Future endeavors in ambulatory spine surgery

Performance of successful ambulatory cervical spine surgery: safety, efficacy, and early experiences of first 100 cases in Poland

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a promising method, but not common in Poland.

OBJECTIVE

That is why the purpose of this study was to demonstrate the experience of performing ACDF in patients with degenerative spinal diseases.

METHODS

This study at the Spine Centre involved a single-center, multi-surgeon evaluation of 100 patients undergoing ACDF.

RESULTS

Outcomes assessed included pain severity, measured by the visual analogue scale, which improved from 4.28 ± 0.76 preoperatively to 1.11 ± 0.59 one month postoperatively. The Core Outcome Measures Index-neck (COMI-neck) scale also showed significant improvement: before surgery, 30% of patients scored their condition severity between 4-6, and 70% scored 7-10; 6 months postoperatively, the scores were 0-3 for 55% of patients, 4-6 for 45%, and 7-10 for none. Only 2% of patients experienced moderate, temporary complications, with no serious complications or postoperative hematomas observed.

CONCLUSION

The study supports the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of performing ACDF in an ambulatory setting, suggesting that with appropriate patient selection and surgical protocols, ambulatory ACDF can be more broadly implemented.

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.

Unplanned readmissions following ambulatory spine surgery: assessing common reasons and risk factors

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although outpatient spine surgery is becoming increasingly popular in the United States, unplanned readmission following outpatient surgery remains a significant postoperative concern.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to (1) describe the incidence and timing of 30-day unplanned readmission after ambulatory lumbar and cervical spine surgery (2) evaluate the common reasons for readmission, and (3) identify factors associated with readmission in this population.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent ambulatory cervical or lumbar spine surgery between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Hospital readmission within 30 postoperative days.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ambulatory cervical or lumbar spine surgery between 2015 and 2020 were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Reasons for and timing of unplanned readmissions were recorded. Multivariable poisson regressions were employed to determine any independent predictors of readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 33,092 ambulatory cervical and 68,115 ambulatory lumbar spine surgery patients were identified. Incidences of 30-day readmission were 3.37% and 3.07% among cervical and lumbar patients, respectively. The most common surgical site-related reasons for readmission included uncontrolled pain, recurrence of disc herniation or major symptom, and postoperative hematoma/seroma. Common nonsurgical site-related reasons included gastrointestinal, neurological, and cardiovascular complications. Factors associated with readmission among cervical patients included age ≥55, BMI ≥35, functional dependence, diabetes, smoking, COPD, and steroid use, whereas factors associated with readmission following lumbar spine surgery included age ≥65, female sex, BMI ≥35, functional dependence, ASA ≥3, diabetes, smoking, COPD, and hypertension (p<.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the common reasons and factors associated with unplanned readmission following ambulatory spine surgery. Consideration of these factors may be critical to ensuring appropriate patient selection for ambulatory spine surgery.

The Safety of Performing Surgery at Ambulatory Surgery Centers Versus Hospital Outpatient Departments in Older Patients With or Without Multimorbidity

BACKGROUND

Surgery for older Americans is increasingly being performed at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) rather than hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), while rates of multimorbidity have increased.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there are differential outcomes in older patients undergoing surgical procedures at ASCs versus HOPDs.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Matched cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Of Medicare patients, 30,958 were treated in 2018 and 2019 at an ASC undergoing herniorrhaphy, cholecystectomy, or open breast procedures, matched to similar HOPD patients, and another 32,702 matched pairs undergoing higher-risk procedures.

MEASURES

Seven and 30-day revisit and complication rates.

RESULTS

For the same procedures, HOPD patients displayed a higher baseline predicted risk of 30-day revisits than ASC patients (13.09% vs 8.47%, P < 0.0001), suggesting the presence of considerable selection on the part of surgeons. In matched Medicare patients with or without multimorbidity, we observed worse outcomes in HOPD patients: 30-day revisit rates were 8.1% in HOPD patients versus 6.2% in ASC patients ( P < 0.0001), and complication rates were 41.3% versus 28.8%, P < 0.0001. Similar patterns were also found for 7-day outcomes and in higher-risk procedures examined in a secondary analysis. Similar patterns were also observed when analyzing patients with and without multimorbidity separately.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of revisits and complications for ASC patients were far lower than for closely matched HOPD patients. The observed initial baseline risk in HOPD patients was much higher than the baseline risk for the same procedures performed at the ASC, suggesting that surgeons are appropriately selecting their riskier patients to be treated at the HOPD rather than the ASC.

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.

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.

Adopting the day surgery default in the provision of lumbar discectomy and decompressive surgery

INTRODUCTION

Provision of day case spinal procedures in the UK is below expected standards and there is a need for the creation of guidance and patient pathways to address this. Here we present a day case lumbar discectomy protocol and evaluate its impact at our institution.

METHODS

A new pathway (incorporating defined selection criteria, patient education, anaesthetic protocol and discharge prescriptions) was implemented for all suitable patients within a single surgeon's cohort. Day case rates for lumbar discectomy were compared before and after implementation. Patient feedback was collated using a patient-reported experience measure.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 23 patients selected as suitable via the pathway successfully underwent day surgery, leading to an increase in lumbar discectomy day case rates from 25% to 69% at our institution. Nearly all patients were satisfied with their experience, although a significant proportion felt provision of postoperative analgesia could be improved.

CONCLUSION

We present a day surgery pathway for lumbar discectomy that is safe and effective. This could be more widely implemented to increase day case rates.

Safety of Anterior Cervical Disc Arthroplasty in the Ambulatory Setting: an Eastern European Experience

Aim: Spine surgery has been gradually transitioning from the inpatient setting into ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) and as such, the safety of treating patients on an outpatient basis needs to be validated. Objective:In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety of anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) performed in an ambulatory setting in an Eastern European population. All existing studies evaluating safety and efficiency of outpatient CDA have originated from high-volume ASCs from the USA. Methods:We retrospectively reviewed 103 consecutive patients who underwent outpatient CDA between January 2018 and February 2020 in order to assess the safety of outpatient single- and multi-level CDA procedures. Various operative data was collected, including adverse events. Results:One patient required reintervention for reposition of the implant, resulting in a reoperation rate of 0.97%. Of the total 149 levels treated, the risk of readmission per level treated was 0.67%. Other AEs included prolonged postoperative hoarseness (laryngeal nerve dysfunction) in two (1.94%) patients, which for one patient resolved within one year. There were no other cases of reintervention, hospital readmission, or postoperative emergency visits. Conclusion:To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the safety of CDA in the ambulatory setting in an Eastern European population. Our data suggests that CDA may be considered safe in the outpatient setting in appropriately selected patients. The 30-day reintervention rate was 0.97%, while AE rate was 1.94%. The reoperation and AE rates were similar to or lower than the complication rates reported by large US outcome studies.

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.