Primary single-level lumbar microdisectomy/decompression at a free-standing ambulatory surgical center vs a hospital-owned outpatient department-an analysis of 90-day outcomes and costs

Elective Single-Level Primary Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Degenerative Spondylotic Cervical Myelopathy Is Associated With Decreased Resource Utilization Versus Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare elective single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) in terms of (1) cost, (2) length of hospital stay, and (3) discharge destination in Medicare patients. A sub-analysis of potential cost drivers was also performed.

BACKGROUND

In the era of value-based medicine, there is substantial interest in reducing the cost of care. Both ACDF and PCDF are used to treat DCM but carry different morbidity and risk profiles that can impact hospital resource utilization. However, this has not been assessed on a national level.

METHODS

Patients undergoing single-level elective ACDF and PCDF surgery were identified using the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) Limited Data Set (LDS) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2019 Impact File. Multivariate models of hospital cost of care, length of stay, and discharge destination were performed, controlling for confounders. A univariate sub-analysis of 9 revenue centers was performed.

RESULTS

In all, 3942 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean cost of elective single-level cervical fusion for myelopathy was $18,084±10,783, and the mean length of stay was 2.45±2.95 d. On multivariate analysis, ACDF was independently associated with decreased cost of $5,814 ( P <0.001), shorter length of stay by 1.1 days ( P <0.001), and decreased risk of nonhome discharge destination by 58% (adjusted odds ratio: 0.422, P <0.001).On sub-analysis of 9 revenue centers, medical/surgical supply ($10,497, 44%), operating room charges ($5401, 23%), and accommodations ($3999, 17%) were the largest drivers of charge differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-level elective primary ACDF for DCM was independently associated with decreased cost, decreased hospital length of stay, and a lower rate of nonhome discharge compared with PCDF. Medical and surgical supply, operating room, and accommodation differences between ACDF and PCDF are potential areas for intervention. Increased granularity in reimbursement structures is warranted to prevent the creation of disincentives to the treatment of patients with DCM with pathology that is better addressed with PCDF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level-III Retrospective Cohort Study.

Lumbar Decompression With and Without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis With Spondylolisthesis: A Cost Utility Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Markov model.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of lumbar decompression alone (DA) with lumbar decompression with fusion (DF) for the management of adults undergoing surgery for lumbar stenosis with associated degenerative spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Rates of lumbar fusion have increased for all indications in the United States over the last 20 years. Recent randomized controlled trial data, however, have suggested comparable functional outcomes and lower reoperation rates for lumbar decompression and fusion as compared with DA in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multistate Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective of a hypothetical cohort of patients with lumbar stenosis with associated spondylolisthesis requiring surgery. Data regarding clinical improvement, costs, and reoperation were generated from contemporary randomized trial evidence, meta-analyses of recent prospective studies, and large retrospective cohorts. Base case, one-way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, and the results were compared with a WTP threshold of $100,000 (in 2022 USD) over a two-year time horizon. A discount rate of 3% was utilized.

RESULTS

The incremental cost and utility of DF relative to DA were $12,778 and 0.00529 aggregated quality adjusted life years. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2,416,281 far exceeded the willingness to pay threshold of $100,000. In sensitivity analysis, the results varied the most with respect to rate of improvement after DA, rate of improvement after lumbar decompression and fusion, and odds ratio of reoperation between the two groups. Zero percent of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses achieved cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of contemporary surgical data, DF is not cost-effective compared with DA in the surgical management of lumbar stenosis with associated spondylolisthesis over a two-year time horizon.

Use of ChatGPT for Determining Clinical and Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation With Radiculopathy: A North American Spine Society Guideline Comparison

OBJECTIVE

Large language models like chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) have found success in various sectors, but their application in the medical field remains limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT to provide accurate medical information to patients, specifically evaluating how well ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 aligned with the 2012 North American Spine Society (NASS) guidelines for lumbar disk herniation with radiculopathy.

METHODS

ChatGPT's responses to questions based on the NASS guidelines were analyzed for accuracy. Three new categories-overconclusiveness, supplementary information, and incompleteness-were introduced to deepen the analysis. Overconclusiveness referred to recommendations not mentioned in the NASS guidelines, supplementary information denoted additional relevant details, and incompleteness indicated omitted crucial information from the NASS guidelines.

RESULTS

Out of 29 clinical guidelines evaluated, ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrated accuracy in 15 responses (52%), while ChatGPT-4 achieved accuracy in 17 responses (59%). ChatGPT-3.5 was overconclusive in 14 responses (48%), while ChatGPT-4 exhibited overconclusiveness in 13 responses (45%). Additionally, ChatGPT-3.5 provided supplementary information in 24 responses (83%), and ChatGPT-4 provided supplemental information in 27 responses (93%). In terms of incompleteness, ChatGPT-3.5 displayed this in 11 responses (38%), while ChatGPT-4 showed incompleteness in 8 responses (23%).

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT shows promise for clinical decision-making, but both patients and healthcare providers should exercise caution to ensure safety and quality of care. While these results are encouraging, further research is necessary to validate the use of large language models in clinical settings.

Growing utilization of ambulatory spine surgery in Medicare patients from 2010-2021

Background

There is growing interest in transitioning various surgical procedures to the outpatient care setting. However, for Medicare patients, the site of service for surgical procedures is influenced by regulations within the Inpatient and Outpatient Prospective Payment Systems. The purpose of this study is to quantify changes in utilization of outpatient spine surgery within the Medicare population, as well as to determine changes in outpatient volume after removal of a procedure from the "inpatient-only" list.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study of Medicare billing database information for selected spine procedures included in the Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) public use files from 2010-2021. These files include aggregated data from Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims, published yearly. Procedures from Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System (HCPCS) code ranges 22010-22899 and 62380-63103 were selected for analysis, limited to surgical services delivered in the inpatient, hospital outpatient department (HOPD), and ambulatory surgical center (ASC) settings. For each HCPCS code included, estimates of the total number of services and corresponding changes in volume were calculated.

Results

Within the range of codes included in the study, the total number of outpatient spine procedures rose approximately 193% from 2010 to 2021, with compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for outpatient procedures per year of 9.9% for HOPDs and 15.7% for ASCs (-2.2% for inpatient procedures). Within this period, the ASC list grew from 12 procedures to 58 procedures. In 2021, the highest volume ASC procedure was HCPCS 63047, at approximately 4970 procedures.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates a trend of increasing utilization of HOPDs and ASCs for spine procedures among Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2021. Though HOPDs are currently more widely utilized, the ongoing additions of spine procedures to the ASC covered procedures list may shift this balance.

Interventional Therapy and Surgical Management of Lumbar Disc Herniation in Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review

Significant advancements in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) management have been made in interventional pain therapy, operative therapy, peri-operative management, and cost analysis of various procedures. The present review aims to provide a concise narrative of all these topics, current trends, and possible future directions in the management of LDH. Interventional pain management using intradiscal injections often serves as a minimally invasive non-surgical approach. Surgical modalities vary, including traditional open laminectomy, microdiscectomy, endoscopic discectomy, tubular discectomy, percutaneous laser disc decompression, and transforaminal foraminotomy. Prevention of infections during surgery is paramount and is often done via a single-dose preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Recurrence of LDH post-surgery is commonly observed and thus mitigative strategies for prevention have been proposed including the use of annular closure devices. Finally, all treatments are well-associated with clear as well as hidden costs to the health system and society as described by billing codes and loss of patients' quality-adjusted life-years. Our summary of recent literature regarding LDH may allow physicians to employ up-to-date evidence-based practice in clinical settings and can help drive future advancements in LDH management. Future longitudinal and comprehensive studies elucidating how each type of treatments fare against different types of herniations are warranted.

Assessment of a Private Payer Bundled Payment Model for Lumbar Decompression Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Although bundled payment models are well-established in Medicare-aged individuals, private insurers are now developing bundled payment plans. The role of these plans in spine surgery has not been evaluated. Our objective was to analyze the performance of a private insurance bundled payment program for lumbar decompression and microdiskectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all lumbar decompressions in a private payer bundled payment model at a single institution from October 2018 to December 2020. 120-day episode of care cost data were collected and reported as net profit or loss regarding set target prices. A stepwise multivariable linear regression model was developed to measure the effect of patient and surgical factors on net surplus or deficit.

RESULTS

Overall, 151 of 468 (32.2%) resulted in a deficit. Older patients (58.6 vs. 50.9 years, P < 0.001) with diabetes (25.2% vs. 13.9%, P = 0.004), hypertension (38.4% vs. 28.4%, P = 0.038), heart disease (13.9% vs. 7.57%, P = 0.030), and hyperlipidemia (51.7% vs. 35.6%, P = 0.001) were more likely to experience a loss. Surgically, decompression of more levels (1.91 vs. 1.19, P < 0.001), posterior lumbar decompression (86.8% vs. 56.5%, P < 0.001), and performing surgery at a tertiary hospital (84.8% vs. 70.3%, P < 0.001) were more likely to result in loss. All readmissions resulted in a loss (4.64% vs. 0.0%, P < 0.001). On multivariable regression, microdiskectomy (β: $2,398, P = 0.012) and surgery in a specialty hospital (β: $1,729, P = 0.096) or ambulatory surgery center (β: $3,534, P = 0.055) were associated with cost savings. Increasing number of levels, longer length of stay, active smoking, and history of cancer, dementia, or congestive heart failure were all associated with degree of deficit.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperatively optimizing comorbidities and using risk stratification to identify those patients who may safely undergo surgery at a facility other than an inpatient hospital may help increase cost savings in a bundled payment model of working-age and Medicare-age individuals.

Costs of shoulder and elbow procedures are significantly reduced in ambulatory surgery centers compared to hospital outpatient departments

BACKGROUND

Recent literature has shown the advantages of outpatient surgery for many shoulder and elbow procedures, including cost savings with equivalent safety in appropriately selected patients. Two common settings for outpatient surgeries are ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), which function as independent financial and administrative entities, or hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), which are owned and operated by hospital systems. The purpose of this study was to compare shoulder and elbow surgery costs between ASCs and HOPDs.

METHODS

Publicly available data from 2022 provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was accessed via the Medicare Procedure Price Lookup Tool. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify shoulder and elbow procedures approved for the outpatient setting by CMS. Procedures were grouped into arthroscopy, fracture, or miscellaneous. Total costs, facility fees, Medicare payments, patient payment (costs not covered by Medicare), and surgeon's fees were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate means and standard deviations. Cost differences were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven CPT codes were identified. Arthroscopy procedures (n = 16) at ASCs had significantly lower total costs ($2667 ± $989 vs. $4899 ± $1917; P = .009), facility fees ($1974 ± $819 vs. $4206 ± $1753; P = .008), Medicare payments ($2133 ± $791 vs. $3919 ± $1534; P = .009), and patient payments ($533 ± $198 vs. $979 ± $383; P = .009) compared with HOPDs. Fracture procedures (n = 10) at ASCs had lower total costs ($7680 ± $3123 vs. $11,335 ± $3830; P = .049), facility fees ($6851 ± $3033 vs. $10,507 ± $3733; P = .047), and Medicare payments ($6143 ± $2499 vs. $9724 ± $3676; P = .049) compared with HOPDs, although patient payments were not significantly different ($1535 ± $625 vs. $1610 ± $160; P = .449). Miscellaneous procedures (n = 31) at ASCs had lower total costs ($4202 ± $2234 vs. $6985 ± $2917; P < .001), facility fees ($3348 ± $2059 vs. $6132 ± $2736; P < .001), Medicare payments ($3361 ± $1787 vs. $5675 ± $2635; P < .001), and patient payments ($840 ± $447 vs. $1309 ± $350; P < .001) compared with HOPDs. The combined cohort (n = 57) at ASCs had lower total costs ($4381 ± $2703 vs. $7163 ± $3534; P < .001), facility fees ($3577 ± $2570 vs. $6539.1 ± $3391; P < .001), Medicare payments ($3504 ± $2162 vs. $5892 ± $3206; P < .001), and patient payments ($875 ± $540 vs. $1269 ± $393; P < .001) compared with HOPDs.

CONCLUSION

Shoulder and elbow procedures performed at HOPDs for Medicare recipients were found to have average total cost increase of 164% compared with those performed at ASCs (184% savings for arthroscopy, 148% for fracture, and 166% for miscellaneous). ASC use conferred lower facility fees, patient payments, and Medicare payments. Policy efforts to incentivize migration of surgeries to ASCs may translate into substantial health care cost savings.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Inpatient Setting: A 1-Year Comparative Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as an alternative setting for surgical care as part of the national effort to lower health care costs. The literature regarding the safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in the ASC setting is limited to few small case series.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of MIS TLIF performed in the ASC vs inpatient hospital setting.

METHODS

A total of 775 patients prospectively enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database undergoing single-level MIS TLIF at a single ASC (100) or the inpatient hospital setting (675) were compared. Propensity matching generated 200 patients for analysis (100 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences regarding baseline demographic data, clinical history, or comorbidities after propensity matching. Only 1 patient required inpatient transfer from the ASC because of intractable pain. All other patients were discharged home within 23 hours of surgery. The rates of 90-day readmission (2.0%) and reoperation (0%) were equivalent between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, back pain, and leg pain) at 3 months that were maintained at 1 year. PROMs did not differ between groups at any time point. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients, MIS TLIF may be performed safely in the ASC setting with no statistically significant difference in safety or efficacy in comparison with the inpatient setting.

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.

Machine Learning Can Accurately Predict Overnight Stay, Readmission, and 30-Day Complications Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop machine learning (ML) models to predict hospital admission (overnight stay) as well as short-term complications and readmission rates following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Furthermore, we sought to compare the ML models with logistic regression models in predicting ACLR outcomes.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients who underwent elective ACLR from 2012 to 2018. Artificial neural network ML and logistic regression models were developed to predict overnight stay, 30-day postoperative complications, and ACL-related readmission, and model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Regression analyses were used to identify variables that were significantly associated with the predicted outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 21,636 elective ACLR cases met inclusion criteria. Variables associated with hospital admission included White race, obesity, hypertension, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 3 and greater, anesthesia other than general, prolonged operative time, and inpatient setting. The incidence of hospital admission (overnight stay) was 10.2%, 30-day complications was 1.3%, and 30-day readmission for ACLR-related causes was 0.9%. Compared with logistic regression models, artificial neural network models reported superior area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values in predicting overnight stay (0.835 vs 0.589), 30-day complications (0.742 vs 0.590), reoperation (0.842 vs 0.601), ACLR-related readmission (0.872 vs 0.606), deep-vein thrombosis (0.804 vs 0.608), and surgical-site infection (0.818 vs 0.596).

CONCLUSIONS

The ML models developed in this study demonstrate an application of ML in which data from a national surgical patient registry was used to predict hospital admission and 30-day postoperative complications after elective ACLR. ML models developed performed well, outperforming regression models in predicting hospital admission and short-term complications following elective ACLR. ML models performed best when predicting ACLR-related readmissions and reoperations, followed by overnight stay.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Time of Discharge and 30-Day Re-Presentation to an Acute Care Setting After Elective Lumbar Decompression Surgery

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding the consequence of efforts to increase patient throughput and decrease length of stay in the context of elective spine surgery is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether early time of discharge results in increased rates of hospital readmission or return to emergency department for patients admitted after elective, posterior, lumbar decompression surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 779 patients admitted to hospital after undergoing elective, posterior, lumbar decompression surgery. Multiple logistic regression evaluated the relationship between time of discharge and the primary outcome of return to acute care within 30 days, while controlling for sociodemographic, procedural, and discharge characteristics.

RESULTS

In multiple logistic regression, time of discharge earlier in the day was not associated with increased odds of return to acute care within 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI 0.92-1.52, P = .19). Weekend discharge (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.04-3.79, P = .04) increased the likelihood of return to acute care. Surgeon experience (<1 year of attending practice, OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-1.00, P = .05 and 2-5 years of attending practice, OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-1.01, P = .054), weekend discharge (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89, P = .02), and physical therapy evaluation (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.33, P < .001) decreased the likelihood of discharge before noon.

CONCLUSION

Time of discharge is not associated with risk of readmission or presentation to the emergency department after elective lumbar decompression. Weekend discharge is independently associated with increased risk of readmission and decreased likelihood of prenoon discharge.

Safety and short-term outcomes of anatomic vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in an ambulatory surgery center

BACKGROUND

A scarcity of literature exists comparing outcomes of outpatient anatomic (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). This study was performed to compare early outcomes between the 2 procedures in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center (ASC) and to determine if the addition of preoperative interscalene nerve block (ISNB) with periarticular liposomal bupivacaine injection (PAI) in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) would improve outcomes over PAI alone.

METHODS

Medical charts of all patients undergoing outpatient primary aTSA or rTSA at 2 ASCs from 2012 to 2020 were reviewed. A total of 198 patients were ultimately identified (117 aTSA and 81 rTSA) to make up this retrospective cohort study. Patient demographics, PACU outcomes, complications, readmissions, reoperations, calls to the office, and unplanned clinic visit rates were compared between procedures. PACU outcomes were compared between those receiving ISNB with PAI and those receiving PAI alone.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing rTSA were older (61.1 vs. 55.7 years, P < .001) and more likely to have American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 3 (51.9% vs. 41.0%, P = .050) compared to patients having aTSA. No patient required an overnight stay. Time in the PACU before discharge (89.1 vs. 95.6 minutes, P = .231) and pain scores at discharge (3.0 vs. 3.0, P = .815) were similar for aTSA and rTSA, respectively. One intraoperative complication occurred in the aTSA group (posterior humeral circumflex artery injury) and 1 in the rTSA group (calcar fracture) (P = .793). Ninety-day postoperative total complication (7.7% vs. 7.4%), shoulder-related complication (6.0% vs. 6.2%), medical-related complication (1.7% vs. 1.2%), admission (0.8% vs. 2.5%), reoperation (2.6% vs. 1.2%), and unplanned clinic visit (6.0% vs. 6.1%) rates were similar between aTSA and rTSA, respectively (P ≥ .361 for all comparisons). At 1 year, there were 8 reoperations and 15 complications in the aTSA group compared with 1 reoperation and 8 complications in the rTSA group (P = .091 and P = .818, respectively). Patients who had ISNB spent less time in PACU (75 vs. 97 minutes, P < .001), had less pain at discharge (0.2 vs. 3.9, P < .001), and consumed less oral morphine equivalents in the PACU (1.2 vs. 16.6 mg, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Early postoperative outcomes and complication rates were similar between the 2 groups, and all patients were successfully discharged home the day of surgery. The addition of preoperative ISNB led to more efficient discharge from the ASC with less pain in the PACU.

Assessment of Spine Patient Preferences for the Location of Surgery Between a Hospital and an Ambulatory Surgical Center in the Time of COVID-19: An Analysis of Patient Surveys

Introduction There has been a recent increase in the number of spinal procedures that can be performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). Studies have found that patients who undergo procedures at ASCs tend to have lower complication rates following procedures, including lower infection rates. Furthermore, ASCs offer significantly lower costs of procedures to patients and health insurance companies as compared to the costs of procedures performed in a hospital. Despite precautions and screening in place by ASCs, patients may be hesitant to undergo procedures outside of the hospital. Conversely, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has created hesitancy for many to go to the hospital for care due to the presence of COVID patients.  Objective To assess patient preferences in the location of elective spine procedures between ASCs and hospitals, the authors conducted a survey of spine surgery candidates in a single practice. Methods A survey measuring patient age, vaccination status, fear of contracting COVID-19, and preference of surgery location was given to spinal surgery candidates at a single practice between fall 2021 and winter 2022. Statistical differences between the means of response groups were measured by a two-sample Z-score test. Results A total of 58 surveys were completed by patients. No difference in preference was observed by age. A difference was observed between genders, with 66% of females preferring ASCs to 40% of males (α=0.03). Patients with a fear of contracting COVID-19 preferred to have their procedure performed in an ASC. No difference was observed in location due to vaccination status, but unvaccinated patients had a significantly lower fear of contracting COVID-19 (α=0.02). Conclusion The differences in patient preferences have no clear cause, highlighting the need for better patient education in regard to the risks and benefits of each location of surgery. The fear of contracting COVID-19 on the day of surgery appears to be more ideological than rational for unvaccinated patients, who had less fear of contracting COVID-19 than vaccinated patients, despite being more likely to contract COVID-19 than vaccinated patients.

Implementation of Machine Learning to Predict Cost of Care Associated with Ambulatory Single-Level Lumbar Decompression

BACKGROUND

With the emergence of the concept of value-based care, efficient resource allocation has become an increasingly prominent factor in surgical decision-making. Validated machine learning (ML) models for cost prediction in outpatient spine surgery are limited. As such, we developed and internally validated a supervised ML algorithm to reliably identify cost drivers associated with ambulatory single-level lumbar decompression surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the New York State Ambulatory Surgical Database was performed to identify patients who underwent single-level lumbar decompression from 2014 to 2015. Patients with a length of stay of >0 were excluded. Using pre- and intraoperative parameters (features) derived from the New York State Ambulatory Surgical Database, an optimal supervised ML model was ultimately developed and internally validated after 5 candidate models were rigorously tested, trained, and compared for predictive performance related to total charges. The best performing model was then evaluated by testing its performance on identifying relationships between features of interest and cost prediction. Finally, the best performing algorithm was entered into an open-access web application.

RESULTS

A total of 8402 patients were included. The gradient-boosted ensemble model demonstrated the best performance assessed via internal validation. Major cost drivers included anesthesia type, operating room time, race, patient income and insurance status, community type, worker's compensation status, and comorbidity index.

CONCLUSIONS

The gradient-boosted ensemble model predicted total charges and associated cost drivers associated with ambulatory single-level lumbar decompression using a large, statewide database with excellent performance. External validation of this algorithm in future studies may guide practical application of this clinical tool.

Outpatient versus inpatient lumbar decompression surgery: a matched noninferiority study investigating clinical and patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Spine surgery represents an ideal target for healthcare cost reduction efforts, with outpatient surgery resulting in significant cost savings. With an increased focus on value-based healthcare delivery, lumbar decompression surgery has been increasingly performed in the outpatient setting when appropriate. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes following outpatient and inpatient lumbar decompression surgery.

METHODS

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective one- or two-level lumbar decompression (laminectomy or laminotomy with or without discectomy) for degenerative spine disease. Patients were grouped as outpatient if they had a length of stay (LOS) < 24 hours and as inpatient if they stayed in the hospital ≥ 24 hours. Patients with ≥ 72-hour stay were excluded from the comparative analysis to increase baseline comparability between the two groups. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio between the two groups on 38 baseline variables, including demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 days and 3 months after surgery, overall satisfaction, and decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain at 3 months after surgery. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 in the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index. Noninferiority of outpatient compared with inpatient surgery was defined as risk difference of < 1.5% at a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 18,689 eligible one- and two-level decompression surgeries were identified. The matched study cohorts consisted of 5016 patients in each group. Nonroutine discharge was slightly less common in the outpatient group (0.6% vs 0.3%, p = 0.01). The 30-day readmission rates were 4.4% and 4.3% for the outpatient and inpatient groups, respectively, while the 30-day reoperation rates were 1.4% and 1.5%. The 3-month readmission rates were 6.3% for both groups, and the 3-month reoperation rates were 3.1% for the outpatient cases and 2.9% for the inpatient cases. Overall satisfaction at 3 months was 88.8% for the outpatient group and 88.4% for the inpatient group. Noninferiority of outpatient surgery was documented for readmissions, reoperations, and patient-reported satisfaction from surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient lumbar decompression surgery demonstrated slightly lower nonroutine discharge rates in comparison with inpatient surgery. Noninferiority in clinical outcomes at 30 days and 3 months after surgery was documented for outpatient compared with inpatient decompression surgery. Additionally, outpatient decompression surgery performed noninferiorly to inpatient surgery in achieving patient satisfaction from surgery.

Emergency Department Visits After Outpatient Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to characterize the incidence and timing of postoperative emergency department (ED) visits after common outpatient spinal surgeries performed at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and at hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Outpatient spine surgery has markedly grown in popularity over the past decade. The incidence of ED visits after outpatient spine surgery is not well established.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of a large commercial claims insurance database of patients 65 years old and below. Patients who underwent single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, laminectomy, and microdiscectomy were identified. Incidence, timing, and diagnoses associated with ED visits within the postoperative global period (90 d) after surgery were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 202,202 patients received outpatient spine surgery (19.1% in ASC vs. 80.9% in HOPD). Collectively, there were 22,198 ED visits during the 90-day postoperative period. Approximately 9.0% of patients had at least 1 ED visit, and the incidence varied by procedure: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion 9.9%, laminectomy 9.5%, and microdiscectomy 8.5% ( P <0.0001). After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidity index, the odds of at least 1 ED visit were higher among patients who received surgery at HOPD versus ASC for all 3 procedures. The majority (56.1%) ED visits occurred during the first month postoperatively; 30.8% (n=6841) occurred within the first week postoperatively, and 10.7% (n=2370) occurred on the same day as the surgery. Postoperative pain was the most common reason for ED visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Among commercially insured patients who received outpatient spine surgery, the incidence of ED visits during the 90-day postoperative period was ~9%. Our results indicate opportunities for improved postoperative care planning after outpatient spinal surgery.

Same-Day Outpatient Lower-Extremity Joint Replacement: A Critical Analysis Review

➢ The economics of transitioning total joint arthroplasty (TJA) to standalone ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) should not be capitalized on at the expense of patient safety in the absence of established superior patient outcomes. ➢ Proper patient selection is essential to maximizing safety and avoiding complications resulting in readmission. ➢ Ambulatory TJA programs should focus on reducing complications frequently associated with delays in discharge. ➢ The transition from hospital-based TJA to ASC-based TJA has substantial financial implications for the hospital, payer, patient, and surgeon.

Ambulatory Surgery Centers Versus Hospital Outpatient Departments for Orthopaedic Surgeries

BACKGROUND

The goals of this study were to compare the utilization and costs of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) versus hospital outpatient department (HOPD) for commonly performed outpatient orthopaedic surgical procedures.

METHODS

Commercially insured patients undergoing elective, outpatient orthopaedic surgery were queried using an administrative claims database. We queried the following surgeries: carpal tunnel release, lumbar microdiskectomy, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, knee arthroscopy, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, and bunion repair. Total costs were defined as the sum of all payments for a surgical episode. Professional fees were defined as payments to the primary orthopaedic surgeon and technical fees as all other payments. Comparisons between ASC and HOPD reimbursements were conducted using bivariate statistics and generalized linear models controlling for patient age, sex, and Elixhauser comorbidity index.

RESULTS

Among 990,980 cases of outpatient orthopaedic surgery done from 2013 to 2018, the utilization rate of ASCs increased from 31% to 34% across all procedures assessed: compound annual growth rate of 3.3% for lumbar microdiscectomy, 1.8% for knee arthroscopy, 1.4% for anterior cruciate ligament, 1.4% for carpal tunnel release, 1.2% for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, and 0.5% for bunion repair (P < 0.001 for all). The average total costs were 26% lower at ASCs than HOPDs (P < 0.001 for each procedure). The average technical fees were 33% lower at ASCs than HOPDs (P < 0.001 for each procedure). Both total costs and technical fees were less for ASCs than HOPDs after controlling for patient age, sex, and Elixhauser comorbidity index (P < 0.001 for each procedure). Over the study period, the mean total costs at HOPDs increased by 2.5% yearly, whereas the mean total costs at ASCs decreased by 0.1% yearly. The average surgeon professional fees declined in both care settings over time.

CONCLUSION

From 2013 to 2018, there was an increase in ASC utilization for common outpatient orthopaedic surgeries. ASCs were overall less costly than HOPDs for outpatient orthopaedic surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Do all outpatient spine surgeries cost the same? Comparison of economic outcomes data from a state-level database for outpatient lumbar decompression performed in an ambulatory surgery center or hospital outpatient setting

OBJECTIVE

Spinal procedures are increasingly conducted as outpatient procedures, with a growing proportion conducted in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). To date, studies reporting outcomes and cost analyses for outpatient spinal procedures in the US have not distinguished the various outpatient settings from each other. In this study, the authors used a state-level administrative database to compare rates of overnight stays and nonroutine discharges as well as index admission charges and cumulative 7-, 30-, and 90-day charges for patients undergoing outpatient lumbar decompression in freestanding ASCs and hospital outpatient (HO) settings.

METHODS

For this project, the authors used the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery Database (SASD), offered by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), for the years 2013 and 2014. Patients undergoing outpatient lumbar decompression for degenerative diseases were identified using CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) and ICD-9 codes. Outcomes of interest included rates of overnight stays, rate of nonroutine discharges, index admission charges, and subsequent admission cumulative charges at 7, 30, and 90 days. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess the impact of outpatient type on index admission charges. Marginal effect analysis was employed to study the difference in predicted dollar margins between ASCs and HOs for each insurance type.

RESULTS

A total of 25,486 patients were identified; of these, 7067 patients (27.7%) underwent lumbar decompression in a freestanding ASC and 18,419 (72.3%) in an HO. No patient in the ASC group required an overnight stay compared to 9.2% (n = 1691) in the HO group (p < 0.001). No clinically significant difference in the rate of nonroutine discharge was observed between the two groups. The mean index admission charge for the ASC group was found to be significantly higher than that for the HO group ($35,017.28 ± $14,335.60 vs $33,881.50 ± $15,023.70; p < 0.001). Patients in ASCs were also found to have higher mean 7-day (p < 0.001), 30-day (p < 0.001), and 90-day (p = 0.001) readmission charges. ASC procedures were associated with increased charges compared to HO procedures for patients on Medicare or Medicaid (mean index admission charge increase $4049.27, 95% CI $2577.87-$5520.67, p < 0.001) and for patients on private insurance ($4775.72, 95% CI $4171.06-$5380.38, p < 0.001). For patients on self-pay or no charge, a lumbar decompression procedure at an ASC was associated with a decrease in index admission charge of -$10,995.38 (95% CI -$12124.76 to -$9866.01, p < 0.001) compared to a lumbar decompression procedure at an HO.

CONCLUSIONS

These "real-world" results from an all-payer statewide database indicate that for outpatient spine surgery, ASCs may be associated with higher index admission and subsequent 7-, 30-, and 90-day charges. Given that ASCs are touted to have lower overall costs for patients and better profit margins for physicians, these analyses warrant further investigation into whether this cost benefit is applicable to outpatient spine procedures.

Recent Trends in Medicare Utilization and Reimbursement for Orthopaedic Procedures Performed at Ambulatory Surgery Centers

BACKGROUND

As part of a market-driven response to the increasing costs of hospital-based surgical care, an increasing volume of orthopaedic procedures are being performed in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). The purpose of the present study was to identify recent trends in orthopaedic ASC procedure volume, utilization, and reimbursements in the Medicare system between 2012 and 2017.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, national study tracked annual Medicare claims and payments and aggregated data at the county level. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression models were used to evaluate trends in procedure volume, utilization rates, and reimbursement rates, and to identify demographic predictors of ASC utilization.

RESULTS

A total of 1,914,905 orthopaedic procedures were performed at ASCs in the Medicare population between 2012 and 2017, with an 8.8% increase in annual procedure volume and a 10.5% increase in average reimbursements per case. ASC orthopaedic procedure utilization, including utilization across all subspecialties, is strongly associated with metropolitan areas compared with rural areas. In addition, orthopaedic procedure utilization, including for sports and hand procedures, was found to be significantly higher in wealthier counties (measured by average household income) and in counties located in the South.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated increasing orthopaedic ASC procedure volume in recent years, driven by increases in hand procedure volume. Medicare reimbursements per case have steadily risen and outpaced the rate of inflation over the study period. However, as orthopaedic practice overhead continues to increase, other Medicare expenditures such as hospital payments and operational and implant costs also must be evaluated. These findings may provide a source of information that can be used by orthopaedic surgeons, policy makers, investors, and other stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding the costs and benefits of the use of ASCs for orthopaedic procedures.

Using machine learning methods to predict nonhome discharge after elective total shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Machine learning has shown potential in accurately predicting outcomes after orthopedic surgery, thereby allowing for improved patient selection, risk stratification, and preoperative planning. This study sought to develop machine learning models to predict nonhome discharge after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).

Methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients who underwent elective TSA from 2012 to 2018. Boosted decision tree and artificial neural networks (ANN) machine learning models were developed to predict non-home discharge and 30-day postoperative complications. Model performance was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and overall accuracy (%). Multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were used to identify variables that were significantly associated with the predicted outcomes.

Results

There were 21,544 elective TSA cases identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry from 2012 to 2018 that met inclusion criteria. Multivariate logistic regression identified several variables associated with increased risk of nonhome discharge including female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.53-3.17; P < .001), age older than 70 years (OR = 3.19; 95% CI = 2.86-3.57; P < .001), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 3 or greater (OR = 2.70; 95% CI = 2.41-2.03; P < .001), prolonged operative time (OR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.20-1.58; P < .001), as well as history of diabetes (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.38-1.75; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.71; 95% CI = 1.46-2.01; P < .001), congestive heart failure (OR = 2.65; 95% CI = 1.72-4.01; P < .001), hypertension (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.20-1.52; P = .004), dialysis (OR = 3.58; 95% CI = 2.01-6.39; P = .002), wound infection (OR = 5.67; 95% CI = 3.46-9.29; P < .001), steroid use (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.18-1.74; P = .010), and bleeding disorder (OR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.45-2.34; P < .001). The boosted decision tree model for predicting nonhome discharge had an AUC of 0.788 and an overall accuracy of 90.3%. The ANN model for predicting nonhome discharge had an AUC of 0.851 and an overall accuracy of 89.9%. For predicting the occurrence of 1 or more postoperative complications, the boosted decision tree model had an AUC of 0.795 and an overall accuracy of 95.5%. The ANN model yielded an AUC of 0.788 and an overall accuracy of 92.5%.

Conclusions

Both the boosted decision tree and ANN models performed well in predicting nonhome discharge with similar overall accuracy, but the ANN had higher discriminative ability. Based on the findings of this study, machine learning has the potential to accurately predict nonhome discharge after elective TSA. Surgeons can use such tools to guide patient expectations and to improve preoperative discharge planning, with the ultimate goal of decreasing hospital length of stay and improving cost-efficiency.

Recoup From Home? Comparison of Relative Cost Savings for ACDF, Lumbar Discectomy, and Short Segment Fusion Performed in the Inpatient Versus Outpatient Setting

STUDY DESIGN

Broad narrative review.

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize the current literature on the cost efficacy of performing ACDF, lumbar discectomy and short segment fusions of the lumbar spine performed in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

A thorough review of peer- reviewed literature was performed on the relative cost-savings, as well as guidelines, outcomes, and indications for successfully implementing outpatient protocols for routine spine procedures.

RESULTS

Primary elective 1-2 level ACDF can be safely performed in most patient populations with a higher patient satisfaction rate and no significant difference in 90-day reoperations and readmission rates, and a savings of 4000 to 41 305 USD per case. Lumbar discectomy performed through minimally invasive techniques has decreased recovery times with similar patient outcomes to open procedures. Performing lumbar microdiscectomy in the outpatient setting is safe, cheaper by as much as 12 934 USD per case and has better or equivalent outcomes to their inpatient counterparts. Unlike ACDF and lumbar microdiscectomy, short segment fusions are rarely performed in ASCs. However, with the advent of minimally invasive techniques paired with improved pain control, same-day discharge after lumbar fusion has limited clinical data but appears to have potential cost-savings up to 65-70% by reducing admissions.

CONCLUSION

Performing ACDF, lumbar discectomy and short segment fusions in the outpatient setting is a safe and effective way of reducing cost in select patient populations.

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Microdiskectomy Procedures by Patient Admission Status

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the cost and in-hospital outcomes following lumbar microdiskectomy procedures by admission type.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lumbar microdiskectomy at a single institution from 2008 to 2016 following an elective admission (EL) were compared against those who were admitted from the emergency department (ED) or from elsewhere within or outside the hospital system (TR) for their perioperative outcomes and cost. Multivariable modeling controlled for age, sex, self-reported race, Elixhauser comorbidity score, payer type, number of segments, and procedure length.

RESULTS

Of the 1249 patients included in this study, 1116 (89.4%) were admitted electively while 123 (9.8%) were admitted from the ED and 10 (0.8%) were transferred from other hospitals. EL patients had significantly lower comorbidity burdens (P < 0.0001). Univariate and multivariable analyses revealed that transfer admission patients experienced significantly longer hospitalizations (ED: +1.7 days; P < 0.0001; TR: +5.3 days; P < 0.0001) and higher direct costs (ED: $1889; P < 0.0001; TR: $7001; P < 0.0001) compared with EL patients. Despite these risks, ED and TR patients only had increased odds of nonhome discharge compared with EL patients (ED: 3.4; P = 0.002; TR: 7.9; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients admitted as transfers and from the ED had significantly increased hospitalization lengths of stay and direct costs compared with electively admitted patients.

Recent trends in Medicare utilization and surgeon reimbursement for shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Recent efforts to contain health care costs and move toward value-based health care have intensified, with a continued focus on Medicare expenditures, especially for high-volume procedures. As total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) volume continues to increase, especially within the Medicare population, it is important for orthopedic surgeons to understand recent trends in the allocation of health care expenditures and potential effects on reimbursements. The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in annual Medicare utilization and provider reimbursement rates for shoulder arthroplasty procedures between 2012 and 2017.

METHODS

This study tracked annual Medicare claims and payments to shoulder arthroplasty surgeons via publicly available databases and aggregated data at the county level. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate trends in procedure volume, utilization rate (per 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries), and reimbursement rate. We used adjusted multiple linear regression models to examine associations between county-specific variables (ie, urban or rural, average household income, poverty rate, percentage Medicare population, and race and ethnicity demographics) and procedure volume, utilization rate, and reimbursement rate.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2017, there was an 81.3% increase in primary TSA volume and 55.5% increase in primary TSA utilization. The Midwest and South had higher utilization rates than the Northeast and West (P < .001). TSA utilization rates in metropolitan areas were significantly higher than in rural areas (P < .001). Utilization rates for primary TSA procedures also had a significant negative association with poverty rate (P < .001). Regarding reimbursements, the Medicare payment per TSA case decreased from 2012 to 2017, with overall inflation-adjusted decreases of 7.1% and 11.8% for primary and revision cases, respectively. TSAs performed in metropolitan areas received significantly higher reimbursements per case than TSAs performed in rural areas ($1108.05 and $1066.40, respectively; P = .002). Furthermore, reimbursements per case were on average higher in the Northeast and West than in the South and Midwest (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that although TSA volume and per capita utilization have increased dramatically since 2012, Medicare Part B reimbursements to surgeons have continued to fall even after the adoption of bundled-payment models for orthopedic procedures. Cost-containment efforts continue to focus on Medicare reimbursements to surgeons, although other expenditures such as hospital payments and operational and implant costs must also be evaluated as part of an overall transition to value-based health care.

Implementation of Outpatient Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression at an Academic Medical Center without Ambulatory Surgery Centers: A Cost Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Lumbar decompressions are increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). We sought to compare costs of open and minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar decompressions performed at a university without dedicated ASCs.

METHODS

Lumbar decompressions performed at a tertiary academic hospital or satellite university hospital dedicated to outpatient surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Care pathways were same-day, overnight observation, or inpatient admission. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, Charlson Comorbidity Index, surgical characteristics, 30-day readmission, and costs were collected. A systematic review of lumbar decompression cost literature was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 354 patients, mean age 55 years with 128 women (36.2%), were reviewed. There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, or Charlson Comorbidity Index between patients treated with open and minimally invasive surgery. Open decompression was associated with higher total cost ($21,280 vs. $14,407; P < 0.001); however, this was driven by care pathway and length of stay. When stratifying by care pathway, there was no difference in total cost between open versus minimally invasive surgery among same-day ($10,609 vs. $11,074; P = 0.556), overnight observation ($14,097 vs. $13,992; P = 0.918), or inpatient admissions ($24,507 vs. $27,929; P = 0.311).

CONCLUSIONS

When accounting for care pathway, the cost of open and MIS decompression were no different. Transition from a tertiary academic hospital to a university hospital specializing in outpatient surgery was not associated with lower costs. Academic departments may consider transitioning lumbar decompressions to a dedicated ASC to maximize cost savings; however, additional studies are needed.

Mastectomy and Prepectoral Reconstruction in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Reduces Major Infectious Complication Rates

Mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction is typically performed in a hospital setting (HS) with overnight admission. The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative complications and outcomes with same-day discharge from an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) compared with the same surgery performed in the HS.