2 points (p = 0.0001). The postoperative fusion rate was 94.4%. One intraoperative complication occurred (2.78%), and four postoperative complications occurred (11.11%). There were no subsequent admissions throughout the postoperative follow-up period; however, two of the 36 patients (5.56%) did require reoperation, both in an outpatient setting. Conclusions This study demonstrates that open posterior lumbar interbody fusions performed in an outpatient setting can be performed safely and effectively, with a significant reduction in VAS and ODI pain scores.

Assessing the Precision of Surgery Duration Estimation: A Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives

The operating room (OR) is considered the highest source of cost and earnings. Therefore, measuring OR efficiency, which means how time and resources are allocated precisely for their intended purposes in the operating room is crucial. Both overestimation and underestimation negatively impact OR efficiency Therefore, hospitals defined metrics to Measuring OR Effeciency. Many studies have discussed OR efficiency and how surgery scheduling accuracy plays a vital role in increasing OR efficiency. This study aims to evaluate OR efficiency using surgery duration accuracy.

Methods

This retrospective, quantitative study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City. We extracted data on 97,397 surgeries from 2017 to 2021 from the OR database. The accuracy of surgery duration was identified by calculating the duration of each surgery in minutes by subtracting the time of leaving the OR from the time of entering the OR. Based on the scheduled duration, the calculated durations were categorized as either underestimation or overestimation. Descriptive and bivariate analyses (Chi-square test) were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

Results

Sixty percent out of the 97,397 surgeries performed were overestimated compared to the time scheduled by the surgeons. Patient characteristics, surgical division, and anesthesia type showed statistically significant differences (p <0.05) in their OR estimation.

Conclusion

Significant proportion of procedures have overestimated. This finding provides insight into the need for improvement.

Recommendations

It is recommended to enhance the surgical scheduling method using machine learning (ML) models to include patient characteristics, department, anesthesia type, and even the performing surgeon increases the accuracy of duration estimation. Then, evaluate the performance of an ML model in future studies.

Risk stratification of patients undergoing outpatient lumbar decompression surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Reimbursement has slowly transitioned from a fee-for-service model to a bundled payment model after introduction of the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services bundled payment program. To minimize healthcare costs, some surgeons are trying to minimize healthcare expenditures by transitioning appropriately selected lumbar decompression patients to outpatient procedure centers.

PURPOSE

To prepare a risk stratification calculator based on machine learning algorithms to improve surgeon's preoperative predictive capability of determining whether a patient undergoing lumbar decompression will meet inpatient vs. outpatient criteria. Inpatient criteria was defined as any overnight hospital stay.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective single-institution cohort.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 1656 patients undergoing primary lumbar decompression.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Postoperative outcomes analyzed for inclusion into the risk calculator included length of stay.

METHODS

Patients were split 80-20 into a training model and a predictive model. This resulted in 1,325 patients in the training model and 331 into the predictive model. A logistic regression analysis ensured proper variable inclusion into the model. C-statistics were used to understand model effectiveness. An odds ratio and nomogram were created once the optimal model was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 1,656 patients were included in our cohort with 1,078 dischared on day of surgery and 578 patients spending ≥ 1 midnight in the hospital. Our model determined older patients (OR=1.06, p<.001) with a higher BMI (OR=1.04, p<0.001), higher back pain (OR=1.06, p=.019), increasing American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (OR=1.39, p=.012), and patients with more levels decompressed (OR=3.66, p<0.001) all had increased risks of staying overnight. Patients who were female (OR=0.59, p=.009) and those with private insurance (OR=0.64, p=.023) were less likely to be admitted overnight. Further, weighted scores based on training data were then created and patients with a cumulative score over 118 points had a 82.9% likelihood of overnight. Analysis of the 331 patients in the test data demonstrated using a cut-off of 118 points accurately predicted 64.8% of patients meeting inpatient criteria compared to 23.0% meeting outpatient criteria (p<0.001). Area under the curve analysis showed a score greater than 118 predicted admission 81.4% of the time. The algorithm was incorporated into an open access digital application available here: https://rothmanstatisticscalculators.shinyapps.io/Inpatient_Calculator/?_ga=2.171493472.1789252330.1671633274-469992803.1671633274 CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing machine-learning algorithms we created a highly reliable predictive calculator to determine if patients undergoing outpatient lumbar decompression would require admission. Patients who were younger, had lower BMI, lower preoperative back pain, lower ASA score, less levels decompressed, private insurance, lived with someone at home, and with minimal comorbidities were ideal candidates for outpatient surgery.

Outpatient Surgery for Rib Fracture Fixation: A Report of Three Cases

Rib fractures are common injuries observed in trauma patients that will often heal without operative intervention. However, patients can infrequently have continued pain. Operative fixation of these symptomatic rib fractures has traditionally led to the patient requiring hospital admission for observation and pain control. The purpose of this study was to review three cases of outpatient rib fracture, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery. Three patients with symptomatic rib fractures treated with ORIF at a single urban level one trauma center underwent outpatient same-day surgery. Pertinent demographic, clinical, radiographic, and surgical data were collected. All patients had decreased preoperative pain and no complications. This case series demonstrates that outpatient surgery for rib fracture ORIF can be performed safely in a select patient population. Additionally, it has similar efficacy as inpatient operative fixation with the main added benefit being decreased costs to both the patient and the healthcare system. We suggest that outpatient operative fixation of rib fractures should be considered for select patients.

Propensity Scored Analysis of Outpatient Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: No Increased Complications

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim were to (1) evaluate differences in postoperative outcomes and cost associated with outpatient anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) compared with inpatient ALIF, and to (2) identify independent factors contributing to complications after outpatient ALIF.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

While lumbar fusion is traditionally performed inpatient, outpatient spinal surgery is becoming more commonplace as surgical techniques improve.

METHODS

The study population included all patients below 85 years of age who underwent elective ALIF (CPT-22558). Patients were then divided into those who underwent single-level fusion and multilevel fusion using the corresponding additional level fusion codes (CPT-22585). These resulting populations were then split into outpatient and inpatient cohorts by using a service location modifier. To account for selection bias, propensity score matching was performed; the inpatient cohorts were matched with respect to the outpatient cohorts based on age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05 and the Bonferroni correction was used for each multiple comparison (P<0.004).

RESULTS

Patients undergoing outpatient procedure had decreased rates of medical complications following both single-level and multilevel ALIF. In addition, age above 60, female sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index>3, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and tobacco use were all identified as independent risk factors for increased complications. Finally, the cost of outpatient ALIF was $12,013 while the cost of inpatient ALIF was $27,271 (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings add to the growing body of literature advocating for the utilization of ALIF in the outpatient setting for a properly selected group of patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Reimbursement of Lumbar Decompression at an Orthopedic Specialty Hospital Versus Tertiary Referral Center

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in Medicare reimbursement for one- to three-level lumbar decompression procedures performed at a tertiary referral center versus an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar decompression surgery is one of the most commonly performed spinal procedures. Lumbar decompression also comprises the largest proportion of spinal surgery that has transitioned to the outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a primary one- to three- level lumbar decompression were retrospectively identified. Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an OSH were compiled through Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Demographic data, surgical characteristics, and time cost data were collected through chart review. Multivariate regression models were used to determine independent factors associated with total episode of care cost, operating room (OR) time, procedure time, and length of stay (LOS), and to determine independent predictors of having the decompression performed at the OSH.

RESULTS

Total episode of care, facility, and non-facility payments were significantly greater at the tertiary referral center than the OSH, as were OR time for one- to three-level procedures, procedure time of all pooled levels, and LOS for one- and two-level procedures. Three-level procedure was independently associated with increased OR time, procedure time, and LOS. Age and two-level procedure were also associated with increased LOS. Procedure at the OSH was associated with decreased OR time and LOS. Charlson Comorbidity Index was a negative predictor of decompression being performed in the OSH setting.

CONCLUSION

Significant financial savings to health systems can be expected when performing lumbar decompression surgery at a specialty hospital as opposed to a tertiary referral center. Patients who are appropriate candidates for surgery in an OSH can in turn expect faster perioperative times and shorter LOS.Level of Evidence: 3.

Factors Affecting Postoperative Length of Stay in Patients Undergoing Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

With hospital leaders and policy makers increasingly seeking ways to improve resource use, there has been heightened interest in reducing hospital length of stay (LOS) and performing spine procedures on an outpatient basis. We aimed to determine which risk factors correlated with prolonged LOS after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).

METHODS

Medical records for patients who underwent ALIF were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into those who had extended (≥3 days) versus nonextended (<3 days) LOS, and patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and preoperative medications were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate regression were then used to determine preoperative risk factors for extended LOS.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients were included (mean age, 48.7 years). Medical comorbidities included hypertension (31.9%), diabetes (8.4%), and obesity (body mass index >30 kg/m²) (48.8%). LOS was not extended in 121 patients and extended in 45. Mean LOS was 2.2 days (95% confidence interval, 1.9-2.5). On multivariate logistic analysis, age ≥65 years (P = 0.001), preoperative benzodiazepine use (P = 0.014), 12-item Short Form mental component score (P = 0.008), estimated blood loss (P = 0.015), time to mobilization (P < 0.001), and total operative time (P = 0.020) were independent predictors for extended LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

As attempts are made to perform more spine procedure in ambulatory surgical centers, strict patient selection criteria are all critical in making this possible. Our results suggest that age, preoperative benzodiazepine use, higher intraoperative blood loss, delayed mobilization, and lower 12-item Short Form mental component score were correlated with increased LOS. Therefore, inpatient ALIF may be more suitable for patients with these risk factors.

Venous anatomy of the lumbar region applied to anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF): Proposal of a new classification

Background

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a good alternative for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. The primary vascular complications regarding this intervention involve the common iliac vein bifurcation complex (CIVC). Currently, no classification system allows defining which patients are more prone to these complications. We aimed to perform a retrospective study evaluating the anatomy of the common iliac CIVC at the L5-S1 disc proposing a novel classification system as it relates to the ALIF difficulty.

Methods

91 consecutive patients who underwent ALIF at the L5-S1 level were included. We categorize the CIVC at the L5-S1 disc space into four types according to the veins position along the disc space. The patient records were reviewed for demographic information, surgical characteristics, and complications. The surgical difficulty was rated at the end of the procedure.

Results

54% of the patients were women. The mean age was 52.5 ± 14.8 years. Mean surgical bleeding was 152 ml (range 20ml -3000 ml), and mean surgical time was 79 ± 13.3 minutes. Berbeo-Diaz-Vargas (BDV) classification type 4 was found in 43.9% of the patients. The surgical complexity was associated with the bleeding magnitude and surgical time spent (p<0.01), not being related to the corporal mass index or sacral slope. Bleeding magnitude, surgical time, and surgical complexity were significantly related to the BDV classification system (p<0.01). Weighted Cohen´s kappa index for the BDV scale was 0.89 (95% IC 0.822 – 0.974).

Conclusions

BDV scale is a reliable and reproducible tool for the classification of CIVC significantly related to a higher incidence of bleeding, prolonged operating time, and increased perceived difficulty by the surgeon.