Readmissions After Surgical Resection of Metastatic Tumors of the Spine at a Single Institution

Do Postsurgical Follow-Up Calls Reduce Unplanned 30-Day Readmissions in Neurosurgery Patients? A Quality Improvement Project in a University Hospital

BACKGROUND

Unplanned 30-day readmissions after surgery are a source of patient dissatisfaction, monitored by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have financial penalties for hospitals, and are publicly reported. Neurosurgical operations have a higher 30-day unplanned readmission rate after the index discharge than other specialties. After a simple initiative for a 48-72-hour postdischarge telephone call, there was an observed significant decrease in readmission rates from 17% to 8% in 7 months at Thomas Jefferson University. To better understand the role of postoperative telephone calls in this reduction, a retrospective evaluation over a longer period was performed.

METHODS

A quality improvement initiative was assessed using patient records between August 2018 and May 2023. The primary observed subject is the 30-day unplanned readmission rate and secondarily a change in Physician Communication Score. Thirty-day unplanned readmission rate and Physician Communication Scores before and after the telephone call initiative were compared, checking for difference, variance, and correlation.

RESULTS

874 readmissions (average, 28/month; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.3-29.3), 12.9% (95% CI, 11.9-13.9) were reported before the telephone call; of 673 readmissions (average, 26/month; 95% CI, 23-28.8), 12.9% (95% CI, 11.6-14.1) were reported after the telephone call. No significant difference, variance of scores or rates, or correlation of rate with communication score were noted before and after the initiative.

CONCLUSIONS

Telephone calls and peridischarge efficient communication are needed after neurologic surgery. This approach decreased unplanned readmissions in certain instances without having a significant impact on neurosurgical patients.

Risk Factors for 90-Day Readmission Among Patients with Metastatic Spine Tumors in South Korea: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies on the cause of readmission within 90 days after surgery or radiotherapy for metastatic spine tumors are scarce. We aimed to investigate the risk factors for readmission within 90 days after initial surgical or radiation treatment for metastatic spine tumors.

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with metastatic spine tumors between 2012 and 2019 and underwent spinal magnetic resonance imaging within 1 year were classified according to treatment (surgical or radiotherapy groups), and the causes of the 90-day readmission and patient characteristics were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, data from 15,815 patients (surgical group, 13,974 patients; radiotherapy group, 1841 patients) were evaluated. Radiotherapy was preferred in younger and male patients with a high Charlson Comorbidity Index, whereas surgery was mainly performed in patients with lumbar metastasis. Radiotherapy, age of 30-69 years, male sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index >1 increased the risk of 90-day readmission in patients with metastatic spine tumors. The main causes of 90-day readmission among patients with metastatic spine tumors who received radiotherapy included tumor recurrence, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and treatment of other organ metastases with radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These study findings offer a better understanding of the causes of readmission following radiotherapy or surgical treatment in patients with metastatic spine tumors, and these results can help reduce postoperative morbidity and medical costs among these patients.

Utilization of Machine Learning to Model Important Features of 30-day Readmissions following Surgery for Metastatic Spinal Column Tumors: The Influence of Frailty

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the relative importance and predicative power of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) on unplanned 30-day readmission after surgical intervention for metastatic spinal column tumors.

METHODS

All adult patients undergoing surgery for metastatic spinal column tumor were identified in the Nationwide Readmission Database from the years 2016 to 2018. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts based on the criteria of the HFRS: Low(<5), Intermediate(5-14.9), and High(≥ 15). Random Forest (RF) classification was used to construct predictive models for 30-day patient readmission. Model performance was examined using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and the Mean Decrease Gini (MDG) metric was used to quantify and rank features by relative importance.

RESULTS

There were 4346 patients included. The proportion of patients who required any readmission were higher among the Intermediate and High frailty cohorts when compared to the Low frailty cohort (Low:33.9% vs. Intermediate:39.3% vs. High:39.2%, P < .001). An RF classifier was trained to predict 30-day readmission on all features (AUC = .60) and architecturally equivalent model trained using only ten features with highest MDG (AUC = .59). Both models found frailty to have the highest importance in predicting risk of readmission. On multivariate regression analysis, Intermediate frailty [OR:1.32, CI(1.06,1.64), P = .012] was found to be an independent predictor of unplanned 30-day readmission.

CONCLUSION

Our study utilizes machine learning approaches and predictive modeling to identify frailty as a significant risk-factor that contributes to unplanned 30-day readmission after spine surgery for metastatic spinal column metastases.

Unplanned Readmission After Surgery for Cervical Spine Metastases

OBJECTIVE

Patients undergoing surgery for cervical spine metastases are at risk for unplanned readmission due to comorbidities and chemotherapy/radiation. Our objectives were to: 1) report the incidence of unplanned readmission, 2) identify risk factors associated with unplanned readmission, and 3) determine the impact of an unplanned readmission on long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective, case-control study was undertaken of patients undergoing cervical spine surgery for metastatic disease between 02/2010 and 01/2021. The primary outcome of interest was unplanned readmission within 6 months. Survival analysis was performed for overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR).

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients underwent cervical spine surgery for metastatic disease with the following approaches: 11 (18.0%) anterior, 28 (45.9%) posterior, and 22 (36.1%) combined. Mean age was 60.9 ± 11.2 years and 38 (62.3%) were males. A total of 9/61 (14.8%) patients had an unplanned readmission, 3 for surgical reasons and 6 for medical reasons. No difference was found in demographics, preoperative Karnofsky Performance Scale (P = 0.992), motor strength (P = 0.477), or comorbidities (P = 0.213) between readmitted patients versus not. Readmitted patients had a higher rate of preoperative radiation (P = 0.009). No statistical differences were found in operative time (P = 0.893), estimated blood loss (P = 0.676), length of stay (P = 0.720), discharge disposition (P = 0.279), and operative approach (P = 0.450). Furthermore, no difference was found regarding complications (P = 0.463), postoperative Karnofsky Performance Scale (P = 0.535), and postoperative Modified McCormick Scale (P = 0.586). Lastly, unplanned readmissions were not associated with OS (log-rank; P = 0.094) or LR (log-rank; P = 0.110).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing cervical spine metastasis surgery, readmission occurred in 15% of patients, 33% for surgical reasons, and 67% for medical reasons. Preoperative radiotherapy was associated with an increased rate of unplanned readmissions, yet readmission had no association with OS or LR.

Why Do Patients Undergoing Extremity Prosthetic Reconstruction for Metastatic Disease Get Readmitted?

BACKGROUND

Orthopedic oncology patients are particularly susceptible to increased readmission rates and poor surgical outcomes, yet little is known about readmission rates. The goal of this study is to identify factors independently associated with 90-day readmission for patients undergoing oncologic resection and subsequent prosthetic reconstruction for metastatic disease of the hip and knee.

METHODS

This is a retrospective comparative cohort study of all patients treated from 2013 to 2019 at a single tertiary care referral institution who underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction by an orthopedic oncologist for metastatic disease of the extremities. The primary outcome measure was unplanned 90-day readmission.

RESULTS

We identified 112 patients undergoing 127 endoprosthetic reconstruction surgeries. Metastatic disease was most commonly from renal (26.8%), lung (23.6%), and breast (13.4%) cancer. The most common type of skeletal reconstruction performed was simple arthroplasty (54%). There were 43 readmissions overall (33.9%). When controlling for confounding factors, body mass index >40, insurance status, peripheral vascular disease, and longer hospital length of stay were independently associated with risk of readmission (P ≤ .05).

CONCLUSION

Readmission rates for endoprosthetic reconstructions for metastatic disease are high. Although predicting readmission remains challenging, risk stratification presents a viable option for helping minimize unplanned readmissions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Analysis of Short-Term versus Long-Term Readmission-Free Survival After Metastatic Spine Tumor Surgery

BACKGROUND

Readmission-free survival (ReAFS) is a novel clinical and quality metric after metastatic spine tumor surgery (MSTS). We believe that factors influencing ReAFS after index MSTS vary based on time. We considered 2 time frames and defined short-term ReAFS as survival without an unplanned hospital readmission up to 90 days and long-term ReAFS as survival without unplanned hospital readmission up to 1 year after MSTS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 266 patients who underwent MSTS between 2005 and 2016. All relevant oncologic, surgical and follow-up data were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze prognostic factors associated with higher probability of short-term ReAFS and long-term ReAFS.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score ≤2 (P = 0.011), preoperative hemoglobin (Hb) level >12 g/dL (P = 0.008), ≤3 comorbidities (P = 0.052), shorter index length of stay ≤10 days (P = 0.007), and absence of neurologic/hematologic complications during index stay (P = 0.015) significantly increased the probability of short-term ReAFS, whereas preoperative Hb level >12 g/dL (P = 0.003) or tumor primaries with advanced treatment modalities such as breast (P = 0.012), hematologic (P = 0.006), prostate (P = 0.004), and renal/thyroid (P = 0.038) as opposed to aggressive lung tumor primaries were associated with significantly higher probability of long-term ReAFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and treatment factors predominantly influence ReAFS up to 90 days, whereas primary tumor-related factors alongside general health influence ReAFS beyond 90 days after index MSTS. Awareness of these factors may help oncologists and surgeons optimize treatment planning. The clinical significance of this study will continue to evolve, because we have been witnessing over the past decade that patients are becoming more involved in both their general health and understanding the natural history of the diseases that affect them.

Thirty- and 90-day Readmissions After Spinal Surgery for Spine Metastases: A National Trend Analysis of 4423 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate differences in 30- and 90-day readmissions for spine metastases treated with decompression and/or fusion spine surgery in a nationwide readmission database.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patients with metastases to the spine represent a particularly vulnerable patient group that may encounter frequent readmissions. However, the 30- and 90-day rates for readmission following surgery for spine metastases have not been well described.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmission Database years 2013 to 2015 was queried. Patients were grouped by no readmission (non-R), readmission within 30 days (30-R), and readmission within 31 to 90 days (90-R). Weighted multivariate analysis assessed impact of treatment approach and clinical factors associated with 30- and 90-day readmissions.

RESULTS

There were a total of 4423 patients with a diagnosis of spine metastases identified who underwent spine surgery, of which 1657 (37.5%) encountered either a 30-or 90-day unplanned readmission (30-R: n = 1068 [24-.1%]; 90-R: n = 589 [13.3%]; non-R: n = 2766). The most prevalent inpatient complications observed were postoperative infection (30-R: 16.3%, 90-R: 14.3%, non-R: 11.5%), acute post-hemorrhagic anemia (30-R: 13.4%, 90-R: 14.2%, non-R: 14.5%), and genitourinary complication (30-R: 5.7%, 90-R: 2.9%, non-R: 6.2%). The most prevalent 30-day and 90-day reasons for admission were sepsis (30-R: 10.2%, 90-R: 10.8%), postoperative infection (30-R: 13.7%, 90-R: 6.5%), and genitourinary complication (30-R: 3.9%, 90-R: 4.1%). On multivariate regression analysis, surgery type, age, hypertension, and renal failure were independently associated with 30-day readmission; rheumatoid arthritis/collagen vascular diseases, and coagulopathy were independently associated with 90-day readmission.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we demonstrate several patient-level factors independently associated with unplanned hospital readmissions after surgical treatment intervention for spine metastases. Furthermore, we find that the most common reasons for readmission are sepsis, postoperative infection, and genitourinary complications.Level of Evidence: 3.

Interhospital transfer status for spinal metastasis patients in the United States is associated with more severe clinical presentations and higher rates of inpatient complications

OBJECTIVE

In patients with metastatic spinal disease (MSD), interhospital transfer can potentially impact clinical outcomes as the possible benefits of transferring a patient to a higher level of care must be weighed against the negative effects associated with potential delays in treatment. While the association of clinical outcomes and transfer status has been examined in other specialties, the relationship between transfer status, complications, and risk of mortality in patients with MSD has yet to be explored. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of transfer status on in-hospital mortality and clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with MSD.

METHODS

The National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was retrospectively queried for adult patients diagnosed with vertebral pathological fracture and/or spinal cord compression in the setting of metastatic disease between 2012 and 2014. Demographics, baseline characteristics (e.g., metastatic spinal cord compression [MSCC] and paralysis), comorbidities, type of intervention, and relevant patient outcomes were controlled in a multivariable logistic regression model to analyze the association of transfer status with patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Within the 10,360 patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, higher rates of MSCC (50.2% vs 35.9%, p < 0.001) and paralysis (17.3% vs 8.4%, p < 0.001) were observed in patients transferred between hospitals compared to those directly admitted. In univariable analysis, a higher percentage of transferred patients underwent surgical intervention (p < 0.001) when compared with directly admitted patients. After controlling for significant covariates and surgical intervention, transferred patients were more likely to develop in-hospital complications (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18-1.52, p < 0.001), experience prolonged length of stay (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.16-1.52, p < 0.001), and have a discharge disposition other than home (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.46-1.98, p < 0.001), with no significant difference in inpatient mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MSD who were transferred between hospitals demonstrated more severe clinical presentations and higher rates of inpatient complications compared to directly admitted patients, despite demonstrating no difference in in-hospital mortality rates.

Analysis of unplanned hospital readmissions up to 2-years after metastatic spine tumour surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate rates, causes, and risk factors of unplanned hospital readmissions (UHR) within 30 days, 90 days, 1 year and 2 years after metastatic spine tumour surgery (MSTS) to augment multi-disciplinary treatment planning and improve patient education.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 272-patients who underwent MSTS between 2005 and 2016. Hospital records were utilised to obtain demographics, oncological, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes. All UHR within 2 years were reviewed. Primary outcomes were rates, causes, and risk factors of UHR. Risk factors for UHR were evaluated utilising multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-day, 90 day, 1 year, and 2 year UHR-rates after MSTS were 17.2%, 31.1%, 46.2%, and 52.7%, respectively. Lung cancer primaries had the highest UHR-events (24.7%) whilst renal/thyroid displayed the least (6.6%). Disease-related causes (16.2%) were the most common reason for readmissions across all timeframes, followed by respiratory (13.7%) and progression of metastatic spine disease (12.7%). Urological conditions accounted for majority of readmissions within 30-days; disease-related causes, symptomatic spinal metastases, and respiratory conditions represented the most common causes at 30-90 days, 90 days-1 year, and 1-2 years, respectively. An ECOG >1 (p = 0.057), CCI >7 (p = 0.01), and primary lung tumour (p = 0.02) significantly increased UHR-risk on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Seventy-four percent of patients had at least one UHR within 2 years of MSTS and majority were secondary to disease-related causes. Majority of first UHR occurred between 30 and 90 days post-surgery. Local disease progression and overall disease progression account for the highest UHR-events at 90 days-1 year and 1-2 year timeframes, respectively. We define UHR in specific timeframes, thus enabling better surveillance and reducing unnecessary morbidity.

The 30-day readmission rate in neurosurgery-a useful indicator for quality assessment?

BACKGROUND

A shift in how we evaluate healthcare outcomes has driven the introduction of quality indicators as potential parameters to evaluate value-based healthcare delivery. So far, only few studies have been performed evaluating quality indicators in the context of neurosurgery, especially in the European region. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 30-day readmission rate, identify reasons for readmission regarding the various neurosurgical diagnoses, and discuss the usefulness of this rate as a potential quality indicator.

METHODS

During a 6-year period, a total of 8878 hospitalized patients in our neurosurgical department were retrospectively analyzed and included in this study. Reasons for readmission were identified. Patients' diagnoses and baseline characteristics were obtained in order to identify possible risk factors for readmission.

RESULTS

The 30-day readmission rate was 2.9%. The most common reason for unplanned readmissions were surgical site infections. The reasons for readmissions varied significantly between the different underlying neurosurgical diseases (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed hydrocephalus (OR, 4) and shorter length of stay during index admission (OR, 0.9) as risk factors for readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

We provided an analysis of reasons for readmission for various neurosurgical diseases in a large patient spectrum in Germany. Although readmission rates are easy to track and an attractive tool for quality assessment, the rate alone cannot be seen as an adequate measure for quality in neurosurgery as it lacks a homogenous definition and depends on the underlying health care system. In addition, strategies for risk adjustment are required.

Zoledronic Acid Versus Denosumab for Prevention of Spinal Cord Compression in Advanced Cancers With Spine Metastasis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to analyze the efficacy of zoledronic acid (ZA) versus denosumab in the prevention of spinal cord compression in patients with spine metastases from advanced cancers, by evaluating all available RCTs on this subject.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed and MEDLINE) was performed to identify all published RCTs comparing ZA with denosumab in prevention of spinal cord compressions in spine metastases. Risk of bias of the studies was assessed. The primary outcomes evaluated were spinal cord compression.

RESULTS

Three RCTs (5274 patients) were included. Denosumab was not significantly superior to ZA in reducing the likelihood of spinal cord compression, when all tumor types were combined (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.66, 1.28], P = .66). Denosumab was not significantly favored over ZA in endodermal origin (breast and prostate; OR 0.72, 95% CI [0.43, 1.19], P = .20) and mesodermal origin tumors (solid tumors and multiple myeloma; OR 1.10, 95% CI [0.72, 1.69], P = .66).

CONCLUSION

Denosumab does not significantly reduce the likelihood of spinal cord compressions in comparison to ZA in patients with spine metastases. When spinal cord compressions were grouped by tumor origin (endodermal or mesodermal), there remained no significant difference between denosumab and ZA. Further long-term studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these treatment regimens.

Surgical treatment of metastatic spine disease: an update on national trends and clinical outcomes from 2010 to 2014

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Metastatic spine disease (MSD) is becoming more prevalent as medical treatment for cancers advance and extend survival. More MSD patients are treated surgically to maintain neurological function, ambulation, and quality of life.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to use a large, nationally representative database to examine the trends, patient outcomes, and health-care resource utilization associated with surgical treatment of MSD.

DESIGN

This was an epidemiologic study using national administrative data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD).

PATIENT SAMPLE

All patients in the NRD from 2010 to 2014 who underwent spinal surgery were included in the study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality, blood transfusion, complications, length of stay, cost, and discharge location during index hospitalization as well as hospital readmission and revision surgery within 90-days of surgery were analyzed.

METHODS

International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, (ICD-9) codes was used to identify patients of interest within the NRD from 2010 to 2014. Patients were separated into two cohorts - those with MSD and those without. Trends for surgical treatment of MSD were assessed and outcomes measures for both cohorts were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

The number of surgical treatments for MSD increased from 6,007 in 2010 to 7,032 in 2014 (p-trend<.0001) which represented a 17.1% increase. During index hospitalization, MSD patients had an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR]=3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.85-3.63, p<.0001), blood transfusion (OR=2.93, 95% CI: 2.66-3.23, p<.0001), any complication (OR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.18-1.31, p<.0001), and discharge to skilled nursing facility (OR=1.51, 95% CI:1.41-1.61, p<.0001). MSD patients had longer average length of stay (13.05 vs. 4.56 days, p<.0001) and cost ($49,421.75 vs. $26,190.37, p<.0001) during index hospitalization. Furthermore, MSD patients had an increased risk of hospital readmission (OR=2.82, 95% CI: 2.68-2.96, p<.0001), readmission for surgical site infection (OR=2.38, 95% CI: 2.20-2.58, p<.0001), and readmission with neurologic deficits (OR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.27-2.06, p<.0001) despite a decreased risk of revision fusion (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.53-0.96, p=.026).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of MSD patients who undergo surgical treatments is increasing. Not only do these patients have worse outcomes during index hospitalization, but they are also at an increased risk of hospital readmission for surgical site infection and neurologic complications. These findings stress the need for multidisciplinary perioperative treatment plans that mitigate risks and facilitate quick, effective recovery in these unique, at-risk patients.

Advances in personalized treatment of metastatic spine disease

The spine is one of the most common sites of bony metastases, and its involvement leads to significant patient morbidity. Surgical management in these patients is aimed at improving quality of life and functional status throughout the course of the disease. Resection of metastases often leads to critical size bone defects, presenting a challenge to achieving adequate bone regeneration to fill the void. Current treatment options for repairing these defects are bone grafting and commercial bone cements; however, each has associated limitations. Additionally, tumor recurrence and tumor-induced bone loss make bone regeneration particularly difficult. Systemic therapeutic delivery, such as bisphosphonates, have become standard of care to combat bone loss despite unfavorable systemic side-effects and lack of local efficacy. Developments from tissue engineering have introduced novel materials with osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties which also act as structural support scaffolds for bone regeneration. These new materials can also act as a therapeutic reservoir to sustainably release drugs locally as an alternative to systemic therapy. In this review, we outline recent advancements in tissue engineering and the role of translational research in developing implants that can fully repair bone defects while also delivering local therapeutics to curb tumor recurrence and improve patient quality of life.

Treatment, complications, and outcomes of metastatic disease of the spine: from Patchell to PROMIS

Spinal metastases are common in patients with cancer. As cancer treatments improve and these patients live longer, the number who present with metastatic spine disease will increase. Treatment strategies for these patients continues to evolve. In particular, since the prospective randomized controlled study in 2005 by Patchell et al. showed increased survival with decompressive surgical treatment of spinal metastases, there is a growing body of literature focusing on surgical management and complications of surgery for this disease. Surgery is often one component of a multimodal treatment approach with chemotherapy and radiation, which makes it difficult to parse the benefits of each individual treatment in outcome studies. Additionally, there has been more recent emphasis placed on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after treatment for metastatic spine disease. In this review, we summarize treatments of metastatic spinal disease, possible perioperative complications, and validated tools used to assess outcomes for these patients.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Spinal Tumors

Nearly 20% of cancer patients develop symptomatic spine metastases. Metastatic spine tumors are most commonly extradural tumors that grow quickly and often cause persistent pain, weakness, paresthesias, urinary/bowel dysfunction, and/or paralysis. Surgical intervention aims to achieve more effective pain management, preserve/restore neurological function, provide local tumor control, and stabilize the spinal column. The desired result of treatment is ultimately to improve a patient's quality of life. Neurosurgeons employ multiple decision frameworks and grading scales to assess the need and effectiveness of a variety of surgical interventions ranging from minimally to maximally invasive. Likewise, palliative care offers an array of treatment options that allows the best, individualized plan to be determined for a given patient. Therefore, crossfunctional collaboration between palliative care, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and neurosurgery is crucial both in the maximization of available treatment options and optimization of quality of life for patients.