Future Directions for Global Clinical Neurosurgical Training: Challenges and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Expanded access to training opportunities is necessary to address 5 million essential neurosurgical cases not performed annually, nearly all in low- and middle-income countries. To target this critical neurosurgical workforce issue and advance positive collaborations, a summit (Global Neurosurgery 2019: A Practical Symposium) was designed to assemble stakeholders in global neurosurgical clinical education to discuss innovative platforms for clinical neurosurgery fellowships. METHODS: The Global Neurosurgery Education Summit was held in November 2021, with 30 presentations from directors and trainees in existing global neurosurgical clinical fellowships. Presenters were selected based on chain referral sampling from suggestions made primarily from young neurosurgeons in low- and middle-income countries. Presentations focused on the perspectives of hosts, local champions, and trainees on clinical global neurosurgery fellowships and virtual learning resources. This conference sought to identify factors for success in overcoming barriers to improving access, equity, throughput, and quality of clinical global neurosurgery fellowships. A preconference survey was disseminated to attendees. RESULTS: Presentations included in-country training courses, twinning programs, provision of surgical laboratories and resources, existing virtual educational resources, and virtual teaching technologies, with reference to their applicability to hybrid training fellowships. Virtual learning resources developed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and high-fidelity surgical simulators were presented, some for the first time to this audience. CONCLUSIONS: The summit provided a forum for discussion of challenges and opportunities for developing a collaborative consortium capable of designing a pilot program for efficient, sustainable, accessible, and affordable clinical neurosurgery fellowship models for the future.

Safety and Efficiency of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty in Ambulatory Surgery Centers vs. Hospital Settings.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient surgery has been shown safe and effective for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and more recently, for 1-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). The purpose of this analysis is to compare the safety and efficiency of 1-level and 2-level CDA performed in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) and in a hospital setting. METHODS: The study was a retrospective collection and analysis of data from consecutive CDA patients treated in ASCs compared to a historical control group of patients treated in hospital settings who were classified as outpatient (0 or 1-night stay) or inpatient (2 or more nights). Surgery time, blood loss, return to work, adverse events (AEs), and subsequent surgeries were compared. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 145 ASC patients, 348 hospital outpatients, and 65 hospital inpatients. A greater proportion of 2-level surgeries were performed in hospital than ASC. Surgery times were significantly shorter in ASCs than outpatient or inpatient 1-level (63.6 ± 21.6, 86.5 ± 35.8, and 116.7 ± 48.4 minutes, respectively) and 2-level (92.4 ± 37.3, 126.7 ± 43.8, and 140.3 ± 54.5 minutes, respectively) surgeries. Estimated blood loss was also significantly less in ASC than outpatient and inpatient 1-level (18.5 ± 30.6, 43.7 ± 35.9, and 85.7 ± 98.0 mL, respectively) and 2-level (21.1 ± 12.3, 67.8 ± 94.9, and 64.9 ± 66.1 mL). There were no hospital admissions and no subsequent surgeries among ASC patients. ASC patients had 1 AE (0.7%) and hospital patients had 10 AEs (2.4%). Working patients returned to work after a similar number of days off, but fewer ASC patients had returned to work by the end of the 90-day period. CONCLUSIONS: Both 1- and 2-level CDA may be performed safely in an ASC. Surgeries in ASCs are of shorter duration and performed with less blood loss without increased AEs.

Best Practices for Outpatient Anterior Cervical Surgery: Results From a Delphi Panel.

STUDY DESIGN: Delphi Panel expert panel consensus and narrative literature review. OBJECTIVE: To obtain expert consensus on best practices for patient selection and perioperative decision making for outpatient anterior cervical surgery (anterior cervical disc fusion (ACDF) and cervical total disc replacement (CTDR)). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine surgery in ambulatory settings is becoming a preferred option for both patients and providers. The transition from traditional inpatient environments has been enabled by innovation in anesthesia protocols and surgical technique, as well as favorable economics. Studies have demonstrated that anterior cervical surgery (ACDF and CTDR) can be performed safely on an outpatient basis. However, practice guidelines and evidence-based protocols to inform best practices for the safe and efficient performance of these procedures in same-day, ambulatory settings are lacking. METHODS: A panel of five neurosurgeons, three anesthesiologists, one orthopedic spine surgeon, and a registered nurse was convened to comprise a multidisciplinary expert panel. A three-round modified-Delphi method was used to generate best-practice statements. Predetermined consensus was set at 70% for each best-practice statement. RESULTS: A total of 94 consensus statements were reviewed by the panel. After three rounds of review, there was consensus for 83 best-practice statements, while 11 statements failed to achieve consensus. All statements within several perioperative categories (and subcategories) achieved consensus, including preoperative assessment (n = 8), home-care/follow-up (n = 2), second-stage recovery (n = 18), provider economics (n = 8), patient education (n = 14), discharge criteria (n = 4), and hypothermia prevention (n = 6). CONCLUSION: This study obtained expert-panel consensus on best practices for patient selection and perioperative decision making for outpatient anterior cervical surgery (ACDF/CTDR). Given a paucity of guidelines and a lack of established care pathways for ACDF/CTDR in same-day, ambulatory settings, results from this study can supplement available evidence in support of local protocol development for providers considering a transition to the outpatient environment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Outpatient Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody: Fusion Predictive Factors and Clinical Results.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of data from a prospective patient outcomes registry. OBJECTIVE: The object of this work was to examine patient and surgical predictors of early postoperative discharge and test the predictive model against two clinical series of outpatient minimally invasive lumbar fusion patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Outpatient and ambulatory surgery centers are regularly utilized for procedures with low-risk profiles and minimal need for extended postoperative observation, but little has been reported in lumbar spinal fusion producers. METHODS: Two analyses were undertaken, an examination of patient characteristics to determine predictors of early (<24 hours) postoperative discharge and then clinical examinations of patients treated with lumbar fusion at an ambulatory surgery center. For the predictive arm of the study, 1033 patients treated with minimally invasive (MIS) lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) were grouped according to length of postoperative hospitalization with 873 patients discharged <24 hours (outpatients), and 160 discharged >23 hours after surgery (inpatients). For the clinical studies, 54 consecutive XLIF and 18 consecutive MIS posterior fusion patients were treated at an ambulatory surgery center with demographic, treatment, and complication data collected. RESULTS: From the predictive study, the strongest baseline predictors of early postoperative discharge were a less advanced diagnosis (non-deformity), younger age, elevated baseline hemoglobin levels, and lower body mass index. The most predictive treatment variables that predicted early postoperative discharge were fewer number of levels treated and elevated postoperative hemoglobin levels.In the clinical series, outpatient surgeries were performed in younger patients (50.6 and 53.2 yr), at relatively few levels (96% of cases were at one or two levels), for simple degenerative disease. No intraoperative and few postoperatives complications were seen in either XLIF or MIS posterior fusions performed in ambulatory settings with no emergent transfers to inpatient facilities. CONCLUSION: Select patients, by health and indication, can safely be treated as outpatients with XLIF or other modern MIS approaches. Being younger, having elevated preoperative hemoglobin levels, fewer levels being treated, for less advanced disease may predict early postoperative discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

What is a "fair salary" for a surgical subspecialist?

The author presents a net present model by which a "fair salary" for surgical subspecialists is justified. Neurosurgical practitioners are used as an example, based on assumed fair salary for family physicians.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of outpatient cervical disc arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: To assess the safety, clinical efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of outpatient cervical disc arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 26 consecutive patients who underwent outpatient cervical disc arthroplasty between February 2009 and May 2010 in order to assess the safety, clinical efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of the process. Fourteen patients were operated in a -free-standing practice-based ambulatory spine surgery center (MSC) and 12 patients were operated in a hospital-based outpatient surgery center. The mean age of the patient sample was 46 years; 56% were female and 44% were male. Indications for surgery consisted of cervical radiculopathy secondary to single-level soft disc herniation. Charts were reviewed to define patient demographics and medical comorbidities. Operative data, including levels treated, surgery time, time to discharge, and intraoperative complications were collected. Clinical outcomes were collected using the PhDx Clinical Outcomes Database. Need for hospital transfer from the ambulatory surgical center (ASC), emergency room visits, and subsequent hospital admission in the perioperative period were determined from patient records. Complications, patient satisfaction, and outcome were ascertained via review of notes from the first post-operative visit. RESULTS: There was no mortality and no major complications. Pain was present in 100% and motor deficit in 33% of the patients. There were no co-morbidities reported in the group. There were no cases that required hospital transfer and there were no post-op Emergency Room visits or subsequent hospitalization. At the time of the first post-operative visit, 100% of the patients believed that they were improved and no patient had any post-operative complications. The cost of outpatient single-level cervical disc arthroplasty was 62% less than the outpatient single-level cervical anterior discectomy with fusion using allograft and plate and 84% less than the inpatient single-level cervical disc arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient cervical disc arthroplasty is safe and clinically efficacious in selected patients and is cost-effective compared with both inpatient cervical disc arthroplasty and outpatient anterior discectomy with fusion.