Prevalence of and Associated Factors for Eyelid Cancer in the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight Registry

PURPOSE

To estimate the prevalence of eyelid cancers in the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry and evaluate the associated factors.

DESIGN

Retrospective IRIS Registry database study.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients in the IRIS Registry between December 1, 2010, and December 1, 2018, with International Classification of Disease, ninth and 10th revisions, codes for eyelid cancers (basal cell carcinoma [BCC], squamous cell carcinoma [SCC], malignant melanoma [MM], sebaceous carcinoma/other specified malignant neoplasm [SBC], melanoma in situ [MIS], and unspecified malignant neoplasm [UMN]).

METHODS

The prevalence of each eyelid cancer type was estimated overall and by age group, sex, race, ethnicity, and smoking status. The associations between any eyelid cancer (AEC) or each cancer type and possible risk factors were examined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of and associated factors for each eyelid cancer type.

RESULTS

There were 82 136 patients with eyelid cancer identified. The prevalence of AEC was 145.1 per 100 000 population. The cancer-specific prevalence ranged from 87.9 (BCC) to 25.6 (UMN), 11.1 (SCC), 5.0 (SBC), 4.1 (MM), and 0.4 (MIS) per 100 000 population. The prevalence of AEC and each cancer type increased with increasing age (all P < 0.0001), and the prevalence of AEC, BCC, SCC, and MM was higher in males (all P < 0.0001), MIS (P = 0.02). The prevalence of BCC, SCC, MM, SBC, and AEC was highest in Whites versus that in patients of any other race (all P < 0.0001). In the multivariate logistic regression model with associated risk factors (age, sex, race, ethnicity, and smoking status), AEC was associated with older age groups ([< 20 years reference {ref.}]; odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 20-39 years: 3.35 [1.96-5.72]; 40-65 years: 24.21 [14.80-39.59]; and > 65 years: 42.78 [26.18-69.90]), male sex (female [ref.]; 1.40 [1.33-1.48]), White race (inverse associations with African Americans [0.12 {0.09-0.16}], Asians [0.19 {0.13-0.26}], others [0.59 {0.40-0.89}]), and ethnicity (non-Hispanic [ref.]; Hispanic: 0.38 [0.33-0.45]; unknown: 0.81 [0.75-0.88]). Active smoking (never smoker [ref.]) was associated with AEC (1.11 [1.01-1.21]), BCC (1.27 [1.23-1.31]), SCC (1.59 [1.46-1.73]), and MM (1.26 [1.08-1.46]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports the overall and cancer-specific prevalence of eyelid cancers using a large national clinical eye disease database. Smoking was found to be associated with AEC, BCC, SCC, and MM, which is a new observation. This epidemiologic profile of on-eyelid cancers is valuable for identifying patients at a higher risk of malignancy, allocating medical resources, and improving cancer care.

Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures

Background

Multilevel cervical pathology can often be addressed via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical fusion (PCF). While posterior procedures may be technically easier for four-level pathology, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches that make it of interest to compare outcomes. The purpose was to compare perioperative adverse events and long-term cervical reoperation rates of four-level ACDF and PCF.

Methods

The 2010 to Q1 2020 PearlDiver MSpine database was queried. Patients undergoing isolated elective four-level ACDF or PCF were identified (excluding cases performed for trauma, neoplasm, and/or infections) and 1:1 matched based on age, sex, and comorbidities. Ninety-day adverse events were compared with univariate and multivariate analyses. Five-year incidences of subsequent cervical reoperations were also compared.

Results

A total of 3,714 patients 1:1 matched for four-level ACDF and PCF performed for degenerative pathologies were identified (1,857 for each of the study groups). On multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities, PCF was found to have significantly greater odds ratios (OR) for any (OR 2.12), serious (OR 2.31), and minor (OR 1.95) adverse events, as well as for length of stay ≥3 days (OR 1.76), p<0.001 for each. However, PCF had nearly three times lower odds of dysphagia compared to ACDF (OR 0.36, p<0.001). At five years, four-level ACDF cases were found to have significantly higher reoperation rates compared to four-level PCF cases (26.3% vs 18.3%, p<0.001).

Conclusion

In evaluating four-level cervical cases, compared to anterior approach cases, posterior approach procedures were associated with approximately double the odds of any, serious, and minor adverse events, but around one third the rate of dysphagia and two thirds the rate of five-year reoperations. While the pathology may dictate surgical approach, this data suggests that the choice between four-level anterior versus posterior approach becomes a balance of risks/benefit considerations.

The impact of long-term corticosteroid use on acute postoperative complications following lumbar decompression surgery

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids have a negative impact on the human immune system's ability to function at an optimal level. Studies have shown that patients on long-term corticosteroids have higher infection rates. However, the rates of infection and other complications following lumbar decompression surgery remains under-investigated. The aim of our study was to determine the impact of preoperative long-term corticosteroid usage on acute, 30-day postoperative complications in a subset of patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression surgery, without fusion or instrumentation. We hypothesize that patients on long-term corticosteroids will have higher rates of infection and other postoperative complications after undergoing lumbar decompression surgery of the spine.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data collected from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database data from 2005 to 2016. Lumbar decompression surgeries, including discectomies, laminectomies, and others were identified using CPT codes. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate differences among the corticosteroid and non-corticosteroid groups for demographics, preoperative comorbidities, and postoperative complications. Logistic regression analysis was done to determine if long-term corticosteroid use predicts incidence of postoperative infections following adjustment.

RESULTS

26,734 subjects met inclusion criteria. A total of 1044 patients (3.9%) were on long-term corticosteroids prior to surgical intervention, and 25,690 patients (96.1%) were not on long-term corticosteroids. Patients on long-term corticosteroids were more likely to be older (p < 0.001), female (p < 0.001), nonsmokers (p < 0.001), and have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologist class (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that long-term corticosteroid usage was associated with increased overall complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.543; p < 0.001), and an independent risk factor for the development of minor complications (OR: 1.808; p < 0.001), urinary tract infection (OR: 2.033; p = 0.002), extended length of stay (OR: 1.244; p = 0.039), thromboembolic complications (OR: 1.919; p = 0.023), and sepsis complications (OR: 2.032; p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Long-term corticosteroid usage is associated with a significant increased risk of acute postoperative complication development, including urinary tract infection, sepsis and septic shock, thromboembolic complications, and extended length of hospital stay, but not with superficial or deep infection in patients undergoing lumbar decompression procedures. Spine surgeons should remain vigilant regarding postoperative complications in patients on long-term corticosteroids, especially as it relates to UTI and propensity to decompensate into sepsis or septic shock. Thromboembolic risk attenuation is also imperative in this patient group during the postoperative period and the surgeon should weigh the risks and benefits of more intensive anticoagulation measures.