Spine Surgery Outcomes in Workers' Compensation Patients

Quantifying value loss due to presenteeism and absenteeism in workers' compensation spinal patients

Background

Recent studies suggest that better outcomes in work productivity following spine surgery eventually offset the higher cost of treatment. By analyzing preoperative and postoperative changes in work productivity, studies can determine if surgery is cost-effective and give patients valuable information about treatment. Prior studies reviewing outcomes in work performance after spine surgery have largely excluded patients on workers' compensation from the overall cost analysis.

Methods

A retrospective review of 92 eligible patients was conducted. Evaluation of the EHR identified presenteeism and absenteeism from designated work restrictions. Statistical analyses were conducted using JMP Pro 17.

Results

About 84 (83%) spinal surgery cases were able to return to work, 60 (59%) were able to return to work with no restrictions, 26 (26%) received permanent work restrictions, and 12 (12%) were still undergoing treatment. 86 (85%) experienced presenteeism and 99 (98%) experienced absenteeism. Of the cases that were able to return to work without permanent work restrictions, the mean presenteeism length postoperatively was 287.4 days (median 191 days) and the mean absenteeism length postoperatively was 232.5 days (median 142 days). 72 patients were identified as having sedentary or nonsedentary labor. After excluding outliers, the average return-to-work length was 988.62 days for patients with sedentary employment types and 952.15 days for patients with nonsedentary employment types (p=.116).

Conclusion

Following spinal surgery, our worker's compensation patient population's return-to-work rate was at an average of 232.5 days (median of 142 days) for 83% of patients included in this study. This exhibited worse outcomes than a previous study's measurement excluding worker's compensation patients. Presenteeism length within our population contributed more to decreased work productivity postoperatively than absenteeism length. Our results found no significant difference in return-to-work length between patients with sedentary and nonsedentary employment types.

H-Wave® Device Stimulation for Chronic Neck Pain: A Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic neck pain (cNP) is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, often being refractory to conventional forms of treatment. Various forms of electrical stimulation have been proposed to decrease pain and improve function. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for treatment of cNP have rarely been published.

METHODS

An independent retrospective statistical analysis of PROMs data for users of H-Wave® device stimulation (HWDS), prospectively collected by the device manufacturer over a 4-year period, was conducted. Final surveys for 34,192 pain management patients were filtered for pain chronicity limited to 3-24 months and device use of 22-365 days, resulting in 11,503 patients with "all diagnoses"; this number was further reduced to 1482 patients with cNP, sprain, or strain.

RESULTS

Neck pain was reduced by 3.13 points (0-10 pain scale), with significant (≥ 20%) relief in 86.6%. Function/activities of daily living (ADL) improved in 96.19%, while improved work performance was reported in 84.76%. Medication use decreased or stopped in 65.42% and sleep improved in 60.39%. Over 95% reported having expectations met or exceeded, service satisfaction, and confidence in device use, while no adverse events were reported. Subgroup analyses found positive benefit associations with longer duration of device use.

CONCLUSION

Near-equivalent outcomes were self-reported by cNP HWDS patients as for (previously published) chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients. HWDS provided effective and safe cNP relief, improvements in function and ADL, along with additional benefits including decreased medication use, better sleep, and improved work performance.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Replacement for a Workers' Compensation Population in an Ambulatory Surgical Center

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement outcomes between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disk replacement (CDR) in the Workers' Compensation (WC) population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

No studies to our knowledge have compared PROMs and MCID attainment between ACDF and CDR among patients with WC insurance undergoing surgery in an outpatient ambulatory surgical center (ASC).

METHODS

WC insurance patients undergoing primary, single/double-level ACDF/CDR in an ASC were identified. Patients were divided into ACDF versus CDR. PROMs were collected at preoperative/6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year timepoints, including PROMIS-PF, SF-12 PCS/MCS, VAS neck/arm, and NDI.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were included, 51 ACDF/28 CDR. While operative time (56.4 vs. 54.4 min), estimated blood loss (29.2 vs. 25.9 mL), POD0 pain (4.9 vs. 3.8), and POD0 narcotic consumption (21.2 vs. 14.5 oral morphine equivalents) were higher in ACDF patients, none reached statistical significance ( P >0.050, all). One-year arthrodesis rate was 100.0% among ACDF recipients with available imaging (n=36). ACDF cohort improved from preoperative for PROMIS-PF from 12 weeks to 1 year, SF-12 PCS at 6 months, all timepoints for VAS neck/arm, and 12 weeks/6 months for NDI ( P ≤0.044, all). CDR cohort improved from preoperative for PROMIS-PF at 6 months, VAS neck/arm from 12 weeks to 1 year, and NDI at 12 weeks/6 months ( P ≤0.049, all). CDR cohort reported significantly lower VAS neck at 12 weeks/1 year and VAS arm at 12 weeks ( P ≤0.039, all). MCID achievement rates did not differ.

CONCLUSION

While operative duration/estimated blood loss/acute postoperative pain/narcotic consumption were, on average, higher among ACDF recipients, these were not statistically significant, possibly due to the limited sample size. ACDF and CDR ASC patients generally demonstrated comparable arm pain/disability/physical function/mental health, though neck pain was significantly lower at multiple timepoints among CDR patients. Clinically meaningful PROM improvements were comparable. Larger, multicentered studies are required to confirm our results.

The role of socioeconomic factors as barriers to patient reported outcome measure completion following lumbar spine fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although incorporating patient reported outcomes (PROMs) into practice allows healthcare systems to evaluate the value of care provided, research and policy reflecting PROMs can only be valid if they represent all patients. Few studies have evaluated socioeconomic barriers to PROM completion, and none have done so in a spine patient population.

PURPOSE

To identify patient barriers to PROM completion one year following lumbar spine fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective single-institution cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 2,984 patients undergoing lumbar fusion between 2014 and 2020 OUTCOME MEASURES: Completion of Mental Component Score (MCS-12) and Physical Component Score (PCS-12) of Short Form-12 questionnaire 1 year postoperatively.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients undergoing 1-3-level lumbar fusion at a single urban tertiary center. PROMs were queried from our prospectively managed electronic outcomes database. Patients were considered to have complete PROMs if 1-year outcomes were available. Community-level characteristics were collected from patients' zip codes using the Economic Innovation Group Distressed Communities Index. Bivariate analyses were performed to assess factors associated with PROM incompletion along with multivariate logistic regression to control for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 1,968 (66.0%) had incomplete 1-year PROMs. Patients with incomplete PROMs were more likely to be Black (14.5% vs 9.3%, p<.001), Hispanic (2.9% vs 1.6%, p=.027), reside in a distressed community (14.7% vs 8.5%, p<.001), and be active smokers (22.4% vs 15.5%, p<.001). On multivariate regression, Black race (OR: 1.46, p=.014, Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 2.19, p=.027), distressed community status (OR: 1.47, p=.024), workers' compensation status (OR: 2.82, p=.001), and active smoking (OR:1.31, p=.034) all were independently associated with PROM incompletion. Surgical characteristics, including primary surgeon, revision status, approach, and levels fused were not associated with PROM incompletion.

CONCLUSIONS

Social determinants of health impact completion of PROMs. Patients completing PROMs are overwhelmingly White, non-Hispanic, and reside in wealthier communities. Efforts should be taken to provide better education regarding PROMs and ensure closer follow-up of certain subgroups of patients to avoid furthering disparities in PROM research.

The Influence of Workers' Compensation Status on Patient-Reported Outcomes after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty at an Ambulatory Surgical Center

INTRODUCTION

Workers' compensation (WC) status tends to negatively affect patient outcomes in spine surgery. This study aims to evaluate the potential effect of WC status on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDR) at an ambulatory surgical center (ASC).

METHODS

A single-surgeon registry was retrospectively reviewed for patients who had undergone elective CDR at an ASC. Patients with missing insurance data were excluded. Propensity score-matched cohorts were generated by the presence or lack of WC status. PROs were collected preoperatively and at 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, and 1-year time points. PROs included the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm pain, and Neck Disability Index. PROs were compared within and between groups. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rates were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were included, with 36 without WC (non-WC) and 27 with WC. The non-WC cohort demonstrated postoperative improvement in all PROs at all time points, with the exception of VAS arm past the 12-week point ( P ≤ 0.030, all). The WC cohort demonstrated postoperative improvement in VAS neck at 12-week, 6-month, and 1-year time points ( P ≤ 0.025, all). The WC cohort improved in VAS arm and Neck Disability Index at the 12-week and 1-year points as well ( P ≤ 0.029, all). The non-WC cohort reported superior PRO scores in every PRO at one or more postoperative time points ( P ≤ 0.046, all). The non-WC cohort demonstrated higher rates of minimum clinically important difference achievement in PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks ( P ≤ 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Patients with WC status undergoing CDR at an ASC may report inferior pain, function, and disability outcomes compared with those with private or government-provided insurance. Perceived inferior disability in WC patients persisted into the long-term follow-up period (1 year). These findings may aid surgeons in setting realistic preoperative expectations with patients at risk of inferior outcomes.

Influence of Prolonged Duration of Symptoms Before MIS-TLIF in a Workers' Compensation Population

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the potential effect of the preoperative symptom duration on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for workers' compensation (WC) patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

WC patients who had undergone primary, elective MIS-TLIF with recorded symptoms duration data available were included. Two cohorts were generated: those with a shorter (lesser) duration (LD; symptom duration <1 year) and those with a prolonged duration (PD; symptom duration >1 year). PROs were collected preoperatively and at several follow-up points for ≤1 year postoperatively. The PROs were compared within and between the 2 cohorts. The achievement rates of minimum clinically important differences were also compared between the 2 cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were included, with 76 in the PD cohort and 69 in the LD cohort. The LD cohort demonstrated improvement in the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system for physical function (PROMIS-PF) at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively, Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 12 weeks and 6 months postoperatively, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back pain at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively, and VAS score for leg pain at all postoperative points (P ≤ 0.015 for all). The PD cohort demonstrated improvement in the PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks and 6 months postoperatively, ODI at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively, and VAS score for back pain and leg pain at all postoperative periods (P ≤ 0.007 for all). All the preoperative PROs were superior for the LD cohort (P < 0.001 for all). The LD cohort reported better PROMIS-PF at 6 months and 1 year and ODI at 1 year postoperatively (P ≤ 0.037 for all). The PD cohort was more likely to achieve a minimum clinically important difference in ODI at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively, VAS score for back pain at 6 weeks postoperatively, and VAS score for leg pain at 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively and overall (P ≤ 0.036 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Independently of the preoperative symptom duration, WC patients demonstrated improvement in physical function and pain after MIS-TLIF. Patients with a longer symptom duration reported inferior function and pain preoperatively and were more likely to demonstrate clinically significant improvements in disability and pain postoperatively.

Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

Few studies have established the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for physical function and pain.

OBJECTIVE

To establish MCID for physical function and pain patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for MIS-TLIF through anchor- and distribution-based methods using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) as the anchor.

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients undergoing primary MIS-TLIF with preoperative and 1-year postoperative ODI scores were identified. MCID was calculated using anchor- and distribution-based methods. ODI responders were classified as patients who decreased by 1 disability classification. PROMs of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back/leg, and ODI were collected preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Anchor-based methods were average change, minimum detectable change, change difference, receiver operating characteristic curve, and cross-sectional analysis. Distribution-based methods were standard error of measurement, receiver change index, effect size, and 0.5 ∗ ΔSD.

RESULTS

Anchor-based methods ranged from 4.2 to 11.9 for PROMIS-PF, 6.0 to 15.8 for SF-12 PCS, 1.8 to 4.6 for VAS back, and 2.1 to 4.0 for VAS leg. The area under the curve for receiver operating characteristic analysis ranged from 0.66 to 0.81. Distribution-based methods ranged from 1.1 to 3.9 for PROMIS-PF, 1.6 to 10.4 for SF-12 PCS, 0.5 to 1.6 for VAS back, and 0.6 to 1.8 for VAS leg.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had a wide range of MCID values. The receiver operating characteristic curve was selected as the most clinically appropriate method. The corresponding MCID values were 4.2 for PROMIS-PF, 6.8 for SF-12 PCS, 1.8 for VAS back, and 2.4 for VAS leg.

Return to work after adult spinal deformity surgery

PURPOSE

To determine the proportions of patients returning to work at various points after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery and the associations between surgical invasiveness and time to return to work.

METHODS

Using a multicenter database of patients treated surgically for ASD from 2008 to 2015, we identified 188 patients (mean age 51 ± 15 years) who self-reported as employed preoperatively and had 2-year follow-up. Per the ASD-Surgical and Radiographical Invasiveness Index (ASD-SR), 118 patients (63%) underwent high-invasiveness (HI) surgery (ASD-SR ≥ 100) and 70 (37%) had low-invasiveness (LI) surgery (ASD-SR < 100). Patients who self-reported ≥ 75% normal level of work/school activity were considered to be working full time. Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables (α = .05).

RESULTS

Preoperatively, 69% of employed patients worked full time. Postoperatively, 15% of employed patients were full time at 6 weeks, 70% at 6 months, 83% at 1 year, and 84% at 2 years. Percentage of employed patients working full time at 2 years was greater than preoperatively (p < .001); percentage of patients returning to full time at 6 weeks was lower in the HI (5%) than in the LI group (19%) (p = .03), a difference not significant at later points.

CONCLUSIONS

Most adults returned to full-time work after ASD surgery. A smaller percentage of patients in the HI group than in the LI group returned to full-time work at 6 weeks. Patients employed full time preoperatively will likely return to full-time employment after ASD surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Undergoing Revision Fusion: Clinical Outcome Comparison

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare perioperative/postoperative clinical outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in patients presenting for revision surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective database was reviewed for procedures between November 2005 and December 2021. Revision MIS-TLIF/ALIFs were included, whereas primary fusions or diagnosis of infection/malignancy/trauma were excluded. Patients were grouped into MIS-TLIF/ALIF cohorts. Preoperatively/postoperatively collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), and Short-Form 12-Item Survey Mental/Physical Composite Scores.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were eligible, with 84 patients in the MIS-TLIF cohort. The presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis and central stenosis, narcotic consumption on postoperative day 0/1, and postoperative urinary retention rates was greater in the MIS-TLIF cohort (P ≤ 0.036, all). Preoperative PROMs between cohorts did not significantly differ. Significantly favorable postoperative PROM scores were shown in the MIS-TLIF cohort with PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks/6 months (P ≤ 0.033, all). Most patients in both cohorts achieved overall minimum clinically important difference for visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 12-Item Survey Physical Composite Score, and PROMIS-PF. No differences were noted between cohorts within rates of MCID achievement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing revision fusion via MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported similar 1-year postoperative mean outcomes and rates of meaningful clinical achievement for physical function, mental health, disability, and back/leg pain. However, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF reported improved physical function at 12 weeks and 6 months. Perioperatively, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF were noted to consume significantly greater quantities of narcotics.

Does Age Younger Than 65 Affect Clinical Outcomes in Medicare Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if age (younger than 65) and Medicare status affect patient outcomes following lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Medicare is a common spine surgery insurance provider, but most qualifying patients are older than age 65. There is a paucity of literature investigating clinical outcomes for Medicare patients under the age of 65.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients 40 years and older who underwent lumbar fusion surgery between 2014 and 2019 were queried from electronic medical records. Patients with >2 levels fused, >3 levels decompressed, incomplete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), revision procedures, and tumor/infection diagnosis were excluded. Patients were placed into 4 groups based on Medicare status and age: no Medicare under 65 years (NM<65), no Medicare 65 years or older (NM≥65), yes Medicare under 65 (YM<65), and yes Medicare 65 years or older (YM≥65). T tests and χ 2 tests analyzed univariate comparisons depending on continuous or categorical type. Multivariate regression for ∆PROMs controlled for confounders. Alpha was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 1097 patients, 567 were NM<65 (51.7%), 133 were NM≥65 (12.1%), 42 were YM<65 (3.8%), and 355 were YM≥65 (32.4%). The YM<65 group had significantly worse preoperative Visual Analog Scale back ( P =0.01) and preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score (MCS-12), and Physical Component Score (PCS-12). However, on regression analysis, there were no significant differences in ∆PROMs for YM <65 compared with YM≥65, and NM<65. NM<65 (compared with YM<65) was an independent predictor of decreased improvement in ∆ODI following surgery (β=12.61, P =0.007); however, overall the ODI was still lower in the NM<65 compared with the YM<65.

CONCLUSION

Medicare patients younger than 65 years undergoing lumbar fusion had significantly worse preoperative and postoperative PROMs. The perioperative improvement in outcomes was similar between groups with the exception of ∆ODI, which demonstrated greater improvement in Medicare patients younger than 65 compared with non-Medicare patients younger than 65.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III (treatment).

Workers compensation patients experiencing depression report meaningful improvement in mental health scores after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Background

Mental health has been demonstrated to affect postoperative outcomes. No prior literature has reported the relationship between preoperative mental health on outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the Workers Compensation (WC) population.

Methods

WC claimants who underwent primary ACDF were identified from a single-surgeon retrospective database. Patients were separated by SF-12 MCS score into Depressed (<45.6) or Not Depressed (ND) (≥45.6) cohorts. Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF), SF-12 Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 MCS, visual analog scale (VAS) neck/arm pain, and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were collected and compared within and between groups. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rates were compared between groups.

Results

Depressed patients had greater length of stay (p = 0.007) and postoperative narcotic consumption (p = 0.026). Depressed patients improved at 12-week to 2-year PROMIS PF, 6-month SF-12 PCS, 6-week to 6-month SF-12 MCS, 6-week to 6-month and 2-year VAS neck, all VAS arm, and 6-month NDI (p ≤ 0.045, all). ND patients improved at 12-week to 1-year PROMIS PF, 6-month to 2-year SF-12 PCS, 12-week to 1-year VAS neck, 6-week to 1-year VAS arm, and 12-week to 1-year NDI (p ≤ 0.044, all). Between groups, ND patients reported superior PROMIS PF, SF-12 MCS, VAS neck, VAS arm, and NDI scores at two or more periods (p ≤ 0.045, all). MCID achievement rate regarding SF-12 MCS was greater in the Depressed cohort at all postoperative points up to 1 year (p ≤ 0.020, all).

Conclusion

Depressed patients tended to have a greater length of stay and postoperative narcotic consumption immediately after surgery. Not depressed patients reported more favorable physical and mental function, pain, and disability scores preoperatively and postoperatively. Depressed patients reported greater MCID achievement in mental function following surgery. Depressed patients with WC have a greater likelihood of reporting tangible improvement in mental health scores following ACDF.

Impact of Ambulatory Setting for Workers' Compensation Patients Undergoing One-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative characteristics and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in workers' compensation (WC) patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in either the inpatient/outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients with WC undergoing 1-level MIS-TLIF were included. Patients were separated into inpatient/outpatient groups and demographically propensity score matched. PROMs included visual analog scale (VAS) back/VAS leg/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)/12-item Short Form Physical Composite Score (SF-12 PCS)/Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) preoperatively and 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Results were compared preoperatively and postoperatively and between cohorts. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was determined through comparison with values established in the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 216 patients were included (184 inpatient). The inpatient cohort (IC) showed worse perioperative outcomes in multiple measures (P < 0.034; all). The IC improved in all PROMs (P < 0.038; all), besides ODI at 6 weeks, SF-12 PCS at 6 weeks/6 months/1 year, and PROMIS-PF at 6 weeks. The outpatient cohort (OC) improved in VAS back at all time points and VAS leg at 6 months (P < 0.033; all). Between cohorts, the OC showed better scores with VAS leg/ODI/SF-12 PCS/PROMIS-PF at multiple time points (P < 0.031; all). Most of the IC achieved MCID, aside from ODI, whereas the OC achieved MCID in SF-12 PCS. MCID achievement between cohorts was higher in the IC at PROMIS-PF at 1 year and VAS back overall (P < 0.034; all).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite more comorbidities and worse perioperative measures, the IC showed improved PROMs from preoperative to ≥1 follow-up visit, whereas the OC had improvement with only VAS back and leg. The IC showed multiple MCID achievements, whereas the OC showed MCID in only SF-12 PCS. These findings may help guide a surgeon's decision making between inpatient/outpatient lumbar surgery in the WC population.

Formal Patient Complaints and Malpractice Events Involving Orthopedic Spine Surgeons: A Ten-Year Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze patient complaints, potential risk, and malpractice events involving orthopedic spine surgeons over a 10-year period.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Unsolicited patient complaints may be associated with risk management and malpractice events.

METHODS

We analyzed patient complaint, potential risk event, and malpractice event data for six orthopedic spine surgeons over a 10-year period. Patient complaints were analyzed and classified according to the Patient Complaint Analysis System. Baseline demographics were recorded for patients with complaints as well as the surgeons. A control group consisting of all patients seen by the six surgeons during the study period was created to identify patient and physician risk factors for formal patient complaints. Event rates (for complaints, risk, and malpractice events) were calculated by dividing the number of events by the total number of unique patients seen.

RESULTS

There were 214 complaint designations among 202 patients with formal complaints, resulting in a complaint rate of 0.79%. Patients were most likely to complain about access and availability (35%) followed by care and treatment (32%). Of the 68 complaints regarding care and treatment, 34 were related to dissatisfaction with surgical outcome. Complications were identified in 26/34 cases. The malpractice event rate ranged from 0.06% to 0.65%. Patients who had surgery ( P < 0.0001) or a mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental disorder ( P = 0.0004) were more likely to file complaints compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

While infrequent, patient complaints against orthopedic spine surgeons are most related to access and availability. The rate of malpractice events varies widely between surgeons.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting Return to Work Following Carpal Tunnel Release: A Statewide Cohort Study of Workers' Compensation Subjects

PURPOSE

Most randomized trials comparing open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) to endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) are not specific to a working population and focus mainly on how surgical technique has an impact on outcomes. This study's primary goal was to evaluate factors affecting days out of work (DOOW) following carpal tunnel release (CTR) in a working population and to evaluate for differences in medical costs, indemnity payments, disability ratings, and opioid use between OCTR and ECTR with the intent of determining whether one or the other surgical method was a determining factor.

METHODS

Using the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation claims database, individuals were identified who underwent unilateral isolated CTR between 1993 and 2018. We excluded those who were on total disability, who underwent additional surgery within 6 months of their index CTR, including contralateral or revision CTR, and those not working during the same month as their index CTR. Outcomes were evaluated at 6 months after surgery. Multivariable linear regression was performed to evaluate covariates associated with DOOW.

RESULTS

Of the 4596 included participants, 569 (12.4%) and 4027 (87.6%) underwent ECTR and OCTR, respectively. Mean DOOW were 58.4 for participants undergoing OCTR and 56.6 for those undergoing ECTR. Carpal tunnel release technique was not predictive of DOOW. Net medical costs were 20.7% higher for those undergoing ECTR. Multivariable linear regression demonstrated the following significant predictors of higher DOOW: preoperative opioid use, legal representation, labor-intensive occupation, increasing lag time from injury to filing of a worker's compensation claim, and female sex. Being married, higher income community, and working in the public sector were associated with fewer DOOW.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large statewide worker's compensation population, demographic, occupational, psychosocial, and litigatory factors have a significant impact on DOOW following CTR, whereas differences in surgical technique between ECTR and OCTR did not.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic III.

Obesity and Workers' Compensation in the Setting of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of body mass index (BMI) on perioperative outcomes, postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement among workers' compensation (WC) claimants undergoing minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MIS-LD).

METHODS

WC patients diagnosed with herniated nucleus pulposus undergoing single-level MIS-LD were identified. Patients were divided into 3 groups: Non-obese (<30 kg/m²), Obese I (≥30 and <35 kg/m²), and Obese II/III (≥35 kg/m²). PROMs were collected preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. The predictive influence of BMI grouping on mean PROM scores was computed using simple linear regression. To compare PROMs between groups, post hoc pairwise comparisons of adjusted means were utilized. MCID achievement was compared between groups with χ² analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were in the Non-obese cohort, and 43 and 45 in the Obese I and Obese II/III cohorts, respectively. Visual analog scale (VAS) leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 12-Item Short Form Physical Composite Score (SF-12 PCS) were worse in the Obese I cohort at 12 weeks, and SF-12 PCS was lower in the Obese I vs. Obese II/III subgroup analysis (P ≤ 0.045, all). MCID achievement rates for ODI were higher for the Non-obese group at 12 weeks and overall (P ≤ 0.049, both). MCID attainment for VAS back was higher among the Non-obese cohort at 6-weeks (P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with higher levels of obesity were more likely to experience longer length of stay and delayed discharge following MIS-LD. Increasing BMI was generally not a significant predictor of postoperative pain, disability, or physical health PROMs at most timepoints. MCID achievement rates for disability relief were significantly higher for non-obese patients.

Impact of Time to Surgery for Workers' Compensation Patients Undergoing MIS TLIF: A Preliminary Analysis on Clinical Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a preliminary analysis on the impact of time to surgery (TTS) and duration of symptoms (DOS) on clinical outcomes in workers' compensation patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).

METHODS

WC patients undergoing primary, single-level MIS TLIF were identified. PROMs were administered at preoperative/6-week/12-week/6-month postoperative timepoints and included VAS back/VAS leg/ODI/SF-12 PCS/SF-12 MCS. Patients were grouped by TTS: <90 days, 90-179 days, ≥180 days. Demographics were compared by chi-squared; perioperative characteristics, mean PROMs, and postoperative improvement (ΔPROM) were compared using one way ANOVA. MCID achievement rates were compared using simple logistic regression. A secondary analysis was performed by grouping patients by DOS: <180 days, 180-364 days, ≥365 days. Mean PROMs, ΔPROMs, and MCID achievement were similarly compared between DOS groups using one way ANOVA and logistic regression.

RESULTS

193 patients included. Prevalence of HNP and initial appointment type were significantly associated with TTS(p<0.042, all)(Tables 1 and 2). No significant differences in mean PROMs or ΔPROMs were observed among TTS groups(Tables 3 and 4). MCID achievement was significantly lower for VAS back at 6-months in longest TTS group(Table 4). Mean PROMs were significantly different based on DOS for VAS leg at 6-weeks only(Table 5). MCID achievement was significantly lower for longest DOS group for VAS leg at 6-months only. ΔPROMs did not significantly differ among DOS groups(Table 6).

CONCLUSION

Neither TTS nor DOS significantly associated with MIS TLIF outcomes. WC patients may achieve similar clinical improvement even with longer symptom burden and substantial delays in operative treatment.

Prognostic Factors Affecting Long-Term Outcomes After Elbow Dislocation: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

Purpose

To describe patient-reported outcomes following simple elbow dislocation and to identify the baseline factors that predict outcomes.

Methods

Adult patients treated with a closed reduction for a simple elbow dislocation with or without minor fracture (coronoid avulsion, radial head fracture, or epicondyle avulsion) from 2000 to 2018 completed outcome instruments including Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) via Research Electronic Data Capture. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Univariate followed by multivariate Tobit regression models were used to determine factors associated with clinical outcomes on QuickDASH. Social deprivation was measured using the Area Deprivation Index. Patients with additional upper-extremity injuries or associated major fractures (Monteggia or terrible triad injuries, distal humerus fractures, etc) were excluded.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 67.5 months, 95% (38/40) of patients reported satisfaction with treatment, and clinical outcomes were good (QuickDASH 9.0 ± 14.8). Univariate analysis showed that higher Area Deprivation Index, older age, female sex, high-energy mechanism of injury, and worker’s compensation (WC) or Medicare insurance status (vs commercial) was associated with significantly worse QuickDASH scores at follow-up. Early therapy, dominant elbow involvement, presence of minor fractures (minimally displaced radial head, coronoid tip, or epicondylar avulsion fractures), race, and treating service did not influence outcomes in univariate analyses. Multivariate analysis demonstrated a significant association between increased social deprivation, WC insurance, and Medicare insurance and worse QuickDASH scores while controlling for new upper-extremity injury, age, sex, and mechanism of injury.

Conclusions

Outcomes and treatment satisfaction following simple elbow dislocation are generally good but are significantly worse for the patients with greater levels of social deprivation and WC or Medicare insurance. Although surgeons should be aware of the possibility that specific subsets of patients may benefit from early therapy, this factor did not appear to influence long-term outcomes in this small cohort.

Type of study/level of evidence

Prognostic III.

Prediction of Major Complications and Readmission After Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Machine Learning-Driven Approach

BACKGROUND

Given the significant cost and morbidity of patients undergoing lumbar fusion, accurate preoperative risk-stratification would be of great utility. We aim to develop a machine learning model for prediction of major complications and readmission after lumbar fusion. We also aim to identify the factors most important to performance of each tested model.

METHODS

We identified 38,788 adult patients who underwent lumbar fusion at any California hospital between 2015 and 2017. The primary outcome was major perioperative complication or readmission within 30 days. We build logistic regression and advanced machine learning models: XGBoost, AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting, and Random Forest. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and Brier score, respectively.

RESULTS

There were 4470 major complications (11.5%). The XGBoost algorithm demonstrates the highest discrimination of the machine learning models, outperforming regression. The variables most important to XGBoost performance include angina pectoris, metastatic cancer, teaching hospital status, history of concussion, comorbidity burden, and workers' compensation insurance. Teaching hospital status and concussion history were not found to be important for regression.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a machine learning algorithm for prediction of major complications and readmission after lumbar fusion that outperforms logistic regression. Notably, the predictors most important for XGBoost differed from those for regression. The superior performance of XGBoost may be due to the ability of advanced machine learning methods to capture relationships between variables that regression is unable to detect. This tool may identify and address potentially modifiable risk factors, helping risk-stratify patients and decrease complication rates.

Workers' Compensation Status in Association with a High NDI Score Negatively Impacts Post-Operative Dysphagia and Dysphonia Following Anterior Cervical Fusion

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a safe and effective procedure but has approach-related complications like postoperative dysphagia and dysphonia (PDD). Patient-reported outcome measures including the Hospital for Special Surgery Dysphagia and Dysphonia Inventory (HSS-DDI) have been used for the assessment of PDD. Various factors have been described that affect ACDF outcomes, and our aim was to investigate the effect of workers' compensation (WC) status.

METHODS

We included patients who underwent ACDF from 2015 to 2018 stratified according to insurance status: WC/non-WC. PDDs were assessed using the HSS-DDI score. We conducted logistic regression analyses. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

We included 287 patients, 44 (15.33%) WC and 243 (84.67%) non-WC. A statistical comparison revealed a clinically relevant difference in the HSS-DDI total score and both subdomains (P = 0.015; dysphagia P = 0.021; dysphonia P = 0.002). Additional logistic regression analysis adjusting for preoperative Neck Disability Index scores resulted in no clinically relevant differences in the HSS-DDI total score and both subdomains (total score P = 0.420; dysphagia P = 0.531; dysphonia 0.315).

CONCLUSIONS

WC status was associated with a worse HSS-DDI score but could not be shown to be an independent risk factor for PDD. The preoperative NDI score was a strong predictor for PDD with a clinically relevant difference in the HSS DDI score (P < 0.0001). Surgeon awareness of risk factors for PDD such as WC status, even if it could not be shown as independent, is important as it may influence surgical decision making and managing patient expectations.

Does Workers' Compensation Status Affect Outcomes after Lumbar Spine Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Low back pain (LBP) is currently the leading cause of disability worldwide and the most common reason for workers’ compensation (WC) claims. Studies have demonstrated that receiving WC is associated with a negative prognosis following treatment for a vast range of health conditions. However, the impact of WC on outcomes after spine surgery is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review the literature and analyze the impact of compensation status on outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. A systematic search was performed on Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases. The review included studies of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in which compensation status was reported. Methodological quality was assessed through ROBINS-I and quality of evidence was estimated using the GRADE rating. A total of 26 studies with a total of 2668 patients were included in the analysis. WC patients had higher post-operative pain and disability, as well as lower satisfaction after surgery when compared to those without WC. Furthermore, WC patients demonstrated to have a delayed return to work. According to our results, compensation status is associated with poor outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. Contextualizing post-operative outcomes in clinical and work-related domains helps understand the multifactorial nature of the phenomenon.

Do Mid-term Outcomes of Lateral Ankle Stabilization Procedures Differ Between Military and Civilian Populations?

BACKGROUND

Ankle instability is common and previous studies have documented greater than 85% good-to-excellent outcomes based upon both patient-reported outcome measures and subjective evaluation of ability to return to previous activity levels after lateral ankle stabilization in the civilian population. However, patient-reported outcomes and performance may differ in the military population. The military oftentimes requires servicemembers to navigate uneven terrain and ladderwells, which can stress ankles differently than in their civilian counterparts. There has been limited evidence regarding patient outcomes after lateral ankle stabilization within a military population and its elucidation is important in optimizing outcomes for our servicemembers. Furthermore, the potential benefit of fibular periosteum augmentation with lateral ankle stabilization procedures in a military population has not been described. The results of using this extra tissue to reinforce the repair are important in determining whether its routine incorporation is indicated in the military.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In an active-duty military population, we asked: (1) What proportion of patients who underwent lateral ankle stabilization using anatomic repair techniques with or without fibular periosteum augmentation achieved good-to-excellent outcomes based on the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI) score at a minimum follow-up interval of 2 years? (2) Was the proportion of patients who achieved a good-to-excellent FADI score higher among those treated with fibular periosteum augmentation than those treated without? (3) Did the likelihood of achieving a good-to-excellent outcome after lateral ankle stabilization vary based on whether the procedure was performed by a fellowship-trained sports or foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeon versus a podiatrist?

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2017, 15 surgeons (six orthopaedic surgeons and nine podiatrists) performed 502 lateral ankle stabilizations. We excluded 4% (18 of 502) of patients because they were not active-duty at the time of surgery, and we excluded 12% (56 of 502) of lateral ankle stabilizations because they were performed as part of other potentially confounding foot or ankle procedures. We considered 60% (303 of 502) as lost to follow-up because the patients could not be contacted at least 2 years after surgery, they declined to participate, or they did not fully answer the questionnaires. This left 125 patients for analysis. Of those, 79% (99 of 125) had a procedure with fibular periosteum augmentation and 21% (26 of 125) had a procedure without augmentation. During the study period, five fellowship-trained orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons and two podiatrists always used fibular periosteum augmentation. Orthopaedic surgeons performed 75% (94 of 125) of the procedures, and the other 25% (31 of 125) were performed by podiatrists. Whether a servicemember was treated by one specialty or the other was simply based upon whom they were referred to for care. Orthopaedic surgeons tended to perform procedures with augmentation (five with versus one without) and podiatrists tended to perform procedures without augmentation (two with versus seven without). To help account for this confounding factor, we performed separate analyses for procedures performed with versus without augmentation in addition to procedures performed by orthopaedic surgeons versus podiatrists. We retrospectively contacted each patient to obtain their self-reported overall result, FADI outcome score, and postoperative military capabilities. The minimum follow-up duration was 2 years; overall mean follow-up duration was 7 years. The fibular periosteum augmentation group mean follow-up was 7 ± 4 years and without augmentation was 6 ± 3 years. The orthopaedic surgeons group mean follow-up was 7 ± 3 years and the podiatrists group was 7 ± 3 years. We obtained postoperative FADI scores via phone interview along with data regarding the patients' postoperative military capabilities, but did not have preoperative FADI scores.

RESULTS

Pooling both surgical treatments, 67% (84 of 125) of the patients reported good-to-excellent results and 33% (41 of 125) reported very poor-to-fair results. We found no difference in the proportion of patients treated with fibular periosteal augmentation who achieved a good or excellent score on the FADI than was observed among the patients treated without periosteal augmentation (68% [67 of 99] versus 65% [17 of 26]; odds ratio 1 [95% CI 0 to 2]; p = 0.81). The proportion of patients who achieved a good or excellent score on the FADI did not differ depending on whether the procedure was performed by an orthopaedic surgeon or a podiatric surgeon (66% [62 of 94] versus 71% [22 of 31]; OR 1 [95% CI 1 to 2]; p = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

The patient-reported outcome scores after lateral ankle stabilization in our study of military servicemembers at a minimum of 2 years and a mean of 7 years were far lower than have been reported in studies on civilians. Indeed, our findings may represent a best-case scenario because more patients were lost to follow-up than were accounted for, and in general, surgical results among missing patients are poorer than among those who return for follow-up. Variability in the addition of fibular periosteum augmentation and whether an orthopaedic surgeon or podiatrist performed the procedure did not account for these findings. With one third of patients reporting very-poor-to-fair results after these reconstructions, and many patients lost to follow-up, we recommend surgeons counsel their servicemember patients accordingly before surgery. Specifically, that there is a one third chance they will need permanent restrictions or have to leave the military postoperatively; analogously, we believe that our findings may apply to similarly active patients outside the military, and we question whether these procedures may not be serving such patients as well as previously believed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Disparities in Outcomes by Insurance Payer Groups for Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study of clinical outcomes at a single institution.

OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative complication and readmission rates of payer groups in a cohort of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Studies examining associations between primary payer and outcomes in spine surgery have been equivocal.

METHODS

Patients at Mount Sinai having undergone ACDF from 2008 to 2016 were queried and assigned to one of five insurance categories: uninsured, managed care, commercial indemnity insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid, with patients in the commercial indemnity group serving as the reference cohort. Multivariable logistic regression equations for various outcomes with the exposure of payer were created, controlling for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status Classification (ASA Class), the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and number of segments fused. A Bonferroni correction was utilized, such that alpha = 0.0125.

RESULTS

Two thousand three hundred eighty seven patients underwent ACDF during the time period. Both Medicare (P < 0.0001) and Medicaid (P < 0.0001) patients had higher comorbidity burdens than commercial patients when examining ASA Class. Managed care (2.86 vs. 2.72, P = 0.0009) and Medicare patients (2.99 vs. 2.72, P < 0.0001) had more segments fused on average than commercial patients. Medicaid patients had higher rates of prolonged extubation (odds ratio [OR]: 4.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-22.0; P = 0.007), and Medicare patients had higher rates of prolonged length of stay (LOS) (OR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.13-5.27%, P = 0.004) than the commercial patients. Medicaid patients had higher rates of 30- (OR: 4.12; 95% CI: 1.43-11.93; P = 0.0009) and 90-day (OR: 3.28; 95% CI: 1.34-8.03; P = 0.0009) Emergency Department (ED) visits than the commercial patients, and managed care patients had higher rates of 30-day readmission (OR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.00-11.57; P = 0.0123).

CONCLUSION

Medicare and Medicaid patients had higher rates of prolonged LOS and postoperative ED visits, respectively, compared with commercial patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Evaluation of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based rehabilitation for thermal burn injuries: a prospective non-randomized design

Background

Severe burn injuries result in relevant restrictions of physical capacity as well as psychological and social integrity and require a specialized rehabilitation. There is a common agreement, among national as well as international burn associations, that burn rehabilitation is a complex, dynamic process which needs an interdisciplinary and specialized treatment team. There is wide agreement that more research is needed in this field.

Methods/design

The aim of the study is to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of our new ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health)-based rehabilitation for thermal injuries. Because of ethical reasons, we have chosen a prospective non-randomized design, which takes place at two different rehabilitation centers. At center A, a newly developed ICF-based rehabilitation program was established; at rehabilitation center B, a well-established rehabilitation program has existed for 20 years and is used as reference. The primary research question addresses the “Pre-post comparison of the physical and psychological outcome measurements,” secondary question I looks at the “Examination of the non-inferiority of the new treatment concept with the established concept,” and secondary question II is the “Analysis of the rehabilitation process based on the rehabilitation cycle.”

Only patients of the two burn rehabilitation centers who are insured by workers’ compensation will be asked to participate in this study to avoid outcome bias by insurance status. A physical examination (physical working capacity testing, grip strength, range of motion, and scar evaluation by Cutometer and Vancouver Scar Scale) and a standardized questionnaire battery (Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief , Short Form 36, Impact of Event Scale-Revised, the German version of the Symptom Checklist, the Freiburg Social Support Questionnaire, Patient/Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, and Lower Extremity Functional Scale ) measure physical and psychological conditions. Data will be taken on admission, during stay, and on discharge of the rehabilitation program and at follow-up 3 and 12 months after discharge. A minimum of 162 participants will be enrolled in this clinical longitudinal, prospective, observational study.

Discussion

The proof of the effectiveness of the ICF-based rehabilitation program for thermal injuries will give evidence in a comprehensive way for the first time in this field. As result, a standardized rehabilitation concept will be introduced, which can be provided to other rehabilitation institutions treating thermal injuries.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00017702. Registered on 2 September 2019.

Patients Undergoing Revision Microdiskectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation Experience Worse Clinical Outcomes and More Revision Surgeries Compared With Patients Undergoing a Primary Microdiskectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent disk herniation treatment aims to optimize outcomes. This study compares the demographics and patient-reported outcomes of patients who underwent primary or revision lumbar microdiskectomy surgery for recurrent disk herniation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of consecutive patients who underwent primary or revision lumbar microdiskectomies between January 2008 and December 2015. Patients were divided into two groups: primary (primary) and revision (recurrent). Herniated disks were confirmed preoperatively using MRI. Patient-reported outcomes included Visual Analog Scales (VAS) scores for the back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index scores, 12-Item Short Form Mental and Physical Survey scores, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Mental and Physical Survey scores.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients met inclusion criteria: 72 from primary cohort and 38 from recurrent cohort. Recurrent patients experienced presurgical symptoms for significantly less time. On bivariate analysis, recurrent patients reported significantly worse preoperative VAS-back and VAS-leg scores. On multivariate analysis, recurrent patients reported significantly worse postoperative VAS-back, VAS-leg, and Oswestry Disability Index scores. Recurrent patients were less likely to be satisfied with surgical outcomes and to feel that surgery had met or exceeded their expectations.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing revision microdiskectomy are likely to experience worse postoperative symptoms and disability relative to patients undergoing primary microdiskectomy.