Is 30-day readmission an accurate measure of morbidity in cranial meningioma surgery?

Quality indicators in cranial neurosurgery: current insights and critical evaluation - a systematic review

In recent decades, there has been increasing interest in measuring the quality of care across all medical fields, including neurosurgery. This interest aims not only to optimize care but also to reduce healthcare costs. For this purpose, different quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines aiming at identifying studies that critically evaluate QIs applied in cranial neurosurgery. A total of 34 studies, suggesting 22 indicators, were identified. The most discussed indicator was the 30-day readmission rate, followed by the 30-day reoperation rate. The majority of QIs are influenced by baseline and underlying patient characteristics, reflecting the severity of the patient`s underlying disease, rather than adherence to best available evidence of treatment. Therefore, it is crucial to implement adequate risk adjustment strategies when applying QIs to compensate for differences in patient complexity and to ensure that departments that are treating high-risk patients do not have worse results. The review revealed several limitations of the currently used quality indicators. Most suggested indicators are attractive from a payer point of view, easy to measure and therefore convenient for reimbursement purposes. However, from a clinician's point of view, most indicators were considered poor performance markers as they do not correlate with meaningful outcome and do not reflect treatment quality. In addition, there is a lack of disease- and neurosurgery specific indicators. This highlights the need for clinicians to actively participate in developing more clinically relevant QIs tailored to neurosurgical practice.

Quality indicators and early adverse in surgery for atypical meningiomas: A 16-year single centre study and systematic review of the literature

Introduction

Atypical meningiomas represent approximately 20% of all intracranial meningiomas and are characterized by distinct histopathological criteria and an increased risk of postoperative recurrence. Recently, quality indicators have been introduced to monitor quality of the delivered care.

Research question

Which quality indicators/outcome measures are being applied in patients being operated for atypical meningiomas? What are risk factors associated with poor outcome? How is the surgical outcome and which quality indicators are reported in the literature?

Material and methods

The primary outcomes of interest were 30-days readmission-, 30-day reoperation-, 30-day mortality-, 30-day nosocomial infection- and the 30-day surgical site infection (SSI) rate, CSF-leakage, new neurological deficit, medical complications, and lengths of stay. The secondary aim was the identification of prognostic factors for the mentioned primary outcomes. A systematic review of the literature was performed screening studies for the mentioned outcomes.

Results

We included 52 patients. 30-days outcomes in terms of unplanned reoperation were 0%, unplanned readmission 7.7%, mortality 0%, nosocomial infection 17.3%, and SSI 0%. Any adverse event occurred in 30.8%. Preoperative C-reactive protein over 5 ​mg/l was independent factor for the occurrence of any postoperative adverse event (OR: 17.2, p ​= ​0.003). A total of 22 studies were included into the review.

Discussion and conclusion

The 30-days outcomes at our department were comparable with reported outcomes in the literature. Currently applied quality indicators are helpful in determining the postoperative outcome but mainly report the indirect outcome after surgery and are influenced of patient, tumor and treatment related factors. Risk adjustment is vital.

Critical appraisal of minimally invasive keyhole surgery for intracranial meningioma in a large case series

Background

Meningioma surgery has evolved over the last 20 years with increased use of minimally invasive approaches including the endoscopic endonasal route and endoscope-assisted and gravity-assisted transcranial approaches. As the “keyhole” concept remains controversial, we present detailed outcomes in a cohort series.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was done for all patients undergoing meningioma removal at a tertiary brain tumor referral center from 2008–2021. Keyhole approaches were defined as: use of a minimally invasive “retractorless” approach for a given meningioma in which a traditional larger approach is often used instead. The surgical goal was maximal safe removal including conservative (subtotal) removal for some invasive locations. Primary outcomes were resection rates, complications, length of stay and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS). Secondary outcomes were endoscopy use, perioperative treatments, tumor control and acute MRI FLAIR/T2 changes to assess for brain manipulation and retraction injury.

Results

Of 329 patients, keyhole approaches were utilized in 193(59%) patients (mean age 59±13; 30 (15.5%) had prior surgery) who underwent 213 operations; 205(96%) were skull base location. Approaches included: endoscopic endonasal (n = 74,35%), supraorbital (n = 73,34%), retromastoid (n = 38,18%), mini-pterional (n = 20,9%), suboccipital (n = 4,2%), and contralateral transfalcine (n = 4,2%). Primary outcomes: Gross total/near total (>90%) resection was achieved in 125(59%) (5% for petroclival, cavernous sinus/Meckel’s cave, spheno-cavernous locations vs 77% for all other locations). Major complications included: permanent neurological worsening 12(6%), CSF leak 2(1%) meningitis 2(1%). There were no DVTs, PEs, MIs or 30-day mortality. Median LOS decreased from 3 to 2 days in the last 2 years; 94% were discharged to home with favorable 90-day KPS in 176(96%) patients. Secondary outcomes: Increased FLAIR/T2 changes were noted on POD#1/2 MRI in 36/213(17%) cases, resolving in all but 11 (5.2%). Endoscopy was used in 87/139(63%) craniotomies, facilitating additional tumor removal in 55%. Tumor progression occurred in 26(13%) patients, mean follow-up 42±36 months.

Conclusions & relevance

Our experience suggests minimally invasive keyhole transcranial and endoscopic endonasal meningioma removal is associated with comparable resection rates and low complication rates, short hospitalizations and high 90-day performance scores in comparison to prior reports using traditional skull base approaches. Subtotal removal may be appropriate for invasive/adherent meningiomas to avoid neurological deficits and other post-operative complications, although longer follow-up is needed. With careful patient selection and requisite experience, these approaches may be considered reasonable alternatives to traditional transcranial approaches.

90-Day Return Visit to the Emergency Department After an Initial Neurosurgical Evaluation

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated emergency department (ED) neurosurgical reevaluation rates and their causes. Identifying the most significant reasons that make patients return to the ED for a neurosurgical reevaluation can help implement changes to reduce the economic and medical burden of patient turnover.

METHODS

All patients undergoing neurosurgical reevaluation at our institution's ED after an initial neurosurgical evaluation were enrolled in a prospective 3-month longitudinal registry. Inclusion criteria were all adult patients 21 years of age or older previously evaluated by neurosurgery at our institution's ED who return within 90 days for a neurosurgical reevaluation.

RESULTS

We found an overall 90-day ED neurosurgical return visit rate of 2.1%. During the study, 34 patients returned to the ED for a neurosurgical reevaluation. Patients returned for a neurosurgical reevaluation at a median of 23.5 days after the initial neurosurgery evaluation. The principal causes for a return visit were altered mental status, headache, and wound infections. Among the returning patients, 59% required hospitalization and 50% required an operation.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively collect data to estimate the 90-day ED return visit rate for a neurosurgical reevaluation following an initial ED neurosurgical evaluation. Some patients still use the ED to get continued care of their condition despite having access to their primary care physician. Better communication, social worker coordination, and prompt follow-up appointments at the neurosurgical outpatient clinic may reduce return visits.

Causes and Predictors of Unplanned Readmission in Cranial Neurosurgery

OBJECTIVE

A better understanding of the risks and reasons for unplanned readmission is an essential component in reducing costs in the health care system and in optimizing patient safety and satisfaction. The reasons for unplanned readmission vary between different disciplines and procedures. The aim of this study was to identify reasons for readmission in view of different diagnoses in cranial neurosurgery.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, adult patients after neurosurgical treatment were analyzed and grouped according to the indication based on International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, German Modification diagnosis codes. The main outcome measure was unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge. Further logistic regression models were performed to identify factors associated with unplanned rehospitalization.

RESULTS

Of the 2474 patients analyzed, 183 underwent unplanned rehospitalization. Readmission rates differed between the diagnosis groups, with 9.19% in neoplasm, 8.26% in hydrocephalus, 5.76% in vascular, 6.13% after trauma, and 8.05% in the functional group. Several causes were considered to be preventable, such as wound healing disorders, seizures, or social reasons. Younger age, length of first stay, surgical treatment, and side diagnoses were predictors for unplanned readmission. Diagnoses with an increased risk of readmission were glioblastoma, traumatic subdural hematoma, or chronic subdural hematoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Reasons and predictors for an unplanned readmission differ considerably among the index diagnosis groups. In addition to well-known reasons for readmission, we identified social indication, meaning a lack of home care, which is particularly prevalent in oncologic and elderly patients. A transitional care program could benefit these vulnerable patients.

Impact of insurance on hospital course and readmission after resection of benign meningioma

INTRODUCTION

Surgical outcomes and healthcare utilization have been shown to vary based on patient insurance status. We analyzed whether patients' insurance affects case urgency for and readmission after craniotomy for meningioma resection, using benign meningioma as a model system to minimize confounding from the disease-related characteristics of other neurosurgical pathologies.

METHODS

We analyzed 90-day readmission for patients who underwent resection of a benign meningioma in the Nationwide Readmission Database from 2014-2015.

RESULTS

A total of 9783 meningioma patients with private insurance (46%), Medicare (39%), Medicaid (10%), self-pay (2%), or another scheme (3%) were analyzed. 72% of all cases were elective; with 78% of cases in privately insured patients being elective compared to 71% of Medicare (p > 0.05), 59% of Medicaid patients (OR 2.3, p < 0.001), and 49% of self-pay patients (OR 3.4, p < 0.001). Medicare (OR 1.5, p = 0.002) and Medicaid (OR 1.4, p = 0.035) were both associated with higher likelihood of 90-day readmission compared to private insurance. In comparison, 30-day analyses did not unveil this discrepancy between Medicaid and privately insured, highlighting the merit for longer-term outcomes analyses in value-based care. Patients readmitted within 30 days versus those with later readmissions possessed different characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to patients with private insurance coverage, Medicaid and self-pay patients were significantly more likely to undergo non-elective resection of benign meningioma. Medicaid and Medicare insurance were associated with a higher likelihood of 90-day readmission; only Medicare was significant at 30 days. Both 30 and 90-day outcomes merit consideration given differences in readmitted populations.