Complication rate of overlapping versus nonoverlapping functional and stereotactic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Overlapping surgery, in which one attending surgeon manages two overlapping operating rooms (ORs) and is present for all the critical portions of each procedure, is an important policy that improves healthcare access for patients and case volumes for surgeons and surgical trainees. Despite several studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of overlapping neurosurgical operations, the practice of overlapping surgery remains controversial. To date, there are no studies that have investigated long-term complication rates of overlapping functional and stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the 1-year complication rates and OR times for nonoverlapping versus overlapping functional procedures. The secondary objective was to gain insight into what types of complications are the most prevalent and test for differences between groups. METHODS: Seven hundred eighty-three functional neurosurgical cases were divided into two cohorts, nonoverlapping (n = 342) and overlapping (n = 441). The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scale score was used to compare the preoperative risk for both cohorts. A complication was defined as any surgically related reason that required readmission, reoperation, or an unplanned emergency department or clinic visit that required intervention. Complications were subdivided into infectious and noninfectious. Chi-square tests, independent-samples t-tests, and uni- and multivariable logistic regressions were used to determine significance. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean ASA scale score (2.7 ± 0.6 for both groups, p = 0.997) or overall complication rates (8.8% nonoverlapping vs 9.8% overlapping, p = 0.641) between the two cohorts. Infections accounted for the highest percentage of complications in both cohorts (46.6% vs 41.8%, p = 0.686). There were no statistically significant differences between mean in-room OR time (187.5 ± 141.7 minutes vs 197.1 ± 153.0 minutes, p = 0.373) or mean open-to-close time (112.2 ± 107.9 minutes vs 121.0 ± 123.1 minutes, p = 0.300) between nonoverlapping and overlapping cases. CONCLUSIONS: There was no increased risk of 1-year complications or increased OR time for overlapping functional and stereotactic neurosurgical procedures compared with nonoverlapping procedures.

Telemedicine in Spine Surgery: Outcomes for 138 Patients With Virtual Preoperative Assessment Compared to Historical Controls.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has accelerated the use of telemedicine in all aspects of health care delivery, including initial surgical evaluation. No existing literature investigates the safety and efficacy of telemedicine to preoperatively evaluate spine surgery candidates. Our objectives were: (1) Compare the change in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores between the telemedicine preoperative visit and in-person preoperative visit groups. (2) Compare the average surgical time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), rates of intraoperative complications, rates of readmission, and rates of reoperation between the telemedicine preoperative visit and in-person preoperative visit groups. METHODS: The previously stated metrics were collected for 276 patients, 138 who were exclusively evaluated preoperatively with telemedicine and 138 historical controls who were evaluated preoperatively in person. We used χ2 and independent samples t tests to determine significance. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the mean change in VAS scores (-2.7 ± 3.1 telemedicine vs. -2.2 ± 3.7 in-person, P = 0.317), mean percentage change in VAS scores (-40.5% ± 54.3% vs. -39.5% ± 66.6%, P = 0.811), mean surgical time (2.4 ± 1.4 hours vs. 2.3 ± 1.3 ours, P = 0.527), mean EBL (150.4 ± 173.3 mL vs. 156.7 ± 255.0 mL, P = 0.811), mean LOS (3.3 ± 2.4 days vs. 3.3 ± 2.5 days, P = 0.954), intraoperative complication rates (0.7% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.558), reoperation rates (7.9% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.208), or readmission rates (10.1% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.091) between the telemedicine preoperative visit and in-person preoperative visit groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative evaluation via telemedicine leads to the same short-term surgical outcomes as in-person evaluation with no increased risk of surgical complications.

Telemedicine in the Evaluation and Management of Neurosurgical Spine Patients: Questionnaire Assessment of 346 Consecutive Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective questionnaire study of all patients seen via telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large academic institution. OBJECTIVE: This aim of this study was to compare patient satisfaction of telemedicine clinic to in-person visits; to evaluate the preference for telemedicine to in-person visits; to assess patients' willingness to proceed with major surgery and/or a minor procedure based on a telemedicine visit alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: One study showed promising utility of mobile health applications for spine patients. No studies have investigated telemedicine in the evaluation and management of spine patients. METHODS: An 11-part questionnaire was developed to assess the attitudes toward telemedicine for all patients seen within a 7-week period during the COVID-19 crisis. Patients were called by phone to participate in the survey. χ2 and the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test were performed to determine significance. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their telemedicine visit, with 62% stating it was "the same" or "better" than previous in-person appointments. Patients saved a median of 105 minutes by using telemedicine compared to in-person visits. Fifty-two percent of patients have to take off work for in-person visits, compared to 7% for telemedicine. Thirty-seven percent preferred telemedicine to in-person visits. Patients who preferred telemedicine had significantly longer patient-reported in-person visit times (score mean of 171) compared to patients who preferred in-person visits (score mean of 137, P = 0.0007). Thirty-seven percent of patients would proceed with surgery and 73% would proceed with a minor procedure based on a telemedicine visit alone. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine can increase access to specialty care for patients with prolonged travel time to in-person visits and decrease the socioeconomic burden for both patients and hospital systems. The high satisfaction with telemedicine and willingness to proceed with surgery suggest that remote visits may be useful for both routine management and initial surgical evaluation for spine surgery candidates.Level of Evidence: 3.