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

Comparison of the Safety of Inpatient Versus Outpatient Lumbar Fusion : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to synthesize the early data regarding and analyze the safety profile of outpatient lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Performing lumbar fusion in an outpatient or ambulatory setting is becoming an increasingly employed strategy to provide effective value-based care. As this is an emerging option for surgeons to employ in their practices, the data is still in its infancy.

METHODS

This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that described outcomes of inpatient and outpatient lumbar fusion cohorts were searched from PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, and Embase. Rates of individual medical and surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation were collected when applicable. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were additionally collected if reported. Individual pooled comparative meta-analysis was performed for outcomes of medical complications, surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation. PROMs were reviewed and qualitatively reported.

RESULTS

The search yielded 14 publications that compared outpatient and inpatient cohorts with a total of 75,627 patients. Odds of readmission demonstrated no significant difference between outpatient and inpatient cohorts [OR=0.94 (0.81-1.11)]. Revision surgery similarly was no different between the cohorts [OR=0.81 (0.57-1.15)]. Pooled medical and surgical complications demonstrated significantly decreased odds for outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts [OR=0.58 (0.34-0.50), OR=0.41 (0.50-0.68), respectively]. PROM measures were largely the same between the cohorts when reported, with few studies showing better ODI and VAS Leg outcomes among outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary data regarding the safety of outpatient lumbar fusion demonstrates a favorable safety profile in appropriately selected patients, with PROMs remaining comparable in this setting. There is no data in the form of prospective and randomized trials which is necessary to definitively change practice.

Ambulatory Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review of Perioperative Protocols, Patient Selection Criteria, and Outcomes

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The primary purpose was to propose patient selection criteria and perioperative best practices that can serve as a starting point for an ambulatory lumbar fusion program. The secondary purpose was to review patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after ambulatory lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

As healthcare costs rise, there is an increasing emphasis on cost saving strategies (i.e. outpatient/ambulatory surgeries). Lumbar fusion procedures remain a largely inpatient surgery. Early studies have shown that fusion procedures can be safely preformed in an outpatient setting but no review has summarized these findings and best practices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched. The following data were collected: (1) study design; (2) number of participants; (3) patient population; (4) procedure types; (5) procedure setting; (6) inclusion criteria; (7) protocols; (8) adverse events; (9) PROs; and (10) associations between patient/surgical factors, setting, and outcomes.

RESULTS

The search yielded 20 publications. The following selection criteria for ambulatory lumbar fusion were identified: age below 70, minimal comorbidities, low/normal body mass index, no tobacco use, and no opioid use. The perioperative protocol can include a multimodal analgesic regimen. The patient should be observed for at least three hours after surgery. The patient should not be discharged without an alertness check and a neurological examination. Patients experienced significant improvements in PROs after ambulatory lumbar fusion; similarly, when compared to an inpatient group, ambulatory lumbar fusion patients experienced a comparable or superior improvement in PROs.

CONCLUSION

There are two critical issues surrounding ambulatory lumbar fusion: (1) Who is the ideal patient, and (2) What needs to be done to enable expedited discharge? We believe this review will provide a foundation to assist surgeons in making decisions regarding the performance of lumbar fusion on an ambulatory basis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Impact of gender on outcomes following single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Background

There have been a multitude of studies attempting to identify the relationship between gender and postoperative outcomes; however, few studies have examined how this relationship may affect outcomes after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) surgery. We aim to better characterize the impact that self-reported gender may have on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and achievement rates of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) after ALIF.

Methods

A retrospective database of a single spine surgeon was searched for patients who had undergone single-level ALIF. Indications for surgery including acute trauma, infection, or malignancy were excluded. The population was separated into cohorts by self-reported gender, female or male. PROMs were recorded and compared within groups to their preoperative baselines and between groups. MCID achievement rate was compared between groups.

Results

140 patients were identified for this study, with 68 patients self-identifying as female gender. The male gender cohort was found to have a significantly greater prevalence of hypertension (p = 0.018). Both cohorts showed significant improvement during at least one or more postoperative time points for each evaluated outcome measure (p ≤ 0.048, all). No significant difference in mean PROM scores was noted between cohorts at any time point for any measured outcome. The female gender cohort had significantly greater MCID achievement rates for visual acuity scale (VAS) back pain overall and at the 6-month time point (p ≤ 0.043, both). The female gender cohort also had significantly greater achievement of MCID at the 1-year time point for VAS leg pain (p = 0.017).

Conclusion

Both female and male gender cohorts demonstrated significant improvement in all outcomes measured at one or more postoperative time points. Postoperative outcomes did not differ by gender. MCID achievement was more common in female patients. Female patients may experience more tangible clinical improvement after ALIF compared to male patients.