Trends in inpatient setting laminectomy for excision of herniated intervertebral disc: Population-based estimates from the US nationwide inpatient sample

Database analysis comparing incidence and complication rates between inpatient and outpatient laminotomies for lumbar disc herniation

Background

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common condition that can be characterized with disabling pain. While most patients recover without surgery, some still require operative intervention. The epidemiology and trends of laminotomy for LDH have not been recently studied, and current practice patterns might be different from historical norms. This study aimed to investigate the trends of inpatient and outpatient laminotomies for LDH and compare complication rates between these two sites of service.

Methods

A large, national database was utilized to identify patients > 8 years old who underwent a laminotomy for LDH between 2009 and 2019. Two cohorts were created based on site of surgery: inpatient versus outpatient. The outpatient cohort was defined as patients who had a length of stay less than 1 day without any associated hospitalization. Epidemiologic analyses for these cohorts were performed by demographics. Patients in both groups were then 1:1 propensity-score matched based on age, sex, insurance type, geographic region, and comorbidities. Ninety-day postoperative complications were compared between cohorts utilizing multivariate logistic regressions.

Results

The average incidence of laminotomy for LDH was 13.0 per 10,000 persons-years. Although the national trend in incidence had not changed from 2009 to 2019, the proportion of outpatient laminotomies significantly increased in this time period (p=.02). Outpatient laminotomies were more common among younger and healthier patients. Patients with inpatient laminotomies had significantly higher rates of surgical site infections (odds ratio [OR] 1.61, p<.001), venous thromboembolism (VTE) (OR 1.96, p<.001), hematoma (OR 1.71, p<.001), urinary tract infections (OR 1.41, p<.001), and acute kidney injuries (OR 1.75, p=.001), even when controlling for selected confounders.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated an increasing trend in the performance of laminotomy for LDH toward the outpatient setting. Even when controlling for certain confounders, patients requiring inpatient procedures had higher rates of postoperative complications. This study highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of performing these procedures in an outpatient versus inpatient setting.

Association of HSS score and mechanical alignment after primary TKA of patients suffering from constitutional varus knee that caused by combined deformities: a retrospective study

For pre-operative osteoarthritis (OA) patients with varus knee, previous studies showed inconsistent results. Therefore, we conducted this study to better identify the association of Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score and mechanical alignment. 44 patients (51 knees) with constitutional varus knee caused by combined deformities (LDFA (lateral distal femoral angle) > 90°and MPTA (medial proximal tibial angle) < 85°)) were selected and analyzed with a mean follow-up period of 14 months after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). From January 2015 to December 2016, patients were collected consecutively after primary TKA. After filtering, fifty-one knees (44patients) were analyzed with a mean follow-up period of 14 months. All patients were divided into two groups based on post-operative hip-knee-ankle (HKA) acute angle: varus mechanical alignment (VMA) group (HKA < - 3°) and neutral mechanical axis (NMA) group (- 3° ≤ HKA ≤ 3°). 30 knees were included in the NMA group, and 21 knees in the VMA group. Comparisons of HSS between NMA group and VMA group were performed. After adjusting for age and Body Mass Index (BMI) confounders, Compared with NMA group, the HSS score in VMA group decreased by 0.81 units (95% CI, - 3.37 to 1.75) p = 0.5370). For pre-operative constitutional varus knee caused by combined deformities in chinese populations, no significant association between post-operative lower limb mechanical alignment and HSS score was found.

Cost Analysis of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Diskectomy and Laminectomy Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spine surgery can be performed using various anesthetic modalities, most notably general or spinal anesthesia. Because data comparing the cost of these anesthetic modalities in spine surgery are scarce, this study asks whether spinal anesthesia is less costly than general anesthesia.

METHODS

A total of 542 patients who underwent elective lumbar diskectomy or laminectomy spine surgery between 2007 and 2011 were retrospectively identified, with 364 having received spinal anesthesia and 178 having received general anesthesia. Mean direct operating cost, indirect cost (general support staff, insurance, taxes, floor space, facility, and administrative costs), and total cost were compared among patients who received general and spinal anesthesia. Linear multiple regression analysis was used to identify the effect of anesthesia type on cost and determine the factors underlying this effect, while controlling for patient and procedure characteristics.

RESULTS

When controlling for patient and procedure characteristics, use of spinal anesthesia was associated with a 41.1% lower direct operating cost (-$3629 ± $343, P < 0.001), 36.6% lower indirect cost (-$1603 ± $168, P < 0.001), and 39.6% lower total cost (-$5232 ± $482, P < 0.001) compared with general anesthesia. Shorter hospital stay, shorter duration of anesthesia, shorter duration of operation, and lower estimated blood loss contributed to lower costs for spinal anesthesia, but other factors beyond these were also responsible for lower direct operating and total costs.

CONCLUSIONS

When comparing the benefits of spinal and general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia is less costly when used in patients undergoing lumbar diskectomy and laminectomy spine surgery.

Cost analysis of spinal and general anesthesia for the surgical treatment of lumbar spondylosis

Lumbar spine surgery is typically performed under general anesthesia, although spinal anesthesia can also be used. Given the prevalence of lumbar spine surgery, small differences in cost between the two anesthetic techniques have the potential to make a large impact on overall healthcare costs. We sought to perform a cost comparison analysis of spinal versus general anesthesia for lumbar spine operations. Following Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective cohort study was performed from 2009-2012 on consecutive patients undergoing non-instrumented, elective lumbar spine surgery for spondylosis by a single surgeon. Each patient was evaluated for both types of anesthesia, with the decision for anesthetic method being made based on a combination of physical status, anatomical considerations, and ultimately a consensus agreement between patient, surgeon, and anesthesiologist. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were compared between the two groups. Operating room costs were calculated whilst blinded to clinical outcomes and reported in percentage difference. General anesthesia (n=319) and spinal anesthesia (n=81) patients had significantly different median operative times of 175 ± 39.08 and 158 ± 32.75 minutes, respectively (p<0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Operating room costs were 10.33% higher for general anesthesia compared to spinal anesthesia (p=0.003, Mann-Whitney U test). Complications of spinal anesthesia included excessive movement (n=1), failed spinal attempt (n=3), intraoperative conversion to general anesthesia (n=2), and a high spinal level (n=1). In conclusion, spinal anesthesia can be performed safely in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. It has the potential to reduce operative times, costs, and possibly, complications. Further prospective evaluation will help to validate these findings.

Arthroplasty Utilization in the United States is Predicted by Age-Specific Population Groups

Osteoarthritis is a common indication for hip and knee arthroplasty. An accurate assessment of current trends in healthcare utilization as they relate to arthroplasty may predict the needs of a growing elderly population in the United States. First, incidence data was queried from the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1993 to 2009. Patients undergoing total knee and hip arthroplasty were identified. Then, the United States Census Bureau was queried for population data from the same study period as well as to provide future projections. Arthroplasty followed linear regression models with the population group >64 years in both hip and knee groups. Projections for procedure incidence in the year 2050 based on these models were calculated to be 1,859,553 cases (hip) and 4,174,554 cases (knee). The need for hip and knee arthroplasty is expected to grow significantly in the upcoming years, given population growth predictions.

Conflict of interest in spine research reporting

Background

Medical studies are more likely to report favorable findings when a conflict of interest is declared. We aim to quantify and determine the effect of author disclosure of conflict of interest on scientific reporting.

Methods

Abstracts from an international spine research meeting (North American Spine Society 2010) were selected that specifically evaluated a device, biologic, or proprietary procedure. They were then made anonymous to reviewers. An item of interest was established in each of the abstracts in order to standardize evaluation. Next, three blinded reviewers independently rated the abstracts as favorable, neutral, or unfavorable with regard to the item of interest. Additionally, the blinded reviewers attempted to predict whether a related disclosure was made. The meeting disclosure index was used to tabulate the minimum US dollar value attributable to disclosures.

Results

Of the 344 total abstracts, 76 met inclusion criteria. In 79%, a related conflict of interest was reported. The amount of the disclosure was incompletely reported in 30% of cases. Where available, it averaged a cumulative minimum of $219,634 USD per abstract. The results of the abstracts were judged to be favorable, neutral, and unfavorable in 63%, 32% and 5% of abstracts, respectively. There was no correlation between the presence of a related disclosure and the findings of the studies (p = 0.81), although interpretation of this is limited by a small sample size and an overall apparent bias to report favorable studies. Additionally, the blinded reviewers were unable to predict whether a related disclosure was made (p = 0.40).

Conclusion

No association existed between the presence of a related disclosure and the results of the studies. While the actual compliance with reporting a potential conflict of interest is unable to be determined, the value amount related to the disclosures made was inadequately reported according to meeting guidelines.

"Unnecessary" spinal surgery: A prospective 1-year study of one surgeon's experience

Background

There are marked disparities in the frequency of spinal surgery performed within the United States over time, as well as across different geographic areas. One possible source of these disparities is the criteria for surgery.

Methods

During a one-year period [November 2009-October 2010], the senior author, a neurosurgeon, saw 274 patients for cervical and lumbar spinal, office consultations. A patient was assigned to the “unnecessary surgery” group if they were told they needed spinal surgery by another surgeon, but exhibited pain alone without neurological deficits and without significant abnormal radiographic findings [dynamic X-rays, MR scans, and/or CT scans].

Results

Of the 274 consults, 45 patients were told they needed surgery by outside surgeons, although their neurological and radiographic findings were not abnormal. An additional 2 patients were told they needed lumbar operations, when in fact the findings indicated a cervical operation was necessary. These 47 patients included 21 [23.1%] of 91 patients with cervical complaints, and 26 [14.2%] of 183 patients with lumbar complaints. The 21 planned cervical operations included 1-4 level anterior diskectomy/fusion [18 patients], laminectomies/fusions [2 patients], and a posterior cervical diskectomy [1 patient]. The 26 planned lumbar operations involved single/multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusions: 1-level [13 patients], 2-levels [7 patients], 3-levels [3 patients], 4-levels [2 patients], and 5-levels [1 patient]. In 29 patients there were one or more overlapping comorbidities.

Conclusions

During a one-year period, 47 [17.2%] of 274 spinal consultations seen by a single neurosurgeon were scheduled for “unnecessary surgery”.