RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Ambispective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Canada has a government-funded universal health care system. The United States utilizes a multitier public and private system. The objective is to investigate differences in clinical outcomes between those surgically treated for lumbar disc herniation in a universal health care and multitier health system. METHODS: Surgical lumbar disc herniation patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcome Research Network (CSORN) were compared with the surgical cohort enrolled in the Spine Patients Outcome Research Trial (SPORT) study. Baseline demographics and spine-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared at 3 months and 1 year post-operatively. RESULTS: The CSORN cohort consisted of 443 patients; the SPORT cohort had 763 patients. Patients in the CSORN cohort were older (46.4 ± 13.5 vs 41.0 ± 10.8, P < .001) and were more likely to be employed (69.5% vs 60.3%, P = .003). The CSORN cohort demonstrated significantly greater rates of satisfaction after surgery at 3 months (87.2% vs 64.8%, P < .0001) and 1 year (85.6% vs 69.6%, P < .0001). Improvements in back and leg pain followed similar trajectories in the two cohorts, but there was less improvement on ODI in the CSORN cohort (P < .01). On multivariable logistic regression, the CSORN cohort was a significant independent predictor of patient satisfaction at 1-year follow-up (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite less improvement on ODI, patients enrolled in CSORN, as part of a universal health care system, reported higher rates of satisfaction at 3 months and 1 year post-operatively compared to patients enrolled within a multitier health system.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Perioperative adverse events (AEs) lead to patient disappointment and greater costs. There is a paucity of data on how AEs affect long-term outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine perioperative AEs and their impact on outcome after lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: A total of 3556 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disorders enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network were analyzed. AEs were defined using the validated Spine AdVerse Events Severity system. Outcomes at 3, 12, and 24 mo postoperatively included the Owestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical (PCS) and Mental (MCS) Component Summary scales, visual analog scale (VAS) leg and back, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), and satisfaction. RESULTS: AEs occurred in 767 (21.6%) patients, and 85 (2.4%) patients suffered major AEs. Patients with major AEs had worse ODI scores and did not reach minimum clinically important differences at 2 yr (no AE: 25.7 ± 19.2, major: 36.4 ± 19.1, P < .001). Major AEs were associated with worse ODI scores on multivariable linear regression (P = .011). PCS scores were lower after major AEs (43.8 ± 9.5, vs 37.7 ± 20.3, P = .002). On VAS leg and back and EQ5D, the 2-yr outcomes were significantly different between the major and no AE groups (<0.01), but these differences were small (VAS leg: 3.4 ± 3.0 vs 4.0 ± 3.3; VAS back: 3.5 ± 2.7 vs 4.5 ± 2.6; EQ5D: 0.75 ± 0.2 vs 0.64 ± 0.2). SF12 MCS scores were not different. Rates of satisfaction were lower after major AEs (no AE: 84.6%, major: 72.3%, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Major AEs after lumbar spine surgery lead to worse functional outcomes and lower satisfaction. This highlights the need to implement strategies aimed at reducing AEs.