Discrepancies in the Definition of "Outpatient" Surgeries and Their Effect on Study Outcomes Related to ACDF and Lumbar Discectomy Procedures: A Retrospective Analysis of 45,204 Cases

Opioid prescription trends after ambulatory anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Opioid utilization has been well studied for inpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the amount and type of opioids prescribed following ambulatory ACDF and the associated risk of persistent use are largely unknown.

PURPOSE

To characterize opioid prescription filling following single-level ambulatory ACDF compared with inpatient procedures.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate, amount, and type of perioperative opioid prescription.

METHODS

Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database. Perioperative opioids were defined as opioid prescriptions 30 days before and 14 days after the procedure. Rate, amount, and type of opioid prescription were characterized. Multivariable analyses controlling for any differences in demographics and comorbidities between the two treatment groups were utilized to determine any association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use (defined as the patient still filling new opioid prescriptions >90 days postoperatively).

RESULTS

A total of 42,521 opioid-naive patients were identified, of which 2,850 were ambulatory and 39,671 were inpatient. Ambulatory ACDF was associated with slightly increased perioperative opioid prescription filling (52.7% vs 47.3% for inpatient procedures; p<.001). Among the 20,280 patients (47.7%) who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions, the average amount of opioids prescribed (in morphine milligram equivalents) was similar between ambulatory and inpatient procedures (550 vs 540, p=.413). There was no association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use in patients who filled a perioperative opioid prescription, even after controlling for comorbidities, (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15, p=.066).

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory ACDF patients who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions were prescribed a similar amount of opioids as those undergoing inpatient procedures. Further, ambulatory ACDF does not appear to be a risk factor for persistent opioid use. These findings are important for patient counseling as well as support the safety profile of this new surgical pathway.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Novel Scoring System to Predict Length of Stay After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

INTRODUCTION

The movement toward reducing healthcare expenditures has led to an increased volume of outpatient anterior cervical diskectomy and fusions (ACDFs). Appropriateness for outpatient surgery can be gauged based on the duration of recovery each patient will likely need.

METHODS

Patients undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDFs were retrospectively identified at a single Level I spine surgery referral institution. Length of stay (LOS) was categorized binarily as either less than two midnights or two or more midnights. The data were split into training (80%) and test (20%) sets. Two multivariate regressions and three machine learning models were developed to predict a probability of LOS ≥ 2 based on preoperative patient characteristics. Using each model, coefficients were computed for each risk factor based on the training data set and used to create a calculatable ACDF Predictive Scoring System (APSS). Performance of each APSS was then evaluated on a subsample of the data set withheld from training. Decision curve analysis was done to evaluate benefit across probability thresholds for the best performing model.

RESULTS

In the final analysis, 1,516 patients had a LOS <2 and 643 had a LOS ≥2. Patient characteristics used for predictive modeling were American Society of Anesthesiologists score, age, body mass index, sex, procedure type, history of chronic pulmonary disease, depression, diabetes, hypertension, and hypothyroidism. The best performing APSS was modeled after a lasso regression. When applied to the withheld test data set, the APSS-lasso had an area under the curve from the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.68, with a specificity of 0.78 and a sensitivity of 0.49. The calculated APSS scores ranged between 0 and 45 and corresponded to a probability of LOS ≥2 between 4% and 97%.

CONCLUSION

Using classic statistics and machine learning, this scoring system provides a platform for stratifying patients undergoing ACDF into an inpatient or outpatient surgical setting.

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.

Hospital use following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Most existing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) outcome studies omit emergency department (ED) use. To our knowledge, this study on ED use following ACDF surgery is the first to use a direct patient chart review and the first to include revision patients, 1-5 levels of ACDFs, and performance of corpectomy in the analysis. This study examines the frequency and basis of hospital service use within 30 days of ACDF surgery, specifically ED visits, hospital readmissions, and returns to the operating room. A retrospective chart review was performed for 1273 consecutive patients who underwent ACDF surgery at one institution from July 2013 to June 2016. Of the 1273 patients with ACDF, 97 (7.6%) presented to the ED within 30 days after surgery. Of 43 patients with revision ACDF, 9 (20.9%) returned to the ED, compared with 88 (7.2%) of 1230 patients with primary ACDF (P = 0.001). Of the 111 ED visits by 97 patients, 40 (36%) were for cervicalgia, 13 (12%) were for dysphagia, 8 (7%) were for trauma, 7 (6%) were for nausea, 4 (4%) were for medication refill, 3 (3%) were for dehiscence, 3 (3%) were for pneumonia, and 3 (3%) were for urinary tract infection. Of the ED presentations, 8 (7%) occurred during the first 2 days after surgery, and 46 (41%) occurred within the first postoperative week.

Are outpatient three- and four-level anterior cervical discectomies and fusion safe?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The safety of outpatient one- and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been validated in a number of recent studies. However, recent advancements in anesthetic and surgical technique have rendered procedures previously only performed in an inpatient setting, such as three- and four-level ACDF, potentially amenable to outpatient management.

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to investigate the safety of outpatient three- and four-level ACDF.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study PATIENT SAMPLE: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program - a large, prospectively-collected registry - was queried to identify patients undergoing three- and four-level ACDF in an inpatient and outpatient setting.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The rates of total complications, perioperative blood transfusion, and unplanned hospital readmission in three- and four-level ACDF by inpatient or outpatient surgery status.

METHODS

Baseline patient characteristics and 30-day outcomes were tabulated and compared by inpatient or outpatient status using bivariate analysis. A multivariate analysis was also employed to adjust for differences in baseline patient characteristics when comparing outcomes, and was also used to identify independent predictors of complications and readmissions in patients undergoing three- and four-level ACDF.

RESULTS

In total 3,441 patients underwent three- or four-level ACDF, with 2,718 (79.0%) procedures occurring inpatient and 723 (21.0%) outpatient. Of patients undergoing outpatient ACDF, 596 patients (82.4%) underwent a three-level and 127 patients (17.6%) underwent four-level procedures. There was an increase in the utilization of outpatient procedures, increasing from 7.0% to 32.9% between 2011 and 2018. Patients undergoing outpatient surgery were younger, white, more likely to have three-level fusions (vs four-level), had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and were less likely to have a history of diabetes mellitus or dependent functional status. Among the inpatient and outpatient cohorts, there was no significant difference in the rates of total complications (4.49% vs 2.49%) or unplanned readmissions (4.96% vs 3.72%). Increasing age, operative duration, and ASA classification were independent predictors of complications and readmissions, however, inpatient or outpatient surgery status and number of levels fused was not.

CONCLUSIONS

This present study represents one of the largest cohorts of patients undergoing outpatient three- and four-level ACDF. Outpatient multilevel ACDF is performed in younger and healthier patients, with three-level procedures more commonly the four-level. There was no observed increased rates of total complications or readmissions in patients undergoing outpatient relative to inpatient surgery, however, we did identify increased age, operative duration, and ASA classification as independent predictors of these complications. Patient selection for outpatient procedures is of the highest importance, and future studies developing reproducible selection criteria are warranted.

Identifying the Most Appropriate ACDF Patients for an Ambulatory Surgery Center: A Pilot Study Using Inpatient and Outpatient Hospital Data

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVES

Using a national cohort of patients undergoing elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in an inpatient/outpatient setting, the current objectives were to: (1) outline preoperative factors that were associated with complications, and (2) describe potentially catastrophic complications so that this data can help stratify the best suited patients for an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) compared with a hospital setting.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ASCs are increasingly utilized for spinal procedures and represent an enormous opportunity for cost savings. However, ASCs have come under scrutiny for profit-driven motives, lack of adequate safety measures, and inability to handle complications.

METHODS

Adults who underwent ACDF between 2008 and 2014 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Inclusion criteria were: principal procedure ACDF [Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 22551, 22552], elective, neurological/orthopedic surgeons, length of stayof 0/1 day, and being discharged home. The primary outcome was presence of any complication. The secondary outcome was occurrence of potentially catastrophic complications.

RESULTS

A total of 12,169 patients underwent elective ACDF with a length of stay of 0/1 day and were discharged directly home. A total of 179 (1.47%) patients experienced a complication. Multivariate logistic regression revealed the following factors were significantly associated with a complication: Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >3, history of transient ischemic attack/cerebrovascular accident, abnormal bilirubin, and operative time of >2 hours. Approximate comorbidity score cutoffs associated with <2% risk of complication were: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)≤2, CCI≤2, modified frailty index (mFI) ≤0.182. A total of 51 (0.4%) patients experienced potentially catastrophic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results represent a preliminary, pilot analysis using inpatient/outpatient data in selecting appropriate patients for an ASC. The incidence of potentially catastrophic complication was 0.4%. These results should be validated in multi-institution studies to further optimize appropriate patient selection for ASCs.

Finding the body mass index cutoff for hospital readmission after ambulatory hernia surgery

BACKGROUND

The suitability of ambulatory surgery in obese patients remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the "cutoff" value of body mass index (BMI) associated with increased likelihood of hospital readmissions within the first 24 hours of surgery in patients undergoing ambulatory hernia repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study used data from the 2012-2016 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (ACS-NSQIP). Cochran Armitage trend tests were conducted to assess progression in rates hospital readmissions across categories of patient BMI. The minimum p-value method, Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness of fit tests, logistic regression, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to investigate the cutoff of patient BMI indicative of increased likelihood of readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 214,125 ambulatory hernia repair cases were identified. Of those, 908 patients (0.42%) had an unexpected hospital admission within the first 24 hours after surgery. The readmission rates did not significantly increase across the categories of BMI. However, some of the reasons for readmission significantly differed by BMI category. Logistic regression analysis revealed no statistically significant association between BMI and hospital readmissions (odds ratio [95% Cl], 0.96 [0.91-1.02] P = .179). An optimal BMI threshold predictive of an increased likelihood of hospital readmissions was not identifiable by any of the statistical methods used.

CONCLUSIONS

Although reasons for readmission differed by BMI category, there is no clear cutoff value of BMI associated with increased hospital readmission within the first 24 hours after surgery.

Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), still emerging for the spine, proposes a multimodal approach of perioperative care involving the optimization of every procedural step, with the patient in a proactive position regarding his/her management. We aimed to demonstrate a reduction in the length of hospital stay for ACDF without increasing the risk for patients by comparing 2 groups before and after ERAS implementation using propensity score (PS)-matched analysis.

METHODS

We selected 2 periods of 1 year, before (n = 268 patients) and after ERAS implementation (n = 271 patients). Data were collected on patient demographics, operative and perioperative details, 90-day readmissions and morbidity. ERAS-trained nurses were involved to support patients at each pre/per/postoperative step with the help of a mobile app. A satisfaction survey was included. PS analyses were used for dealing with confounding bias in this retrospective observational study.

RESULTS

After PS matching, the outcomes of 202 well-balanced pairs of patients were compared (conventional vs ERAS). LOS was reduced from 2.96 ± 1.35 to 1.40 ± 0.6 days (Student, p < 0.001). All 90-day surgical morbidity was similar between the 2 groups, including 30-day readmission (0.5% vs 0%; p = 1), 30- to 90-day readmission (0.5% vs 0.0%; p = 1), 90-day reoperation (0% vs 1%; p = 0.49), major complications (3.0% vs 3.5%; p = 1) and minor complications (2.0% vs 3.5%; p = 0.54). There was no significant difference concerning the satisfaction survey.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of ERAS for ACDF in our institution has resulted in a significant decrease in LOS, without causing an increase in postoperative complications and has maintained patients' satisfaction.

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).

Development of a Risk Prediction Model With Improved Clinical Utility in Elective Cervical and Lumbar Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

We present a universal model of risk prediction for patients undergoing elective cervical and lumbar spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Previous studies illustrate predictive risk models as possible tools to identify individuals at increased risk for postoperative complications and high resource utilization following spine surgery. Many are specific to one condition or procedure, cumbersome to calculate, or include subjective variables limiting applicability and utility.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 177,928 spine surgeries (lumbar (L) Ln = 129,800; cervical (C) Cn = 48,128) was constructed from the 2012 to 2016 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) database. Cases were identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for cervical fusion, lumbar fusion, and lumbar decompression laminectomy. Significant preoperative risk factors for postoperative complications were identified and included in logistic regression. Sum of odds ratios from each factor was used to develop the Universal Spine Surgery (USS) score. Model performance was assessed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and tested on 20% of the total sample.

RESULTS

Eighteen risk factors were identified, including sixteen found to be significant outcomes predictors. At least one complication was present among 11.1% of patients, the most common of which included bleeding requiring transfusion (4.86%), surgical site infection (1.54%), and urinary tract infection (1.08%). Complication rate increased as a function of the model score and ROC area under the curve analyses demonstrated fair predictive accuracy (lumbar = 0.741; cervical = 0.776). There were no significant deviations between score development and testing datasets.

CONCLUSION

We present the Universal Spine Surgery score as a robust, easily administered, and cross-validated instrument to quickly identify spine surgery candidates at increased risk for postoperative complications and high resource utilization without need for algorithmic software. This may serve as a useful adjunct in preoperative patient counseling and perioperative resource allocation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Ambulatory Surgical Centers: Improving Quality of Operative Spine Care?

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review with commentary.

OBJECTIVE

Present healthcare reform focuses on cost-optimization and quality improvement. Spine surgery has garnered particular attention; owing to its costly nature. Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASC) present a potential avenue for expenditure reduction. While the economic advantage of ASCs is being defined, cost saving should not come at the expense of quality or safety.

METHODS

This narrative review focuses on current definitions, regulations, and recent medical literature pertinent to spinal surgery in the ASC setting.

RESULTS

The past decade witnessed a substantial rise in the proportion of certain spinal surgeries performed at ASCs. This setting is attractive from the payer perspective as remuneration rates are generally less than for equivalent hospital-based procedures. Opportunity for physician ownership and increased surgeon productivity afforded by more specialized centers make ASCs attractive from the provider perspective as well. These factors serve as extrinsic motivators which may optimize and improve quality of surgical care. Much data supports the safety of spine surgery in the ASC setting. However, health care providers and policy makers must recognize that current regulations regarding safety and quality are less than comprehensive and the data is predominately from selected case-series or comparative cohorts with inherent biases, along with ambiguities in the definition of "outpatient."

CONCLUSIONS

ASCs hold promise for providing safe and efficient surgical management of spinal conditions; however, as more procedures shift from the hospital to the ASC rigorous quality and safety data collection is needed to define patient appropriateness and track variability in quality-related outcomes.

Surgical Treatment of Septic Shoulders: A Comparison Between Arthrotomy and Arthroscopy

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy, as measured through the rate of reoperation, and rates of other 30-day perioperative complications between arthrotomy and arthroscopy for the treatment of septic native shoulders in a national patient population.

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with septic arthritis in a native shoulder and underwent irrigation and debridement through arthrotomy or arthroscopy were identified in the 2005-2016 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patient preoperative characteristics were characterized. Rate of reoperation, a proxy used to measure treatment efficacy, and other perioperative complications were compared between the 2 procedures.

RESULTS

In total, 100 patients undergoing shoulder arthrotomy and 155 patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy for septic shoulder were identified. On univariate analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in patient preoperative characteristics, operative time (60 vs. 48 minutes, P = .290), length of stay (7.5 vs. 6.6 days, P = .267), or time to reoperation (8.9 vs. 7.2 days, P = .594) between the 2 surgical groups. On multivariate analysis controlling for patient characteristics, there were no statistically significant differences in risk of reoperation (relative risk [RR] = 1.914, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 0.730-5.016, P = .083), any adverse events (RR = 1.254, 99% CI = 0.860-1.831, P = .122), minor adverse events (RR = 1.304, 99% CI = 0.558-3.047, P = .421), serious adverse events (RR = 1.306, 99% CI = 0.842-2.025, P = .118), or readmission (RR = 0.999, 99% CI = 0.441-2.261, P = .998) comparing arthrotomy with arthroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

By demonstrating similar rates of reoperation, other postoperative complications, and 30-day readmissions, the current study suggests that arthrotomy and arthroscopic surgery have similar efficacy in treating septic shoulders. However, owing to the small sample size, there is still the possibility of a type II error.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic retrospective comparative study.

Association of Frailty and Postoperative Complications With Unplanned Readmissions After Elective Outpatient Surgery

IMPORTANCE

Ambulatory surgery in geriatric populations is increasingly prevalent. Prior studies have demonstrated the association between frailty and readmissions in the inpatient setting. However, few data exist regarding the association between frailty and readmissions after outpatient procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between frailty and 30-day unplanned readmissions after elective outpatient surgical procedures as well as the potential mediation of surgical complications.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this retrospective cohort study of elective outpatient procedures from 2012 and 2013 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, 417 840 patients who underwent elective outpatient procedures were stratified into cohorts of individuals with a length of stay (LOS) of 0 days (LOS = 0) and those with a LOS of 1 or more days (LOS ≥ 1). Statistical analysis was performed from June 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

EXPOSURE

Frailty, as measured by the Risk Analysis Index.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission.

RESULTS

Of the 417 840 patients in this study, 59.2% were women and unplanned readmission occurred in 2.3% of the cohort overall (LOS = 0, 2.0%; LOS ≥ 1, 3.4%). Frail patients (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [15.5] years) were more likely than nonfrail patients (mean [SD] age, 35.0 [15.8] years) to have an unplanned readmission in both LOS cohorts (LOS = 0, 8.3% vs 1.9%; LOS ≥ 1, 8.5% vs 3.2%; P < .001). Frail patients were also more likely than nonfrail patients to experience complications in both cohorts (LOS = 0, 6.9% vs 2.5%; LOS ≥ 1, 9.8% vs 4.6%; P < .001). In multivariate analysis, frailty doubled the risk of unplanned readmission (LOS = 0: adjusted relative risk [RR], 2.1; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3; LOS ≥ 1: adjusted RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1). Complications occurred in 3.1% of the entire cohort, and frailty was associated with increased risk of complications (unadjusted RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.4-2.8). Mediation analysis confirmed that complications are a significant mediator in the association between frailty and readmissions; however, it also indicated that the association of frailty with readmission was only partially mediated by complications (LOS = 0, 22.8%; LOS ≥ 1, 29.3%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that frailty is a significant risk factor for unplanned readmission after elective outpatient surgery both independently and when partially mediated through increased complications. Screening for frailty might inform the development of interventions to decrease unplanned readmissions, including those for outpatient procedures.

Safety of Outpatient Single-level Cervical Total Disc Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Multi-institutional Study

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort comparison study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the perioperative adverse event profile of cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) performed as an outpatient relative to inpatient procedure.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recent reimbursement changes and a push for safe reductions in hospital stay have resulted in increased interest in performing CTDRs in the outpatient setting. However, there has been a paucity of studies investigating the safety of outpatient CTDR procedures, despite increasing frequency.

METHODS

Patients who underwent single-level CTDR were identified in the 2005 to 2016 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Outpatient versus inpatient procedure status was defined by length of stay, with outpatient being less than 1 day. Patient baseline characteristics and comorbidities were compared between the two groups. Propensity score matched comparisons were then performed for 30-day perioperative complications and readmissions between the two cohorts. In addition, perioperative outcomes of outpatient single-level CTDR versus matched outpatient single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) cases were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 373 outpatient and 1612 inpatient single-level CTDR procedures were identified. After propensity score matching was performed to control for potential confounders, statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in perioperative complications between outpatient versus matched inpatient CTDR. Notably, the rate of readmissions was not different between the two groups. In addition, there was no difference in rates of perioperative adverse events between outpatient single-level CTDR versus matched outpatient single-level ACDF.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative outcomes evaluated in the current study support the conclusion that, for appropriately selected patients, single-level CTDR can be safely performed in the outpatient setting without increased rates of 30-day perioperative complications or readmissions compared with inpatient CTDR or outpatient single-level ACDF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Unlike Native Hip Fractures, Delay to Periprosthetic Hip Fracture Stabilization Does Not Significantly Affect Most Short-Term Perioperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The incidence of periprosthetic hip fractures is increasing due to higher numbers of total hip arthroplasties being performed. Unlike native hip fractures, the effect of time to surgery of periprosthetic hip fractures is not well established. This study evaluates the effect of time to surgery on perioperative complications for patients with periprosthetic hip fractures.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery for periprosthetic hip fracture were identified in the 2005-2016 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database and stratified into 2 groups: <2 and ≥2 days from hospital admission to surgery. Multivariate regressions were used to compare risk for perioperative complications between the 2 groups. Independent risk factors for postoperative serious adverse events were characterized.

RESULTS

In total, 409 (<2 days from admission to surgery) and 272 (≥2 days from admission to surgery) patients were identified. Multivariate analysis revealed only higher risk of extended postoperative stay for patients who had delays of ≥2 days to surgery compared to those who had <2 days from admission to surgery. Independent risk factors for serious adverse events included increasing age, dependent preoperative functional status, and preoperative congestive heart failure, but not time to surgery.

CONCLUSION

Unlike for native hip fractures, time to surgery for periprosthetic hip fractures does not appear to affect most 30-day perioperative complications. However, it is worth noting that this study was unable to control for all potential confounders and therefore the results may not be generalizable to all types of periprosthetic hip fractures.