Does Hospital Volume Affect Outcomes in Spine Surgeries? A Systematic Review

Impact of Weekday on Short-term Surgical Outcomes After Lumbar Fusion Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether weekday lumbar spine fusion surgery has an impact on surgical and inpatient physical therapy (PT) outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Timing of surgery has been implicated as a factor that may impact outcomes after spine surgery. Previous literature suggests that there may be an adverse effect to having surgery on the weekend.

METHODS

All patients ≥18 years who underwent primary lumbar spinal fusion from 2014 to 2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients were subdivided into an early subgroup (surgery between Monday and Wednesday) and a late subgroup (surgery between Thursday and Friday). Surgical outcome variables included inpatient complications, 90-day readmissions, and 1-year revisions. PT data from the first inpatient PT session included hours to PT session, AM-PAC Daily Activity or Basic Mobility scores, and total gait trial distance achieved.

RESULTS

Of the 1239 patients identified, 839 had surgery between Monday and Wednesday and 400 had surgery between Thursday and Friday. Patients in the later surgery subgroup were more likely to experience a nonsurgical neurologic complication (3.08% vs. 0.86%, P =0.008); however, there was no difference in total complications. Patients in the early surgery subgroup had their first inpatient PT session earlier than patients in the late subgroup (15.7 vs. 18.9 h, P <0.001). However, patients in the late subgroup achieved a farther total gait distance (98.2 vs. 75.4, P =0.011). Late surgery was a significant predictor of more hours of PT (est.=0.256, P =0.016) and longer length of stay (est.=2.277, P =0.001). There were no significant differences in readmission and revision rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo surgery later in the week may experience more nonsurgical neurologic complications, longer wait times for inpatient PT appointments, and longer lengths of stay. This analysis showed no adverse effect of later weekday surgery as it relates to total complications, readmissions, and reoperations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Treated with Cervical Spine Fusion at High Volume Hospitals

BACKGROUND

High volume (HV) has been associated with improved outcomes in various neurosurgical procedures. The objective of this study was to explore the regional distribution of HV spine centers for cervical spine fusion and compare characteristics and outcomes for patients treated at HV centers versus lower volume centers.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample database 2016-2020 was queried for patients undergoing cervical spine fusion for degenerative pathology. HV was defined as case-loads greater than 2 standard deviations above the mean. Patient characteristics, procedures, and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Of 3895 hospitals performing cervical spine fusion for degenerative pathology, 28 (0.76%) were HV. The Mid-Atlantic and West South Central regions had the highest number of HV hospitals. HV hospitals were more likely to perform open anterior fusion surgeries (P < 0.01). Patients treated at HV hospitals were less likely to have severe symptomatology or comorbidities (P < 0.01 for all). When controlling for severity and demographics on multivariate analysis, HV centers had higher odds of length of stay ≤1 day, favorable discharge, and decreased total charges.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent cervical spine fusion surgery at HV hospitals were less complex and had increased odds of length of stay ≤1, favorable discharge, and total charges in the lower 25th percentile than patients treated at non-HV hospitals. Physician comfort, patient selection, institutional infrastructure, and geographic characteristics likely play a role.

A guide to selecting upper thoracic versus lower thoracic uppermost instrumented vertebra in adult spinal deformity correction

PURPOSE

Operative treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) has been shown to improve patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Selection of the uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) in either the upper thoracic (UT) or lower thoracic (LT) spine is a pivotal decision with effects on operative and postoperative outcomes. This review overviews the multifaceted decision-making process for UIV selection in ASD correction.

METHODS

PubMed was queried for articles using the keywords "uppermost instrumented vertebra", "upper thoracic", "lower thoracic", and "adult spinal deformity".

RESULTS

Optimization of UIV selection may lead to superior deformity correction, better patient-reported outcomes, and lower risk of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and failure (PJF). Patient alignment characteristics, including preoperative thoracic kyphosis, coronal deformity, and the magnitude of sagittal correction influence surgical decision-making when selecting a UIV, while comorbidities such as poor body mass index, osteoporosis, and neuromuscular pathology should also be taken in to account. Additionally, surgeon experience and resources available to the hospital may also play a role in this decision. Currently, it is incompletely understood whether postoperative HRQOLs, functional and radiographic outcomes, and complications after surgery differ between selection of the UIV in either the UT or LT spine.

CONCLUSION

The correct selection of the UIV in surgical planning is a challenging task, which requires attention to preoperative alignment, patient comorbidities, clinical characteristics, available resources, and surgeon-specific factors such as experience.

High-Volume Centers Provide Superior Value of Care in the Surgical Treatment of Malignant Brain Tumor

BACKGROUND

Improved outcomes in surgical patients have been associated with increasing volume of cases. This has led to the development of centers that facilitate care for a specific patient population. This study aimed to evaluate associations of outcomes with hospital characteristics in patients undergoing resection of malignant brain tumors.

METHODS

The 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample was queried for patients undergoing resection of malignant brain tumors. Teaching hospitals with caseloads >2 standard deviations above the mean (140 cases) were categorized as high-volume centers (HVCs). Value of care was evaluated by adding one point for each of the following: short length of stay, low total charges, favorable discharge disposition, and lack of major comorbidity or complication.

RESULTS

In 3009 hospitals, 118,390 patients underwent resection of malignant brain tumors. HVC criteria were met by 91 (3%) hospitals. HVCs were more likely to treat patients of younger age or higher socioeconomic status (P < 0.01 for all). The Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions had the highest percentage of cases and number of HVCs. Value of care was higher at HVCs (P < 0.01). Care at HVCs was associated with decreased complications (P < 0.01 for all) and improved patient outcomes (P < 0.01 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing craniotomy for malignant brain neoplasms have superior outcomes in HVCs. Trends of centralization may reflect the benefits of multidisciplinary treatment, geographic preferences, publicity, and cultural impact. Improvement of access to care is an important consideration as this trend continues.

Are Clinical or Surgical Outcomes Different Based on Whether the Same Surgeon or Hospital System Performs the Spine Revision?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of discontinuity in care by changing surgeons, health systems, or increased time to revision surgery on revision spine fusion surgical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience worse outcomes than those undergoing primary lumbar surgery. Those requiring complex revisions are often transferred to tertiary or quaternary referral centers under the assumption that those institutions may be more accustomed at performing those procedures. However, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the impact of discontinuity of care in revision spinal fusions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion 2011-2021 were grouped based on (1) revision performed by the index surgeon versus a different surgeon, (2) revision performed within the same versus different hospital system as the index procedure, and (3) length of time from index procedure. Multivariate regression for outcomes controlled for confounding differences.

RESULTS

A total of 776 revision surgeries were included. An increased time interval between the index procedure and the revision surgery was predictive of a lower risk for subsequent revision procedure (odds ratio: 0.57, P =0.022). Revision surgeries performed by the same surgeon predicted a reduced length of hospital stay (β: -0.14, P =0.001). Neither time to revision nor undergoing by the same surgeon or same practice predicted 90-day readmission rates. Patients are less likely to report meaningful improvement in Mental Component Score-12 or Physical Component Score-12 if revision surgery was performed at a different hospital system.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have revision lumbar fusions have similar clinical outcomes regardless of whether their surgeon performed the index procedure. However, continuity of care with the same surgeon may reduce hospital length of stay and associated health care costs. The length of time between primary and revision surgery does not significantly impact patient-reported outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Investigation of litigation in trauma orthopaedic surgery

BACKGROUND

It has been said that the number of orthopaedic claims has increased in the last few years. Investigation through the most prevalent cause would help to prevent further cases.

AIM

To review the cases of medical complaints in orthopedic patients who had been involved in a traumatic accident.

METHODS

A retrospective multi-center review of trauma orthopaedic-related malpractice lawsuits from 2010 to 2021 was conducted utilizing the regional medicolegal database. Defendant and plaintiff characteristics along with fracture location, allegations, and litigation outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 228 claims referred to trauma-related conditions with a mean age of 31.29 ± 12.56 were enrolled. The most common injuries were at hand, thigh, elbow, and forearm, respectively. Likewise, the most common alleged complication was related to malunion or nonunion. In 47% of the cases, the main problem that led to the complaint was the inappropriate or insufficient explanation to the patient, and in 53%, there was a problem in the surgery. Eventually, 76% of the complaints resulted in a defense verdict, and 24% resulted in a plaintiff verdict.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment of hand injuries and surgery in non-educational hospitals received the most complaints. The majority of litigation outcomes were caused by a physician’s failure to fully explain and educate the traumatic orthopedic patients and technological errors.

Litigations in orthopedics and trauma surgery: reasons, dynamics, and profiles

BACKGROUND

In recent literature, the increasing number of medical litigations, both in terms of the number of cases being filed and the substantive costs associated with lawsuits, has been described. This study aims to provide an overview of the profile of litigation for orthopedic and trauma surgery to describe the differences and the development of the number of cases over time.

PATIENTS AND MATERIALS

A retrospective review of all litigations between 2000 and 2017 was conducted using the institutional legal database. The causes of litigation were documented and classified into seven major categories. In addition to plaintiff characteristics, the litigation outcomes and the differences between emergency and elective surgery were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 230 cases were evaluated. The mean age of the plaintiffs was 44.6 ± 20.1 years, and 56.8% were female. The main reasons for litigation were claimed inappropriate management (46.1%), misdiagnosis (22.6), and poor nursing care (8.3%). Significantly more litigations were filed against surgeons of the orthopedic subspecialty compared with trauma surgeons (78%; p ≤ 0.0001). There were significantly fewer litigations per 1000 cases filed overall in 2009-2017 (65% less; p = 0.003) than in 2000-2008.

CONCLUSION

Our results could not confirm the often-stated trend of having more litigations against orthopedic and trauma surgeons. Although the absolute numbers increased, the number of litigations per 1000 patients treated declined. Patients who underwent elective surgery were more likely to file complaints than emergency patients.

Predictors of Extended Hospitalization and Early Reoperation After Elective Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disc arthroplasty (LDA) has emerged as a motion-sparing alternative to lumbar fusion. Although LDA may be amenable to the ambulatory surgical setting, to date no study has identified the factors predisposing patients to extended hospital stay.

METHODS

A national surgical quality improvement database was queried from 2011 to 2019 for patients undergoing elective, single-level, primary LDA. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to elucidate predictors of length of stay (LOS) at or above the 90th percentile of the study population (3 days). Secondary study endpoints included rates of complications, as well as predictors and reasons for unplanned reoperation within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 630 patients met eligibility criteria for the study, of whom 517 (82.1%) had LOS <3 days and 113 (17.9%) had LOS ≥3 days. Multivariate logistic regression revealed associations between prolonged hospitalization and postoperative diagnosis of degenerative disk disease, obesity, Hispanic identity, and operation length >120 minutes. Before discharge, patients with LOS ≥3 days were more likely to have venous thromboembolisms, pneumonia, surgical site infections, and reoperations. Independent predictors of reoperation were wound infections, diabetes, and smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications following elective single-level LDA are relatively rare, with few extended hospitalizations being attributable to any specific complication. Risk factors for prolonged LOS appear to be related to diagnosis and surgical time rather than to modifiable preoperative comorbidities. Conversely, unplanned reoperations within 30 days are associated with optimizable perioperative factors such as smoking, diabetes, and surgical site infection.

Certificate-of-Need State Laws and Elective Posterior Lumbar Fusions: Is It Time to Repeal the Mandate?

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to assess whether elective posterior lumbar fusions (PLFs) performed in states with Certificate-of-Need (CON) laws versus states without CON laws had lower utilization rates, lower costs, and better quality of care.

METHODS

The 2005-2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical File was queried to identify patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level PLF. Differences in per-capita utilization, 90-day reimbursements, and proportion of high-volume between CON and No-CON states were reported. Multivariate analyses were used to analyze 90-day complications and readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 188,687 patients underwent an elective 1- to 3-level PLF in a CON state and 167,642 patients in a No-CON state during 2005-2014. The average per capita utilization of PLFs was lower in CON states as compared with No-CON states (14.5 vs. 15.4 per 10,000 population; P < 0.001). Average 90-day reimbursements between CON and No-CON states differed by a small amount ($22,115 vs. $21,802). CON states had a higher proportion of high-volume facilities (CON vs. No CON-40.9% vs. 29.9%; P < 0.05) and lower proportion of low-volume facilities (CON vs. No-CON-37.2% vs. 45.0%; P < 0.05). PLFs performed in CON states had slightly lower odds of 90-day complications (odds ratio 0.97 [95% confidence interval 0.96-0.99]; P < 0.001) and readmissions (odds ratio 0.95 [95% confidence interval 0.93-0.97]; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of CON laws was associated with lower utilization of elective 1- to 3-level PLFs and a greater number of high-volume facilities. However, their effect on quality of care, via reduction of 90-day readmissions and 90-day complications, is minimally significant.

Is Treatment at a High-volume Center Associated with an Improved Survival for Primary Malignant Bone Tumors?

BACKGROUND

Centralization of cancer care to high-volume facilities has been shown to improve the overall survival of patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. Current evidence regarding the impact of increased hospital volume on treatment patterns and survival rates for patients with primary malignant bone tumors remains limited. Understanding the facility volume-outcome relationship for primary malignant bone tumors will further discussion on ways to promote delivery of quality cancer care across the nation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is there a difference in overall survival for patients with primary malignant bone tumors undergoing treatment at a high-volume facility (at least 20 patients per year) versus those treated at a low-volume facility (less than 20 patients per year)? (2) Do surgical treatment patterns (limb-salvage versus amputation) and margin status (positive versus negative) vary between high-volume and low-volume facilities?

METHODS

The 2004 to 2015 National Cancer Database was queried using International Classification of Disease for Oncology topographical codes to identify patients undergoing treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy) for primary malignant bone tumors of the extremities (C40.0-C40.3, C40.8, and C40.9) or pelvis (C41.4). Histologic codes were used to group the tumors into the following categories: osteosarcomas, Ewing's sarcomas, chondrosarcomas, chordomas, and other or unspecified. Patients who did not receive any treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy) at the reporting facility were excluded from the study. Facility volume was calculated based on the average number of patients per year for the entire study period. A preliminary stratified Cox regression model was used to identify evidence-based thresholds or cutoffs for high-volume and low-volume facilities, while adjusting for differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. We identified high-volume facilities as those treating at least 20 patients per year and low-volume facilities as those treating fewer than 20 patients per year. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to report overall unadjusted 5-year survival rates at high-volume and low-volume facilities. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to assess whether undergoing treatment at a high-volume facility was associated with a lower risk of overall mortality, after controlling for differences in baseline demographics, tumor presentation, and treatment characteristics. For patients undergoing surgery, multivariate regression models were used to evaluate whether patients receiving care in a high-volume facility were more likely to receive resections with limb salvage surgery than to receive amputation and whether facility volume was associated with a patient's likelihood of having a positive or negative surgical margin.

RESULTS

A total of 14,039 patients were included, 15% (2115) of whom underwent treatment in a high-volume facility. Patients undergoing treatment at a high-volume facility were more likely to be white, have tumors involving the pelvis, have larger tumor sizes, and have a higher tumor grade at presentation than those undergoing treatment at a low-volume facility. Unadjusted 5-year overall survival rates were greater for high-volume facilities than for low-volume facilities (65% versus 61%; p = 0.003). After controlling for differences in patient demographics, tumor characteristics (including histologic type, grade, stage, size, and location) and treatment factors, we found that patients treated at high-volume facilities had a slightly lower overall mortality risk than those treated at low-volume facilities (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.77 to 0.93]; p < 0.001). Patients treated at high-volume facilities were also slightly more likely to undergo resection with limb-salvage surgery to than to undergo amputation (odds ratio 1.34 [95% CI 1.14 to 1.59]; p = 0.001). Patients undergoing surgical treatment at high-volume facilities also had a lower odds of having positive resection margins than those undergoing treatment at low-volume facilities (OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.72]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing treatment for primary malignant bone tumors at high-volume facilities experience a slightly better overall survival than those receiving treatment at low-volume facilities. Further research questioning the value of care at high-volume facilities is required before sweeping changes in regionalization can be considered.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.