RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing acceptance of conducting minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Hospitals Without Walls (HWW) program in March 2020. This program granted hospitals regulatory flexibility to offer services and procedures in nontraditional locations, including ASCs. However, implementation hurdles persist. METHODS: A survey was sent to 235 surgeons regarding the use of ASCs for performing TLIF surgeries on elderly patients. Multiple-choice questions covering various aspects of TLIF practice preferences, including surgical indications, decision factors for choosing ASCs over hospitals, implementation hurdles, reimbursement concerns, staffing issues, and the impact of CMS rules and regulations on TLIF in ASCs, particularly concerning physician ownership and self-referral conflicts governed by the Stark law, were asked. RESULTS: The survey completion rate was 25.8% (Figure 1). The most common surgical indications for TLIF in ASCs were spondylolisthesis (80%), spinal stenosis (62.5%), and low back pain (47.5%). Most surgeons (78%) believed TLIF could be safely performed in ASCs. Streamlined workflow, lower infection rates, and cost-effectiveness were advantages listed by 58.5% of surgeons. Patient's medical history (75.8%), followed by ASC resources and capabilities (61%) and surgeon preference (61%), were relevant factors. Higher efficiencies at ASCs (14.6%), contractual issues (9.8%), and ownership issues (7.3%) were less relevant to surgeons. About 65.9% of surgeons reported lower reimbursement in ASCs, and 43.9% said it was an implementation hurdle. Lower direct costs were reported by 53.7% of surgeons. Other hurdles included a lack of trained staff (24.4%), inadequate staffing (22.0%), cost overruns (26.8%), high Joint Commission or the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care credentialing costs, and surgeons feeling uncomfortable performing TLIF in ASCs (22.0%). Only 17.1% listed medical problems as a reason their patient was considered unsuitable for the ASC environment. A majority (53.7%) stated that their ASCs complied with strict Stark requirements by disclosing physician ownership interests. However, 22% of surgeons reported self-referrals under the "In-Office Ancillary Services Exception" allowed by the Stark law. CONCLUSION: Our survey data show that surgeons' perceptions of current CMS rules and regulations may hinder the transition into the ASC setting because they think the reimbursement is too low and the regulatory burden is too high. ASCs have disproportionally higher initial acquisition and ongoing costs related to staff training and maintenance of the TLIF technology that CMS should consider when determining the appropriate financial remuneration for these complex procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ASC offers a viable and attractive option for their TLIF procedure with the advantage of same-day discharge and at-home recovery.
RESUMO
(1) Background: The technological advances achieved with minimally-invasive surgery have enabled procedures to be undertaken in outpatient settings, and there has been growing acceptance of performing minimally-invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC). The purposeof this study was to determine the comparative 30 day safety profile for patients treated with TLIF in the ASC versus the hospital setting. (2) Methods: This multi-center study retrospectively collected baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, and 30 day postoperative safety outcomes for patients having a TLIF using the VariLift®-LX expandable lumbar interbody fusion device. Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing TLIF in the ASC (n = 53) versus in the hospital (n = 114). (3) Results: Patients treated in-hospital were significantly older, frailer and more likely to have had previous spinal surgery than ASC patients. Preoperative back and leg pain scores were similar between study groups (median, 7). ASC patients had almost exclusively one-level procedures (98%) vs. 20% of hospital procedures involving two-levels (p = 0.004). Most procedures (>90%) employed a stand-alone device. The median length of stay for hospital patients was five times greater than for ASC patients (1.4 days vs. 0.3 days, p = 0.001). Emergency department visits, re-admissions and reoperations were rare whether the patients were managed in the traditional hospital setting or the ASC. (4) Conclusions: There were equivalent 30 day postoperative safety profiles for patients undergoing a minimally-invasive TLIF irrespective of surgical setting. For appropriately selected surgical candidates, the ASC offers a viable and attractive option for their TLIF procedure with the advantage of same-day discharge and at-home recovery.