Outpatient and Inpatient Single-level Cervical Total Disc Replacement: A Comparison of 30-day Outcomes

Presentation and management of infection in total disc replacement: A review

Background

Total disc replacement (TDR) is widely used in the treatment of cervical and lumbar spine pathologies. Although TDR infection, particularly delayed infection, is uncommon, the results can be devastating, and consensus on clinical management remains elusive. In this review of the literature, we asked: (1) What are the reported rates of TDR infection; (2) What are the clinical characteristics of TDR infection; and (3) How has infection been managed for TDR patients?

Methods

We performed a search of the literature using PubMed and Embase to identify studies that reported TDR infection rates, the identification and management of TDR infection, or TDR failures with positive cultures. Twenty database studies (17 focusing on the cervical spine and 3 on the lumbar spine) and 10 case reports representing 15 patients were reviewed along with device Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data reports.

Results

We found a lack of clarity regarding how infection was diagnosed, indicating a variation in clinical approach and highlighting the need for a standard definition of TDR infection. Furthermore, while reported infection rates were low, the absence of a clear definition prevented robust data analysis and may contribute to underreporting in the literature. We found that treatment strategy and success rely on several factors including patient symptoms and time to onset, microorganism type, and implant positioning/stability.

Conclusions

Although treatment strategies varied throughout the extant literature, common practices in eliminating infection and reconstructing the spine emerged. The results will inform future work on the creation of a more robust definition of TDR infection and as well as recommendations for management.

Management Considerations for Cervical Corpectomy: Updated Indications and Future Directions

Together, lower back and neck pain are among the leading causes of acquired disability worldwide and have experienced a marked increase over the past 25 years. Paralleled with the increasing aging population and the rise in chronic disease, this trend is only predicted to contribute to the growing global burden. In the context of cervical neck pain, this symptom is most often a manifestation of cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD). Traditionally, multilevel neck pain related to DDD that is recalcitrant to both physical and medical therapy can be treated with a procedure known as cervical corpectomy. Presently, there are many flavors of cervical corpectomy; however, the overarching goal is the removal of the pain-generating disc via the employment of the modern anterior approach. In this review, we will briefly detail the pathophysiological mechanism behind DDD, overview the development of the anterior approach, and discuss the current state of treatment options for said pathology. Furthermore, this review will also add to the current body of literature surrounding updated indications, surgical techniques, and patient outcomes related to cervical corpectomy. Finally, our discussion ends with highlighting the future direction of cervical corpectomy through the introduction of the "skip corpectomy" and distractable mesh cages.

Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: an analysis of the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative Database

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are established surgical options for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy, and cervical degenerative disc disease. However, current literature does not demonstrate a clear superiority between ACDF and CDA.

PURPOSE

To investigate procedural and patient-reported outcomes of ACDF and CDA among patients included in the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) database.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of prospectively collected outcomes registry data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Individuals within the MSSIC database presenting with radiculopathy, myelopathy, or cervical spondylosis refractory to typical conservative care undergoing primary ACDF or CDA from January 4, 2016, to November 5, 2021.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Perioperative measures (including surgery length, length of stay, return to OR, any complications), patient-reported functional outcomes at 2-year follow-up (including return to work, patient satisfaction, PROMIS, EQ-5D, mJOA).

METHODS

Patients undergoing ACDF were matched 4:1 with those undergoing CDA; propensity analysis performed on operative levels (1- and 2- level procedures), presenting condition, demographics, and comorbidities. Initial comparisons performed with univariate testing and multivariate analysis performed with Poisson generalized estimating equation models clustering on hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 2,208 patients with ACDF and 552 patients with CDA were included. Baseline demographics were similar, with younger patients undergoing CDA (45.6 vs 48.6 years; p<.001). Myelopathy was more frequent in ACDF patients (30% vs 25%; p=.015). CDA was more frequently planned as an outpatient procedure. Length of stay was increased in ACDF (1.3 vs 1.0 days; p<.001). Functional outcomes were similar, with comparable proportions of patients meeting minimal clinically important difference thresholds in neck pain, arm pain, PROMIS, EQ-5D, and mJOA score. After multivariate regression, no significant differences were seen in surgical or functional outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates similar outcomes for those undergoing ACDF and CDA at 2 years. Previous meta-analyses of CDA clinical trial data adhere to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria required by clinical studies; this registry data provides "real world" clinical outcomes reflecting current practices for ACDF and CDA patient selection.

Safety and Efficacy of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Disk Replacement (ACDR) in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Hospital Setting: A 2-year Retrospective Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical outcomes of outpatient anterior cervical disk replacements (ACDR) performed in free-standing private ambulatory surgery centers versus tertiary hospital centers.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ACDR is an increasingly popular technique for treating various degenerative pathologies of the cervical spine. There has been an increase in the utilization of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) for outpatient cervical procedures due to economic and convenience benefits; however, a paucity of literature exists in evaluating long-term safety and efficacy of ACDRs performed in ASCs versus outpatient hospital centers.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort review of all patients undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDRs at 2 outpatient ASCs and 4 tertiary care medical centers from 2012 to 2020, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months, was performed. Approval by each patient's insurance and patient preference determined distribution into an ASC or non-ASC. Demographics, perioperative data, length of follow-up, complications, and revision rates were analyzed. Functional outcomes were assessed using VAS and NDI at follow-up visits.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen patients were included (65 non-ASC and 52 ASC). There were no significant differences in demographics or length of follow-up between the cohorts. ASC patients had significantly lower operative times (ASC: 89.5 minutes vs. non-ASC: 110.5 minutes, P<0.001) and mean blood loss (ASC: 17.5 mL vs. non-ASC: 25.3 mL, P<0.001). No significant differences were observed in rates of dysphagia (ASC: 21.2% vs. non-ASC: 15.6%, P<0.001), infection (ASC: 0.0% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P=0.202), ASD (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P=0.202), or revision (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 0.0%, P=0.262). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS and NDI scores (P<0.001), but no significant differences in the degree of improvement were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 2-year results demonstrate that ACDRs performed in ASCs may offer the advantages of reduced operative time and blood loss without an increased risk of postoperative complications.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Replacement for a Workers' Compensation Population in an Ambulatory Surgical Center

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement outcomes between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disk replacement (CDR) in the Workers' Compensation (WC) population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

No studies to our knowledge have compared PROMs and MCID attainment between ACDF and CDR among patients with WC insurance undergoing surgery in an outpatient ambulatory surgical center (ASC).

METHODS

WC insurance patients undergoing primary, single/double-level ACDF/CDR in an ASC were identified. Patients were divided into ACDF versus CDR. PROMs were collected at preoperative/6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year timepoints, including PROMIS-PF, SF-12 PCS/MCS, VAS neck/arm, and NDI.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were included, 51 ACDF/28 CDR. While operative time (56.4 vs. 54.4 min), estimated blood loss (29.2 vs. 25.9 mL), POD0 pain (4.9 vs. 3.8), and POD0 narcotic consumption (21.2 vs. 14.5 oral morphine equivalents) were higher in ACDF patients, none reached statistical significance ( P >0.050, all). One-year arthrodesis rate was 100.0% among ACDF recipients with available imaging (n=36). ACDF cohort improved from preoperative for PROMIS-PF from 12 weeks to 1 year, SF-12 PCS at 6 months, all timepoints for VAS neck/arm, and 12 weeks/6 months for NDI ( P ≤0.044, all). CDR cohort improved from preoperative for PROMIS-PF at 6 months, VAS neck/arm from 12 weeks to 1 year, and NDI at 12 weeks/6 months ( P ≤0.049, all). CDR cohort reported significantly lower VAS neck at 12 weeks/1 year and VAS arm at 12 weeks ( P ≤0.039, all). MCID achievement rates did not differ.

CONCLUSION

While operative duration/estimated blood loss/acute postoperative pain/narcotic consumption were, on average, higher among ACDF recipients, these were not statistically significant, possibly due to the limited sample size. ACDF and CDR ASC patients generally demonstrated comparable arm pain/disability/physical function/mental health, though neck pain was significantly lower at multiple timepoints among CDR patients. Clinically meaningful PROM improvements were comparable. Larger, multicentered studies are required to confirm our results.

Current Evidence for Hybrid Constructs: Simultaneous ACDF/Arthroplasty and Arthroplasty Adjacent to Previous ACDF

It is not surprising that the utilization of hybrid constructs, combining cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical disc arthroplasty, has steadily increased over the last decade. Known limitations exist with multi-level anterior cervical disc arthroplasty and cervical disc arthroplasty procedures. Hybrid surgery offers the possibility to address patient-specific pathology in a more tailored manner by restoring functional mobility and promoting fusion where appropriate. This review discusses the current evidence, both biomechanical and clinical, of hybrid surgery for 2-level and 3-level cervical disease.

The Influence of Workers' Compensation Status on Patient-Reported Outcomes after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty at an Ambulatory Surgical Center

INTRODUCTION

Workers' compensation (WC) status tends to negatively affect patient outcomes in spine surgery. This study aims to evaluate the potential effect of WC status on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDR) at an ambulatory surgical center (ASC).

METHODS

A single-surgeon registry was retrospectively reviewed for patients who had undergone elective CDR at an ASC. Patients with missing insurance data were excluded. Propensity score-matched cohorts were generated by the presence or lack of WC status. PROs were collected preoperatively and at 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, and 1-year time points. PROs included the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm pain, and Neck Disability Index. PROs were compared within and between groups. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rates were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were included, with 36 without WC (non-WC) and 27 with WC. The non-WC cohort demonstrated postoperative improvement in all PROs at all time points, with the exception of VAS arm past the 12-week point ( P ≤ 0.030, all). The WC cohort demonstrated postoperative improvement in VAS neck at 12-week, 6-month, and 1-year time points ( P ≤ 0.025, all). The WC cohort improved in VAS arm and Neck Disability Index at the 12-week and 1-year points as well ( P ≤ 0.029, all). The non-WC cohort reported superior PRO scores in every PRO at one or more postoperative time points ( P ≤ 0.046, all). The non-WC cohort demonstrated higher rates of minimum clinically important difference achievement in PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks ( P ≤ 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Patients with WC status undergoing CDR at an ASC may report inferior pain, function, and disability outcomes compared with those with private or government-provided insurance. Perceived inferior disability in WC patients persisted into the long-term follow-up period (1 year). These findings may aid surgeons in setting realistic preoperative expectations with patients at risk of inferior outcomes.

Presence and Severity of Mental Illness Is Associated With Increased Risk of Postoperative Emergency Visits, Readmission, and Reoperation Following Outpatient ACDF: A National Database Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose was to compare rates of postoperative ED visits, readmission, and reoperation between patients with and without preexisting mental illness undergoing outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

A retrospective review of the Mariner Database was conducted on patients who underwent ACDF between 2010 and 2017. Exclusion criteria included same day revision surgery and patients with a history of spine infection, trauma, or neoplasm. Patients were grouped into 3 categories: those with existing history of anxiety and/or depression, those with severe mental illness, and those without any history of mental illness. Severe mental illness was defined as a combination of diagnosis including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and/or psychotic disorder. Outcome measures were analyzed by comparing groups using multivariate logistic regression. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Patients with anxiety/depression and patients with severe mental illness both had significantly increased risk of ED visits and readmission at 30-day and 90-day intervals. Compared to patients without mental illness, patients with severe mental illness (OR 1.93, P < 0.001) had significantly increased rates of reoperation at 90-days and 1-years postoperatively. Patients with anxiety/depression did not have increased rates of reoperation relative to patients without anxiety/depression at any time interval (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Anxiety/depression as well as more severe psychiatric disease such as Schizophrenia and Bipolar disorder were significantly associated with increased healthcare utilization following outpatient ACDF. Patients with preexisting mental illness undergoing outpatient ACDF should be carefully evaluated preoperatively and closely followed postoperatively to reduce risk of adverse events.

Trends in use, outcomes, and revision procedures of anterior cervical disc replacement in the United States: a premiere database analysis from 2006-2019

PURPOSE

We sought to characterize trends in demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications among patients undergoing primary and revision cervical disc replacement (pCDR/rCDR) procedures.

METHODS

In this retrospective database study, the Premier Healthcare database was queried from 2006 to 2019. Annual proportions or medians were calculated for patient and hospital characteristics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications associated with CDR surgery. Trends were assessed using linear regression analyses with year of service as the sole predictor.

RESULTS

A total of 16,178 pCDR and 758 rCDR cases were identified, with a median (IQR) age of 46 (39; 53) and 51 (43; 60) years among patients, respectively. The annual number of both procedures increased between 2006 and 2019, from 135 to 2220 for pCDR (p < 0.001), and from 17 to 49 for rCDR procedures (p < 0.001), with radiculopathy being the main indication for surgery in both groups. Mechanical failure was identified as a major indication for rCDR procedures with an increase over time (p = 0.002). Baseline patient comorbidity burden (p = 0.045) and complication rates (p < 0.001) showed an increase. For both procedures, an increase in outpatient surgeries and procedures performed in rural hospitals was seen (pCDR: p = 0.045; p = 0.006; rCDR: p = 0.028; p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

PCDR and rCDR procedures significantly increased from 2006 to 2019. At the same time, comorbidity burden and complication rates increased, while procedures were more often performed in an outpatient and rural setting. The identification of these trends can help guide future practice and lead to further areas of research.

No Significant Differences in Postoperative Complications Between Outpatient and Inpatient Single-level or Multiple-level Cervical Disk Replacement for Cervical Radiculopathy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety profile of outpatient versus inpatient single-level and multiple-level cervical disk replacement (CDR) by analyzing one- and two-year surgical outcomes and 90-day medical complications using a large patient database.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

CDR is becoming a more desirable option for patients undergoing cervical spine procedures. Unlike anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion, CDR is motion-preserving and has been shown to reduce rates of adjacent segment disease. Current literature investigating outpatient versus inpatient CDR has shown a similar safety profile among the two cohorts. However, most of these studies have relatively small sample sizes with short-term follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was done using the PearlDiver patient database between 2010 and 2019. Patients who underwent single-level and multiple-level CDR with a follow-up of at least two years were identified. Patients within each procedure cohort were subdivided into an outpatient and an inpatient group. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 2294 patients underwent single-level CDR of which 506 patients underwent outpatient CDR and 1788 underwent inpatient CDR. In total, 236 patients underwent multiple-level CDR of which 49 patients underwent outpatient CDR and 187 underwent inpatient CDR. In the single-level CDR cohort, patients undergoing outpatient CDR were found to have lesser odds of a decompressive laminectomy at one year following the initial procedure (odds ratio=0.471; 95% confidence interval: 0.205-0.945; P =0.05). No significant differences in one- and two-year surgical complications, or 90-day postoperative complications, were found on multivariate analysis of outpatient versus inpatient multiple-level CDR.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that performing single-level and multiple-level CDR on an outpatient basis has a similar safety profile to patients who underwent these procedures in an inpatient setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Choose Wisely: Surgical Selection of Candidates for Outpatient Anterior Cervical Surgery Based on Early Complications Among Inpatients

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are attractive targets for transition to the outpatient setting. We assessed the prevalence of rapid responses and major complications in the inpatient setting following 1 or 2-level ACDFs and CDAs. We evaluated factors that may place patients at greater risk for a rapid response or a postoperative complication.

METHODS

This was an institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing 1 or 2-level ACDF or CDA at 1 hospital over a 2-year period (2018 and 2019). Data on patient demographic characteristics, surgical procedures, and comorbidities were collected. Rapid response events were identified by hospital floor staff and involved acute changes in a patient's clinical condition. Complications were events that were life-threatening, required an intervention, or led to delayed hospital discharge.

RESULTS

In this study, 1,040 patients were included: 888 underwent ACDF and 152 underwent CDA. Thirty-six patients (3.5%) experienced a rapid response event; 22% occurred >24 hours after extubation. Patients having a rapid response event had a significantly higher risk of developing a complication (risk ratio, 10; p < 0.01) and had a significantly longer hospital stay. Twenty-four patients (2.3%) experienced acute complications; 71% occurred >6 hours after extubation. Patients with a complication were older and more likely to be current or former smokers, have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, have asthma, and have an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of >2. The length of the surgical procedure was significantly longer in patients who developed a complication. All patients who developed dysphagia had a surgical procedure involving C4-C5 or more cephalad. Patients with a rapid response event or complication were more commonly undergoing revision surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid response and complications are uncommon following 1 or 2-level ACDFs or CDAs but portend a longer hospital stay and increased morbidity. Revision surgical procedures place patients at higher risk for rapid responses and complications. Additionally, older patients, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, patients who are current or former smokers, and patients who have an ASA score of ≥3 are at increased risk for postoperative complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Revision Anterior Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A National Analysis of the Associated Indications, Procedures, and Postoperative Outcomes

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the associated indications, procedures, and postoperative outcomes after revision ACDA.

METHODS

We utilized a national database to identify adult(≥18 years) patients who underwent either a primary ACDA or removal of ACDA over a 10-year period(2008-2017). An in-depth assessment of the reasons for revision surgery and the subsequent procedures performed after the removal of ACDA was done by using both Current Procedural Terminology(CPT) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD-9,10) coding.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2017, a total of 3,350 elective, primary ACDA cases were performed. During this time, 69 patients had a revision surgery requiring the removal of ACDA. The most common reasons for revision surgery included cervical spondylosis(59.4%) and mechanical complications(27.5%). After removal of ACDA, common procedures performed included anterior cervical fusion with or without decompression(69.6%), combined anterior/posterior fusion/decompression (11.6%), and replacement of ACDA (7.2%). The indications for surgery did not vary significantly among the different procedures performed (p = 0.318). Patients requiring revision surgery for mechanical complications or those who underwent a combined surgical approach were at significantly higher risk for subsequent short-term complications (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Over a 10-year period, the rate of revision surgery for ACDA was low (2.1%). Nearly 90% of revision cases were due to either cervical spondylosis or mechanical complications. These indications for surgery did not vary significantly among the different procedures performed. These findings will be important during the shared-decision making process for patients undergoing primary or revision ACDA.

Discharge to Rehabilitation Predicts Increased Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare 30-day readmission and postdischarge morbidity for posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) in patients who were discharged to home versus rehabilitation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An increasing number of patients are being discharged to postacute inpatient care facilities following spine surgery. However, little research has been performed to evaluate the effect of this trend on short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent PCDF from 2011 to 2018 were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvements Program (NSQIP)-database. Regression was utilized to compare primary outcomes between home and rehabilitation groups and to control for predictors of outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 8912 patients. Unadjusted analysis revealed that rehabilitation-discharge patients had greater readmission (10.4% vs. 8.0%, P=0.002) and postdischarge morbidity (7.1% vs. 4.0%, P<0.001) rates. After controlling for patient-related factors, rehabilitation-discharge independently predicted postdischarge morbidity (P<0.001, odds ratio=2.232). Readmission no longer differed between groups (P=0.071, odds ratio=1.311). Rates of discharge to rehabilitation increased from 23.5% in 2011 to 25.3% in 2018, while postdischarge morbidity rates remained stagnant.Patients discharged to rehabilitation were older (66.9 vs. 59.4 y); more likely to be African American (21.4% vs. 13.8%) and have diabetes (27.1% vs. 17.5%), steroid use (6.4% vs. 4.7%, P=0.002), and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA)-class ≥3 (80.2% vs. 57.7%); less likely to be male (53.9% vs. 57.4%, P=0.004) and smokers (20.3% vs. 26.6%); and had greater operative time (198 vs. 170 min) and length of hospital stay (5.9 vs. 3.3 d) (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite controlling for significant factors, discharge to rehabilitation independently predicted a 2.2 times increased odds of postdischarge morbidity. Rates of discharge to rehabilitation increased overtime without an appreciable decrease in postdischarge morbidity, suggesting that greater resources are being utilized in the postacute care period without an obvious justification. Therefore, home-discharge should be prioritized after hospitalization for PCDF when feasible. These findings are notable in light of reform efforts aimed at reducing costs while improving quality of care.

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

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Hybrid Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion and Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Short-Term Complications, Reoperations, and Readmissions

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

Although cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has become a well-established and effective treatment for symptomatic cervical degeneration, many patients with multilevel disease are not good candidates for CDA at all levels. For such patients, hybrid surgery (HS)-a combination of adjacent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and CDA-may be more appropriate. Given the novelty of HS and the relative dearth of studies adequately assessing short-term perioperative complications, this current study sought to assess the short-term morbidity profile of HS, differences in operative duration, length of stay (LOS), and readmission and reoperation rates and reasons relative to a 2-level ACDF cohort.

METHODS

All patients who underwent HS and 2-level ACDF were identified between 2011 and 2018 using a large, prospectively collected registry. Baseline patient characteristics and postoperative complications were compared using bivariate and/or multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 390 patients undergoing HS were identified. Two-level procedures were the most common (74.9%). Patients undergoing HS were more likely to be younger, male, and have fewer comorbidities. There were no differences between HS and 2-level ACDF in rates of any postoperative complication, transfusion, readmissions, and operative duration. However, HS had a decreased LOS (0.5 days), relative to a 2-level ACDF. HS patients had low rates of reoperation (1.28%) with 1 case for hematoma evacuation and another for revision CDA.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents one of the largest cohorts of patients undergoing HS reported to date. Patients undergoing HS are not at increased risk of perioperative complications relative to a 2-level ACDF and may benefit from shorter LOS.

Comparison of the Safety of Outpatient Cervical Disc Replacement With Inpatient Cervical Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Outpatient cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been performed with an increasing trend in recent years. However, the safety profile surrounding outpatient CDR remains insufficient. The present study systematically reviewed the current studies about outpatient CDR and performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the current evidence on the safety of outpatient CDR as a comparison with the inpatient CDR.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases comprehensively up to April 2020. Patient demographic data, overall complication, readmission, returning to the operation room, operating time were analyzed with the Stata 14 software and R 3.4.4 software.

RESULTS

Nine retrospective studies were included. Patients underwent outpatient CDR were significantly younger (mean difference [MD] = -1.97; 95% CI -3.80 to -0.15; P = .034) and had lower prevalence of hypertension (OR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.53-0.87; P = .002) compared with inpatient CDR. The pooled prevalence of overall complication was 0.51% (95% CI 0.10% to 1.13%) for outpatient CDR. Outpatient CDR had a 59% reduction in risk of developing complications (OR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). Outpatient CDR showed significantly shorter operating time (MD = -18.37; 95% CI -25.96 to -10.77; P < .001). The readmission and reoperation rate were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of prospective studies on the safety of outpatient CDR. However, current evidence shows outpatient CDR can be safely performed under careful patient selection. High-quality, large prospective studies are needed to demonstrate the generalizability of this study.

Perspective on morbidity and mortality of cervical surgery performed in outpatient/same day/ambulatory surgicenters versus inpatient facilities

Background:

This is an updated analysis of the morbidity and mortality of cervical surgery performed in outpatient/same day (OSD) (Postoperative care unit [PACU] observation 4–6 h), and ambulatory surgicenters (ASC: PACU 23 h) versus inpatient facilities (IF).

Methods:

We analyzed 19 predominantly level III (retrospective) and IV (case series) studies regarding the morbidity/mortality of cervical surgery performed in OSC/ASC versus IF.

Results:

A “selection bias” clearly favored operating on younger/healthier patients to undergo cervical surgery in OSD/ASC centers resulting in better outcomes. Alternatively, those selected for cervical procedures to be performed in IF classically demonstrated multiple major comorbidities (i.e. advanced age, diabetes, high body mass index, severe myelopathy, smoking, 3–4 level disease, and other comorbidities) and had poorer outcomes. Further, within the typical 4–6 h. PACU “observation window,” OSD facilities “picked up” most major postoperative complications, and typically showed 0% mortality rates. Nevertheless, the author’s review of 2 wrongful death suits (i.e. prior to 2018) arising from OSD ACDF cervical surgery demonstrated that there are probably many more mortalities occurring following discharges from OSD where cervical operations are being performed that are going underreported/unreported.

Conclusion:

“Selection bias” favors choosing younger/healthier patients to undergoing cervical surgery in OSD/ ASC facilities resulting in better outcomes. Atlernatively, choosing older patients with greater comorbidities for IF surgery correlated with poorer results. Although most OSD cervical series report 0% mortality rates, a review of 2 wrongful death suits by just one neurosurgeon prior to 2018 showed there are probably many more mortalities resulting from OSD cervical surgery than have been reported.

Comparative Analysis of 30-Day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity Between Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty Performed in the Inpatient and Outpatient Settings Utilizing the ACS-NSQIP Dataset

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

Spine surgery has been increasingly performed in the outpatient setting, providing greater control over cost, efficiency, and resource utilization. However, research evaluating the safety of this trend is limited. The objective of this study is to compare 30-day readmission, reoperation, and morbidity for patients undergoing lumbar disc arthroplasty (LDA) in the inpatient versus outpatient settings.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LDA from 2005 to 2018 were identified using the ACS-NSQIP (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) database. Regression was utilized to compare readmission, reoperation, and morbidity between surgical settings, and to evaluate for predictors thereof.

RESULTS

We identified 751 patients. There were no significant differences between inpatient and outpatient LDA in rates of readmission, reoperation, or morbidity on univariate or multivariate analyses. There were also no significant differences in rates of specific complications. Inpatient operative time (138 ± 75 minutes) was significantly (P < .001) longer than outpatient operative time (106 ± 43 minutes). In multivariate analysis, diabetes (P < .001, OR = 7.365), baseline dyspnea (P = .039, OR = 6.447), and increased platelet count (P = .048, OR = 1.007) predicted readmission. Diabetes (P = .016, OR = 6.533) and baseline dyspnea (P = .046, OR = 13.814) predicted reoperation. Baseline dyspnea (P = .021, OR = 8.188) and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class ≥3 (P = .014, OR = 3.515) predicted morbidity. Decreased hematocrit (P = .008) and increased operative time (P = .003) were associated with morbidity in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Readmission, reoperation, and morbidity were statistically similar between surgical setting, indicating that LDA can be safely performed in the outpatient setting. Higher ASA class and specific comorbidities predicted poorer 30-day outcomes. These findings can guide choice of surgical setting given specific patient factors.

Comparison of Two-level Cervical Disc Replacement Versus Two-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Outpatient Setting

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of two-level cervical disc replacement (CDR) in the outpatient setting.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite growing interest in CDR, limited data exist evaluating the safety of two-level CDR in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for all two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and CDR procedures between 2015 and 2018. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day postoperative complication rates of outpatient two-level CDR were compared to those of inpatient two-level CDR and outpatient two-level ACDF. Radiographic data are not available in the NSQIP.

RESULTS

A total of 403 outpatient CDRs were compared to 408 inpatient CDRs and 4134 outpatient ACDFs. Outpatient CDR patients were older and more likely to have pulmonary comorbidities compared to inpatient CDR (P < 0.03). Outpatient CDR patients were less likely to have an American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥2 and have hypertension compared to outpatient ACDF patients (P < 0.0001). Outpatient CDR had a lower 30-day readmission rate (0.5% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.02) and lower 30-day reoperation rate (0% vs. 1%, P = 0.047) compared to inpatient CDR. Outpatient CDR had a lower readmission rate (0.5% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.03) compared to outpatient ACDF, but there was no difference in reoperation rates between the two procedures (0% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.07). Outpatient CDR had an overall complication rate of 0.2%, inpatient CDR had a complication rate of 0.9%, and outpatient ACDF had a complication rate of 1.3%. These differences were not significant.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest multicenter study examining the safety of two-level outpatient CDR procedures. Outpatient two-level CDR was associated with similarly safe outcomes when compared to inpatient two-level CDR and outpatient two-level ACDF. This suggests that two-level CDR can be performed safely in the outpatient setting.Level of Evidence: 3.

Outcomes of Same-Day Orthopedic Surgery: Are Spine Patients More Likely to Have Optimal Immediate Recovery From Outpatient Procedures?

BACKGROUND

Spinal surgery is associated with an inherently elevated risk profile, and thus far there has been limited discussion about how these outpatient spine patients are benefiting from these same-day procedures against other typical outpatient orthopedic surgeries.

METHODS

Orthopedic patients who received either inpatient or outpatient surgery were isolated in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality of Improvement Program (2005-2016). Patients were stratified by type of orthopedic surgery received (spine, knee, ankle, shoulder, or hip). Mean comparisons and chi-squared tests assessed basic demographics. Perioperative complications were analyzed via regression analyses in regard to their principal inpatient or outpatient orthopedic surgery received.

RESULTS

This study included 729 480 surgical patients: 32.5% received spinal surgery, 36.5% knee, 24.1% hip, 4.9% shoulder, and 1.7%ankle. Of those who received a spinal procedure, 74.7% were inpatients (IN), and 25.3% were outpatients (OUT): knee: 96.1% IN, 3.9% OUT; hip:98.9% IN, 1.1% OUT; ankle: 29% IN, 71% OUT; and shoulder: 52.6% IN, 47.6% OUT. Hip patients were the oldest, and knee patients had the highest body mass index out of the orthopedic groups (P < .00). Spine IN patients experienced more complications than the other orthopedic groups and had the lowest OUT complications(both P < .05). This same trend of having higher IN complications than OUT complications was identified for hip, shoulder, and knee. However, ankle procedures had greater OUT procedure complications than IN (P < .05). After controlling for age, body mass index, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, IN procedures, such as knee, hip, spine, and shoulder, were significantly associated with experiencing postoperative complications. From 2006 to 2016, IN and OUT surgeries were significantly different among complications experienced for all of the orthopedic groups (P < .05) with complications decreasing for IN and OUT patients by 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, spine surgery has decreased in complications for IN and OUT procedures along with IN/OUT knee, ankle, hip, and shoulder procedures, reflecting greater tolerance for risk in an outpatient setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Despite the increase in riskier spine procedures, complications have decreased over the years. Surgeons should aim to continue to decrease inpatient spine complications to the level of other orthopedic surgeries.

Comparison of the safety of outpatient cervical disc replacement with inpatient cervical disc replacement: A protocol for a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been widely used as an effective treatment for cervical degenerative disc diseases in recent years. However, the cost of this procedure is very high and may bring a great economic burden to patients and the health care system. It is reported that outpatient procedures can reduce nearly 30% of the costs associated with hospitalization compared with inpatient procedures. However, the safety profile surrounding outpatient CDR remains poorly resolved. This study aims to evaluate the current evidence on the safety of outpatient CDR METHODS:: Four English databases were searched. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed according to the PICOS principle. The titles and abstracts of the records will be screened by 2 authors independently. Records that meet the eligibility criteria will be screened for a second time by reading the full text. An extraction form will be established for data extraction. Risk of bias assessment will be performed by 2 authors independently using Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data synthesis will be conducted using Stata software. Heterogeneity among studies will be assessed using I test. The funnel plot, Egger regression test, and Begg rank correlation test will be used to examine the publication bias.

RESULTS

The results of this meta-analysis will be published in a peer-review journal.

CONCLUSION

This will be the first meta-analysis that compares the safety of outpatient CDR with inpatient CDR. Our study will help surgeons fully understand the complications and safety profile surrounding outpatient CDR. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER:: doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3597Z.

Readmission in elective spine surgery: Will short stays be beneficial to patients

There has been limited discussion as to whether spine surgery patients are benefiting from shorter in-patient hospital stays or if they are incurring higher rates of readmission and complications secondary to shortened length of stays. Included in this study were 237,446 spine patients >18yrs and excluding infection. Patients with Clavien Grade 5 complications in 2015 had the lowest mean time to readmission after initial surgery in all years at 12.44 ± 9.03 days. Pearson bivariate correlations between LOS ≤ 1 day and decreasing days to readmission was the strongest in 2016.). Logistic regression analysis found that LOS ≤ 1 day showed an overall increase in the odds of hospital readmission from 2012 to 2016 (2.29 [2.00-2.63], 2.33 [2.08-2.61], 2.35 [2.11-2.61], 2.27 [2.06-2.49], 2.33 [2.14-2.54], all p < 0.001).

The Safety of Single and Multilevel Cervical Total Disc Replacement in Ambulatory Surgery Centers

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the safety profile of single- and multilevel cervical artificial disc replacement (ADR) performed in an outpatient setting.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

As healthcare costs rise, attempts are made to perform an increasing proportion of spine surgery in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). ASCs are more efficient, economically and functionally. Few studies have published on the safety profile of multilevel cervical ADR.

METHODS

We have performed an analysis of all consecutive cervical ADR surgeries that we performed in an ASC over a 9-month period, including multilevel and revision surgery. The pre-, intra-, and postoperative data recorded included age, sex, body mass index, tobacco use, and diabetes; level and procedure, operating room time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and complications; and discharge site, occurrence of reoperation, hospital admission, or any medical complication or infection over a 90-day period.

RESULTS

A total of 147 patients underwent 231 treated levels: 71 single-level, 76 multilevel: 69 two-level, 6 three-level, and 1 four-level. Average age was 50 ± 10 years; 71 women, 76 men. None of the patients had insulin-dependent diabetes, 4 were current smokers, and 16 were former smokers. Average body mass index was 26.8 ± 4.6 (range 18-40). Average total anesthesia time was 88 minutes (range 39-168 min). Average EBL was 15 mL (range 5-100 mL). Approximately 90.3% of patients were discharged directly home, 9.7% to an aftercare facility. In the 90-day postoperative period there were zero deaths and two hospital admissions (1.4%)-one for medical complication (0.7%) and one for a surgical site infection (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

In this consecutive case series we performed 231 ADRs in 147 patients in the outpatient setting, including multilevel and revision procedures, with 2 minor postoperative complications resulting in hospital unplanned admissions within 90 days. We believe that these procedures are safe to perform in an ASC. An efficient surgical team and careful patient selection criteria are critical in making this possible.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Cervical Disc Replacement: Trends, Costs, and Complications

Study Design

Retrospective review of insurance database.

Purpose

To investigate national trends, complications, and costs after cervical disc replacement (CDR) using an administrative insurance database representative of the United States population.

Overview of Literature

As CDR continues to be used to treat patients with cervical stenosis, it is important to gain a better understanding of its use on a national level, potential complications, and cost. This information will allow for optimal patient counseling, risk stratification, and healthcare cost assessments. Several prior studies have investigated complications associated with CDR, but they have been limited by small sample size, single institution experiences, limited follow-up, and potential conflicts of interest.

Methods

Patients who underwent single or multilevel CDR between 2007 and 2015 were identified using an insurance database. We collected data on annual trends, reimbursement costs, patient demographic information, hospital information, and information on complications from the time of operation to 1 year postoperative.

Results

Total of 293 patients underwent either single or multilevel CDR. The number of procedures increased nonlinearly over time at an average of 17% per year, with a greater increase seen in the outpatient setting. Less than 3.7% of patients had new onset pain within 1 year after CDR. Within 1 year, 12.3% of patients reported a mechanical and/or bone-related complication. There were no patients who indicated a new nerve injury within 6 months of follow-up. Less than 3.7% of patients presented with dysphagia or dysphonia within 6 months, infection within 3 months, or a revision or reoperation within 1 year. Average reimbursement for single-level inpatient versus outpatient CDR was US $33,696.28 and US $34,675.12, respectively (p=0.29).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the use of CDR continued to increase. The most common complication was mechanical and/or bone-related, and cost analysis demonstrated no significant difference between inpatient and outpatient CDR.

Complications of anterior cervical spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature

The anterior approach to the cervical spine is commonly utilized for a variety of degenerative, traumatic, neoplastic, and infectious indications. While many potential complications overlap with those of the posterior approach, the distinct anatomy of the anterior neck also presents a unique set of hazards. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the etiology, presentation, natural history, and management of these complications. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), a PubMed search was conducted to evaluate clinical studies and case reports of patients who suffered a complication of anterior cervical spine surgery. The search specifically included articles concerning adult human subjects, written in the English language, and published from 1989 to 2019. The PubMed search yielded 240 articles meeting our criteria. The overall rates of complications were as follows: dysphagia 5.3%, esophageal perforation 0.2%, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy 1.3%, infection 1.2%, adjacent segment disease 8.1%, pseudarthrosis 2.0%, graft or hardware failure 2.1%, cerebrospinal fluid leak 0.5%, hematoma 1.0%, Horner syndrome 0.4%, C5 palsy 3.0%, vertebral artery injury 0.4%, and new or worsening neurological deficit 0.5%. Morbidity rates in anterior cervical spine surgery are low. Nevertheless, the unique anatomy of the anterior neck presents a wide variety of potential complications involving vascular, aerodigestive, neural, and osseous structures.

Application of a modified surgical position in anterior approach for total cervical artificial disc replacement

BACKGROUND

Total cervical artificial disc replacement (TDR) has been considered a safe and effective alternative surgical treatment for cervical spondylosis and degenerative disc disease that have failed to improve with conservative methods. Positioning the surgical patient is a critical part of the procedure. Appropriate patient positioning is crucial not only for the safety of the patient but also for optimizing surgical exposure, ensuring adequate and safe anesthesia, and allowing the surgeon to operate comfortably during lengthy procedures. The surgical posture is the traditional position used in anterior cervical approach; in general, patients are in a supine position with a pad under their shoulders and a ring-shaped pillow under their head.

AIM

To investigate the clinical outcomes of the use of a modified surgical position versus the traditional surgical position in anterior approach for TDR.

METHODS

In the modified position group, the patients had a soft pillow under their neck, and their jaw and both shoulders were fixed with wide tape. The analyzed data included intraoperative blood loss, position setting time, total operation time, and perioperative blood pressure and heart rate.

RESULTS

Blood pressure and heart rate were not significantly different before and after body positioning in both groups (P > 0.05). Compared with the traditional position group, the modified position group showed a statistically significantly longer position setting time (P < 0.05). However, the total operation time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly reduced in the modified position group compared with the traditional position group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The clinical outcomes indicated that total operation time and intraoperative blood loss were relatively lower in the modified position group than in the traditional position group, thus reducing the risks of surgery while increasing the position setting time. The modified surgical position is a safe and effective method to be used in anterior approach for TDR surgery.

Current trends in ambulatory spine surgery: a systematic review

Spine surgery continues to move into the ambulatory setting in an effort to pair high-quality care delivery with low-cost facilities. The purpose of this review was to assess the current literature for trends in the practice of ambulatory spine surgery. A systematic review of the English language literature from the past five years was performed utilizing PRISMA standards. The results demonstrate that current focus of research emphasizes the safety of ambulatory surgery-with several studies commenting on complication rates, patient selection, and postoperative protocols to prevent readmissions or complications. Research is also focused on quality of care, and ensuring non-inferiority of ambulatory surgery when compared with traditional inpatient hospitalizations. Importantly, no level I or II literature has been published on the topic in the past five years, suggesting a renewed need for high quality prospective studies.