Morbidity and Mortality After Burr Hole Craniostomy Versus Craniotomy for Chronic Subdural Hematoma Evacuation: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural hematomas (cSDHs) are common neurosurgical pathological entities and typically occur after trauma in elderly patients. The 2 most commonly used strategies for treatment have included burr hole drainage and craniotomy with decompression. However, the choice of these procedures has remained controversial and has been primarily determined by surgeon preference. We designed a matched-cohort analysis to compare these 2 procedures and identify the risk factors associated with the postoperative outcomes. Thus, we compared the rates of reoperation and mortality for patients who had undergone craniotomy versus burr hole evacuation for cSDH. METHODS: A retrospective review examining the data from 299 consecutive patients with cSHDs from 2002 to 2015 was performed. We compared the following endpoints between the 2 procedures: 30-day mortality, discharge to a skilled nursing facility, and the need for reoperation. We also compared the potential risk factors in the patients with different primary outcomes. RESULTS: Patients undergoing craniotomy had a decreased need for reoperation compared with patients treated with burr hole evacuation (7.5% vs. 15.7%; P = 0.044). Older age was associated with both increased disposition to a nursing facility and increased 30-day mortality in both groups. Increased 30-day mortality was associated with aspirin usage in patients who had undergone craniotomy and with warfarin (Coumadin) in patients who had undergone burr hole evacuation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified an increased need for reoperation for patients treated with burr hole evacuation compared with those undergoing craniotomy. Older age and low Glasgow coma scale scores were associated with worse outcomes in both groups. Certain methods of anticoagulation were also associated with worse outcomes, which varied between the 2 groups. We recommend that surgeons individualize the choice of procedure according to the specific patient characteristics with consideration of these findings.

Self-referrals versus physician referrals: What new patient visit yields an actual surgical case?

OBJECTIVE Spine surgeons in the United States continue to be overwhelmed by an aging population, and patients are waiting weeks to months for appointments. With a finite number of clinic visits per surgeon, analysis of referral sources needs to be explored. In this study, the authors evaluated patient referrals and their yield for surgical volume at a tertiary care center. METHODS This is a retrospective study of new patient visits by the spine surgery group at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Spine Health from 2011 to 2016. Data on all new or consultation visits for 5 identified spinal surgeons at the Center for Spine Health were collected. Patients with an identifiable referral source and who were at least 18 years of age at initial visit were included in this study. Univariate analysis was used to identify demographic differences among referral groups, and then multivariate analysis was used to evaluate those referral groups as significant predictors of surgical yield. RESULTS After adjusting for demographic differences across all referrals, multivariate analysis identified physician referrals as more likely (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.10, p = 0.0293) to yield a surgical case than self-referrals. General practitioner referrals (OR 0.5616, 95% CI 0.3809-0.8278, p = 0.0036) were identified as less likely to yield surgical cases than referrals from interventionalists (OR 1.5296, p = 0.058) or neurologists (OR 1.7498, 95% CI 1.0057-3.0446, p = 0.0477). Additionally, 2 demographic factors, including distance from home and age, were identified as predictors of surgery. Local patients (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.29, p = 0.018) and those 65 years of age or older (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.87, p = 0.0023) were both more likely to need surgery after establishing care with a spine surgeon. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, referrals from general practitioners and self-referrals are important areas where focused triaging may be necessary. Further research into midlevel providers and nonsurgical spine provider's role in these referrals for spine pathology is needed. Patients from outside of the state or younger than 65 years could benefit from pre-visit screening as well to optimize a surgeon's clinic time use and streamline patient care.