Ambulatory spine surgery

Ambulatory Surgery Center versus Outpatient Hospitals: A Comparison of Reimbursements for Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

While some studies have demonstrated that ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are associated with reduced costs of orthopedic procedures, there is no consensus in the current literature as to the impact of ASCs versus hospital-based outpatient departments (HOPDs) on anterior cervical discectomies and fusions (ACDFs).

PURPOSE

This study sought to 1) compare immediate procedure reimbursements, patient out-of-pocket expenditures, and surgeon reimbursements for ACDFs performed at ASCs versus HOPDs and 2) identify factors predicting facility utilization.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We identified ACDF procedures performed at an ASC or HOPD in commercially-insured patients aged 18-64.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Payment variables were calculated from claims within 3 days preoperatively and postoperatively.

METHODS

Multivariable regression models assessed a) associations between the surgery setting and payment variables and b) factors associated with the surgery setting.

RESULTS

We included 18,191 ACDFs (14.8% ASC, 85.2% HOPD). In multivariable analyses, ACDFs performed in an ASC (versus HOPD) were associated with 9.8% higher immediate procedure reimbursements (95% CI:7.5-12.2%), 17.2% higher patient out-of-pocket expenditures (95% CI:11.8-22.8), and 11.7% higher surgeon reimbursements (95% CI:9.18-14.2; all P<0.01) (all P<0.001). Surgery setting utilization varied by region, insurance-related factors, comorbidities, and procedural complexity.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that ASCs had significantly higher reimbursements compared to HOPDs. Regional variations in ASC utilization imply there are opportunities for standardization of care.

Comparative analysis of patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and adverse events after lumbar spinal fusion between urban and rural hospitals: an analysis of the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database

OBJECTIVE

Rural location of a patient's primary residence has been associated with worse clinical and surgical outcomes due to limited resource availability in these parts of the US. However, there is a paucity of literature investigating the effect that a rural hospital location may have on these outcomes specific to lumbar spine fusions.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, we identified all patients who underwent primary lumbar spinal fusion in the years between 2009 and 2020. Patients were separated according to whether the operative hospital was considered rural or urban. Univariable and multivariable regression models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Of 2,863,816 patients identified, 120,298 (4.2 %) had their operation at a rural hospital, with the remaining in an urban hospital. Patients in the urban cohort were younger (P < .001), more likely to have private insurance (39.81 % vs 31.95 %, P < .001), and fewer of them were in the first (22.52 % vs 43.00 %, P < .001) and second (25.96 % vs 38.90 %, P < .001) quartiles of median household income compared to the rural cohort. The urban cohort had significantly increased rates of respiratory (4.49 % vs 3.37 %), urinary (5.25 % vs 4.15 %), infectious (0.49 % vs 0.32 %), venous thrombotic (0.57 % vs 0.24 %, P < .001), and neurological (0.79 % vs 0.36 %) (all P < .001) perioperative complications. On multivariable analysis, the urban cohort had significantly increased odds of the same perioperative complications: respiratory (odds ratio[OR] = 1.48; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.26-1.74), urinary (OR = 1.34; 95 %CI, 1.20-1.50), infection (OR = 1.63; 95 %CI, 1.23-2.17), venous thrombotic (OR = 1.79; 95 %CI, 1.32-2.41), neurological injury (OR = 1.92; 95 %CI, 1.46-2.53), and localized infection (OR = 1.65; 95 %CI, 1.25-2.17) (all P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing lumbar fusions experience significantly different outcomes based on the rural or urban location of the operative hospital.

Advancements in Custom 3D-Printed Titanium Interbody Spinal Fusion Cages and Their Relevance in Personalized Spine Care

3D-printing technology has revolutionized spinal implant manufacturing, particularly in developing personalized and custom-fit titanium interbody fusion cages. These cages are pivotal in supporting inter-vertebral stability, promoting bone growth, and restoring spinal alignment. This article reviews the latest advancements in 3D-printed titanium interbody fusion cages, emphasizing their relevance in modern personalized surgical spine care protocols applied to common clinical scenarios. Furthermore, the authors review the various printing and post-printing processing technologies and discuss how engineering and design are deployed to tailor each type of implant to its patient-specific clinical application, highlighting how anatomical and biomechanical considerations impact their development and manufacturing processes to achieve optimum osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties. The article further examines the benefits of 3D printing, such as customizable geometry and porosity, that enhance osteointegration and mechanical compatibility, offering a leap forward in patient-specific solutions. The comparative analysis provided by the authors underscores the unique challenges and solutions in designing cervical, and lumbar spine implants, including load-bearing requirements and bioactivity with surrounding bony tissue to promote cell attachment. Additionally, the authors discuss the clinical outcomes associated with these implants, including the implications of improvements in surgical precision on patient outcomes. Lastly, they address strategies to overcome implementation challenges in healthcare facilities, which often resist new technology acquisitions due to perceived cost overruns and preconceived notions that hinder potential savings by providing customized surgical implants with the potential for lower complication and revision rates. This comprehensive review aims to provide insights into how modern 3D-printed titanium interbody fusion cages are made, explain quality standards, and how they may impact personalized surgical spine care.

Surgeon Perceptions of Performing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in an Ambulatory Surgical Center vs Hospital Setting in the Elderly Population: Results of a Surgeon Survey

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing acceptance of conducting minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Hospitals Without Walls (HWW) program in March 2020. This program granted hospitals regulatory flexibility to offer services and procedures in nontraditional locations, including ASCs. However, implementation hurdles persist.

METHODS

A survey was sent to 235 surgeons regarding the use of ASCs for performing TLIF surgeries on elderly patients. Multiple-choice questions covering various aspects of TLIF practice preferences, including surgical indications, decision factors for choosing ASCs over hospitals, implementation hurdles, reimbursement concerns, staffing issues, and the impact of CMS rules and regulations on TLIF in ASCs, particularly concerning physician ownership and self-referral conflicts governed by the Stark law, were asked.

RESULTS

The survey completion rate was 25.8% (Figure 1). The most common surgical indications for TLIF in ASCs were spondylolisthesis (80%), spinal stenosis (62.5%), and low back pain (47.5%). Most surgeons (78%) believed TLIF could be safely performed in ASCs. Streamlined workflow, lower infection rates, and cost-effectiveness were advantages listed by 58.5% of surgeons. Patient's medical history (75.8%), followed by ASC resources and capabilities (61%) and surgeon preference (61%), were relevant factors. Higher efficiencies at ASCs (14.6%), contractual issues (9.8%), and ownership issues (7.3%) were less relevant to surgeons. About 65.9% of surgeons reported lower reimbursement in ASCs, and 43.9% said it was an implementation hurdle. Lower direct costs were reported by 53.7% of surgeons. Other hurdles included a lack of trained staff (24.4%), inadequate staffing (22.0%), cost overruns (26.8%), high Joint Commission or the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care credentialing costs, and surgeons feeling uncomfortable performing TLIF in ASCs (22.0%). Only 17.1% listed medical problems as a reason their patient was considered unsuitable for the ASC environment. A majority (53.7%) stated that their ASCs complied with strict Stark requirements by disclosing physician ownership interests. However, 22% of surgeons reported self-referrals under the "In-Office Ancillary Services Exception" allowed by the Stark law.

CONCLUSION

Our survey data show that surgeons' perceptions of current CMS rules and regulations may hinder the transition into the ASC setting because they think the reimbursement is too low and the regulatory burden is too high. ASCs have disproportionally higher initial acquisition and ongoing costs related to staff training and maintenance of the TLIF technology that CMS should consider when determining the appropriate financial remuneration for these complex procedures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

ASC offers a viable and attractive option for their TLIF procedure with the advantage of same-day discharge and at-home recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Is outpatient spine surgery associated with new, persistent opioid use in opioid-naïve patients? A retrospective national claims database analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although spine procedures have historically been performed inpatient, there has been a recent shift to the outpatient setting for selected cases due to increased patient satisfaction and reduced cost. Effective postoperative pain management while limiting over-prescribing of opioids, which may lead to persistent opioid use, is critical to performing spine surgery in the outpatient setting.

PURPOSE

To assess if there is an increased risk for new, persistent opioid use between inpatient and outpatient spine procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis using national administrative claims database.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 390,049 opioid-naïve patients with a perioperative opioid prescription who underwent an inpatient or outpatient spine surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients with perioperative opioid prescriptions who filled ≥ 1 opioid prescription between 90- and 180-days following surgery were defined as new, persistent opioid users.

METHODS

We utilized a claims database to identify opioid-naïve patients who underwent lumbar or cervical fusion, total disc arthroplasty, or decompression procedures. We constructed a multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between inpatient versus outpatient surgery and the development of new, persistent opioid use while adjusting for several patient factors.

RESULTS

A total of 19,205 (11.7%) inpatient and 18,546 (8.2%) outpatient patients developed new, persistent opioid use. Outpatient lumbar and cervical spine surgery patients were significantly less likely to develop new, persistent opioid use following surgery compared to inpatient spine surgery patients (OR = 0.71 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.69, 0.73], p < .001). Average morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) (inpatient = 1,476 MME +/- 22.7, outpatient = 1,072 MME +/- 18.5, p < .001) and average MMEs per day (inpatient = 91.6 MME +/- 0.32, outpatient = 77.7 MME +/- 0.28, p < .001) were lower in the outpatient cohort compared to the inpatient.

CONCLUSION

Our results support the shift from inpatient to outpatient spine procedures, as outpatient procedures were not associated with an increased risk for new, persistent opioid use. As more patients become candidates for outpatient spine surgery, predictors of new, persistent opioid use should be considered during risk stratification.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Prognostic Study.

MINI ABSTRACT

We utilized a national administrative claims database to identify opioid-naïve patients who underwent common spine procedures. Outpatient lumbar and cervical spine surgery patients were significantly less likely to be new, persistent opioid users following surgery compared to inpatient spine surgery patients. Our results support the shift to outpatient spine procedures.

Preoperative predictors of prolonged hospitalization in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

We aim to examine the preoperative factors associated with increased postoperative length of stay in patients undergoing LLIF in the hospital setting.

METHODS

Patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected from a single-surgeon database. Patients undergoing LLIF in the hospital setting were separated into postoperative LOS <48 h (H) and LOS ≥ 48H. Univariate analysis for preoperative characteristics was utilized to determine covariates for multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable logistic regression was then utilized to determine significant predictors of extended postoperative length of stay. Secondary univariate analysis of inpatient complications, operative, and postoperative characteristics were calculated to determine postoperative factors associated with prolonged hospitalization.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and forty patients were identified with 115 patients' LOS ≥ 48H. Univariate analysis identified age/Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score/gender/insurance type/number of contiguous fused levels/preoperative PROMs of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back/VAS leg/Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-PF)/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)/degenerative spondylolisthesis diagnoses/foraminal stenosis/central stenosis for multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable logistic regression calculated significant positive predictors of LOS ≥ 48H to be age/3-level fusion/preoperative ODI scores. Negative predictors of LOS ≥ 48H were the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis/preoperative PROMIS-PF/male gender. The secondary analysis determined that patients with longer operative time/estimated blood loss/transfusion/postoperative day 0 and 1 pain and narcotic consumption/complications of altered mental status/postoperative anemia/fever/ileus/urinary retention were associated with prolonged hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Older patients undergoing LLIF with greater preoperative disability and 3-level fusion were more likely to require prolonged hospitalization. Male patients with higher preoperative physical function and who were diagnosed with foraminal stenosis were less likely to require prolonged hospitalization.

Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center and Traditional Hospital Settings, Part 1: Multi-Center Assessment of Surgical Safety

(1) Background: The technological advances achieved with minimally-invasive surgery have enabled procedures to be undertaken in outpatient settings, and there has been growing acceptance of performing minimally-invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC). The purposeof this study was to determine the comparative 30 day safety profile for patients treated with TLIF in the ASC versus the hospital setting. (2) Methods: This multi-center study retrospectively collected baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, and 30 day postoperative safety outcomes for patients having a TLIF using the VariLift^®-LX expandable lumbar interbody fusion device. Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing TLIF in the ASC (n = 53) versus in the hospital (n = 114). (3) Results: Patients treated in-hospital were significantly older, frailer and more likely to have had previous spinal surgery than ASC patients. Preoperative back and leg pain scores were similar between study groups (median, 7). ASC patients had almost exclusively one-level procedures (98%) vs. 20% of hospital procedures involving two-levels (p = 0.004). Most procedures (>90%) employed a stand-alone device. The median length of stay for hospital patients was five times greater than for ASC patients (1.4 days vs. 0.3 days, p = 0.001). Emergency department visits, re-admissions and reoperations were rare whether the patients were managed in the traditional hospital setting or the ASC. (4) Conclusions: There were equivalent 30 day postoperative safety profiles for patients undergoing a minimally-invasive TLIF irrespective of surgical setting. For appropriately selected surgical candidates, the ASC offers a viable and attractive option for their TLIF procedure with the advantage of same-day discharge and at-home recovery.

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.

Bilateral Outpatient Breast Reconstruction with Stacked DIEP and Vertical PAP Flaps

Background:

Stacking free flaps for breast reconstruction is far from novel, even in the case of a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) plus profunda artery perforator (PAP) configuration, where the latter is always described in the traditional transverse configuration. We present a series of consecutive patients undergoing bilateral breast reconstruction with stacked DIEP and vertical PAP flaps.

Methods:

Patients with inadequate abdominal donor tissue were offered the possibility of a stacking breast reconstruction. The DIEP flap was harvested via microfascial incisions, whereas the vertical PAP flap was harvested in the lithotomy position, following the course of the gracilis muscle.

Results:

In total, 28 consecutive patients with a mean BMI of 24.9 underwent bilateral breast reconstruction with stacked DIEP and vertical PAP flaps. The internal mammary artery and vein were used as recipient vessels in all 56 stacked flaps. Fifty-three PAP flaps were anastomosed to the distal portion of the (primary) DIEP flaps utilizing a sequential flap anastomosis technique, and one DIEP flap was anastomosed to the distal portion of the (primary) PAP flap. Hospitalization for the initial eight patients averaged 35 hours, whereas the following 20 patients were discharged within 23 hours. There were no postoperative takebacks or vascular complications.

Conclusions:

Stacked DIEP/PAP flaps offer an excellent option for patients who require more volume than available from DIEP flaps alone. When compared with transverse PAP flaps, the vertical PAP offers excellent variability of volume and ease of shaping to allow for excellent results, while minimizing donor site tension in the seated position and preserving the gluteal fold.

Considering healthcare value and associated risk factors with postoperative urinary retention after elective laminectomy

BACKGROUND

Mitigating common complications such as postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following elective spine surgery is prudent. Identifying patients at risk for POUR and recognizing associated factors, to avoid a more complicated postoperative episode should be a priority and easily achievable. Understanding the financial burden of complications, such as POUR, is also important for value-based healthcare, not only for providers, but for employers and payors as well.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine patient and surgical factors that may lead to increased risk for POUR and its associated cost following elective lumbar laminectomies.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a retrospective study of the incidence of postoperative urinary retention after elective one- and two-level primary lumbar laminectomies.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We followed patients undergoing one- and two-level primary elective lumbar laminectomies performed between April 2014 and December 2016.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient factors included age, gender, body-mass index, and comorbidities. Surgical factors included surgical time, intraoperative fluid volume requirements, anesthesia type, and surgical levels involved. Other outcome variables included length of stay, discharge disposition, 30-day all-cause readmissions and emergency department visits, 90-day complications, and variable direct costs.

METHODS

The incidence of POUR was evaluated and compared with patient and surgical factors and cost-specific variables to identify correlations and potential risk for POUR after one- and two-level primary lumbar laminectomies.

RESULTS

Analysis included 333 patients - 203 one-level laminectomies and 130 two-level laminectomies. The overall incidence of POUR was 17.4%. Age, male gender, and history of urinary retention were significantly associated with POUR. There was a significantly increased risk of POUR with increased surgical time, but not with anesthesia type. There were also no significant differences in body-mass index, other study comorbidities, intraoperative fluid requirements, readmission, emergency department visit, and complication rates between groups. On average, patients with POUR had a significantly longer length of stay than patients without POUR. In addition, more POUR patients were discharged to acute rehabilitation facilities and had higher average variable direct cost compared tonon-POUR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

POUR is a significant risk after elective laminectomy. This study supports several widely accepted beliefs regarding POUR risk, while challenging others. It also highlights the burden of POUR development after surgery. At our institution, we developed a protocol supported by these findings.