Incidence and predictive factors of double crush syndrome in patients undergoing cervical surgery: a database study.

BACKGROUND: Double crush syndrome (DCS) is characterized by multiple compression sites along a single peripheral nerve. It commonly presents with persistent distal symptoms despite surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy. Management typically involves nerve release of the most symptomatic site. However, due to overlapping symptoms with cervical radiculopathy, patients may undergo cervical surgery prior to DCS diagnosis. Due to its rarity and frequent misdiagnosis, the authors aim to utilize a large national database to investigate the incidence and associations of DCS. METHODS: The Pearldiver database was utilized to identify patients undergoing cervical surgery for the management of cervical radiculopathy. Patients were stratified into three cohorts based on their clinical course before and after cervical surgery. The primary outcome was the prevalence of DCS, and secondary outcomes included an evaluation of predictive factors for each Group, using a significance level of P < 0.05. RESULTS: Among 195,271 patients undergoing cervical surgery for cervical radiculomyelopathy, 97.95% were appropriately managed, 1.42% had potentially mids-diagnosed DCS, and 0.63% were treatment-resistant. Diabetes and obesity were significant predictors of potentially misdiagnosed DCS (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study presents data indicating that 1.42% of patients who receive cervical surgery may have underlying DCS and potentially benefit from nerve release prior to undergoing surgery. A concurrent diagnosis of diabetes and obesity may predict an underlying DCS.

Comparing opioid utilization and costs for surgical management of single-level spondylolisthesis: A national claims database analysis.

Introduction: The rise in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) cases has led to a significant increase in fusion surgeries, which incur substantial hospitalization costs and often necessitate chronic opioid use for pain management. Recent evidence suggests that single-level low-grade DLS outcomes are comparable whether a fusion procedure or decompression alone is performed, sparking debate over the cost-effectiveness of these procedures, particularly with the advent of minimally invasive techniques reducing the morbidity of fusion. This study aims to compare chronic opioid utilization and associated costs between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Material and methods: Using data from the PearlDiver database, a retrospective database analysis was conducted. We analyzed records of Medicare and Medicaid patients undergoing lumbar fusion or decompression from 2010 to 2022. Patient cohorts were divided into decompression alone (DA) and decompression with instrumented fusion (DIF). Chronic opioid use, pain clinic visits, and total costs were compared between the two groups at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years post-surgery. Theory: Does DIF offer a more cost-effective approach to managing DLS in terms of chronic opioid use in single-level DLS patients. Results: The study revealed comparable chronic opioid use and pain clinic visits between DA and DIF groups at 90 days and 1 year. However, total costs associated with opioid prescriptions as well as surgical aftercare were significantly higher in the DIF group at 90 days (p < 0.05), 1 year (p < 0.05), and 2 years (p < 0.05) post-surgery compared to the DA group. Conclusions: This study highlights the higher costs associated with DIF up to 2 years post-surgery despite comparable symptom improvement when compared to DA and DIF at the 1-year interval. DA emerges as a more financially favorable option, challenging the notion of fusion's cost-offsetting benefits. While further investigation is needed to understand underlying cost drivers and optimize outcomes, our findings emphasize the necessity of integrating clinical and economic factors in the management of single-level DLS.

Ankle fracture surgery in patients experiencing homelessness: a national evaluation of one-year rates of reoperation.

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of homelessness on surgical outcomes following ankle fracture surgery. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Mariner claims database. Patients/Participants: Patients older than 18 years who underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures between 2010 and 2021. A total of 345,759 patients were included in the study. Intervention: Study patients were divided into two cohorts (homeless and nonhomeless) based on whether their patient record contained International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 or ICD-10 codes for homelessness/inadequate housing. Main Outcome Measures: One-year rates of reoperation for amputation, irrigation and debridement, repeat ORIF, repair of nonunion/malunion, and implant removal in isolation. Results: Homeless patients had significantly higher odds of undergoing amputation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.27, P = 0.014), irrigation and debridement (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.37, P < 0.001), and repeat ORIF (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00-1.35, P = 0.045). Implant removal was less common in homeless patients (aOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59-0.72, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between homeless and nonhomeless patients in the rate of nonunion/malunion repair (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63-1.18, P = 0.41). Conclusions: Homelessness is a significant risk factor for worse surgical outcomes following ankle fracture surgery. The findings of this study warrant future research to identify gaps in surgical fracture care for patients with housing insecurity and underscore the importance of developing interventions to advance health equity for this vulnerable patient population. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III.

Dysphagia After Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management.

Anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) is a surgical intervention widely used for a myriad of indications including degenerative, oncologic, inflammatory, traumatic, and congenital spinal conditions. A primary concern for surgeons performing ACSS is the postoperative development of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Current literature reports a wide incidence of this complication ranging from 1 to 79%. Dysphagia after ACSS is multifactorial, with common risk factors being prolonged duration of operation, revision surgeries, multilevel surgeries, and use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. Many technical strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of postoperative dysphagia, including the development of low-profile implants and retropharyngeal local steroid application. In this article, we review the most recent literature regarding the epidemiology and pathophysiology, diagnostic criteria, risk factors, and management of dysphagia after ACSS.

Preserving privacy in big data research: the role of federated learning in spine surgery.

PURPOSE: Integrating machine learning models into electronic medical record systems can greatly enhance decision-making, patient outcomes, and value-based care in healthcare systems. Challenges related to data accessibility, privacy, and sharing can impede the development and deployment of effective predictive models in spine surgery. Federated learning (FL) offers a decentralized approach to machine learning that allows local model training while preserving data privacy, making it well-suited for healthcare settings. Our objective was to describe federated learning solutions for enhanced predictive modeling in spine surgery. METHODS: The authors reviewed the literature. RESULTS: FL has promising applications in spine surgery, including telesurgery, AI-based prediction models, and medical image segmentation. Implementing FL requires careful consideration of infrastructure, data quality, and standardization, but it holds the potential to revolutionize orthopedic surgery while ensuring patient privacy and data control. CONCLUSIONS: Federated learning shows great promise in revolutionizing predictive modeling in spine surgery by addressing the challenges of data privacy, accessibility, and sharing. The applications of FL in telesurgery, AI-based predictive models, and medical image segmentation have demonstrated their potential to enhance patient outcomes and value-based care.

Predictive factors of symptomatic lumbar pseudoarthrosis following multilevel primary lumbar fusion.

Background: Lumbar spinal fusion surgery is a well-established treatment for various spinal disorders. However, one of its complications, pseudoarthrosis, poses a significant concern. This study aims to explore the incidence, time and predictive factors contributing to pseudoarthrosis in patients who have undergone lumbar fusion surgery over a 10-year period. Methods: Data for this research was sourced from the PearlDiver database where insurance claims of patients who underwent multilevel lumbar spinal fusion between 01/01/2010 and 10/31/2022 were examined for claims of pseudoarthrosis within the 10 years of their index procedure. A variety of demographic, comorbid, and surgical factors were assessed, including age, gender, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI), surgical approach, substance use disorders and history of spinal disorders. Statistical analyses, including chi-squared tests, multivariate analysis, and cox survival analysis were employed to determine significant associations. Results: Among the 76,337 patients included in this retrospective study, 2.70% were diagnosed with symptomatic lumbar pseudoarthrosis at an average of 7.38 years in a 10-year follow-up. Multivariate and Cox hazard analyses revealed that significant predictors of symptomatic pseudoarthrosis development following multilevel primary lumbar fusion include vitamin D deficiency, osteoarthritis, opioid and NSAID use, tobacco use, and a prior history of congenital spine disorders. Conclusions: In summary, this study revealed a 2.70% incidence of symptomatic lumbar pseudoarthrosis within 10 years of the index procedure. It highlighted several potential predictive factors, including comorbidities, surgical approaches, and substance use disorders, associated with the development of symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Future research should focus on refining our understanding of these factors to improve patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resource allocation.

Interspecialty Variation in Perioperative Health Care Resource Usage for Carpal Tunnel Release.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether any interspecialty variation exists, regarding perioperative health care resource usage, in carpal tunnel releases (CTRs). METHODS: The 2010 to 2021 PearlDiver Mariner Database, an all-payer claims database, was queried to identify patients undergoing primary CTRs. Physician specialty IDs were used to identify the specialty of the surgeon-orthopedic versus plastic versus general surgery versus neurosurgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify whether there was any interspecialty variation between the use of health care resources. RESULTS: A total of 908 671 patients undergoing CTRs were included, of which 556 339 (61.2%) were by orthopedic surgeons, 297 047 (32.7%) by plastic surgeons, 44 118 (4.9%) by neurosurgeons, and 11 257 (1.2%) by general surgeons. In comparison with orthopedic surgeons, patients treated by plastic surgeons were less likely to have received opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, oral steroids, and preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis but were more likely to have received steroid injections and electrodiagnostic studies (EDSs) preoperatively. Patients treated by neurosurgeons were more likely to have received preoperative opioids, gabapentin, oral steroids, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, EDSs, and formal preoperative physical/occupational therapy and less likely to have received steroid injections. Patients treated by general surgeons were less likely to receive oral steroids, steroid injections, EDSs, preoperative formal physical therapy, and preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, but were more likely to be prescribed gabapentin. CONCLUSIONS: There exists significant variation in perioperative health care resource usage for CTRs between specialties. Understanding reasons behind such variation would be paramount in minimizing differences in how care is practiced for elective hand procedures.

Exploring the incidence and risk factors of reoperation for symptomatic adjacent segment disease following cervical decompression and fusion.

Background: Patients with long-term follow-up after cervical decompression and fusion have often been noted to have development of adjacent segment degeneration with a smaller subset of these patients progressing to adjacent segment disease (ASD), which results in the development of new symptomatic radiculopathy or myelopathy referable to a site either directly above or below a prior fused segment. The cause of ASD is multifactorial often involving natural age-related progression of spondylosis, accelerated progression following cervical decompression and fusion, operative technique, and patient-related factors. The effect of age at the time of index cervical decompression and fusion on the need for reoperation for ASD is not fully understood. This study aims to establish underlying risk factors for the development of symptomatic cervical ASD following cervical decompression and fusion requiring reoperation in patients of various age groups. Methods: A retrospective database review of patients aged 20 or greater with insurance claims of primary cervical decompression and fusion over the course of 11 years and 10 months (January 01, 2010-October 31, 2022) was conducted using an insurance claims database. The primary outcome was to evaluate the incidence of cervical ASD requiring reoperation amongst patients stratified by age at the time of their primary procedure. Secondary outcomes included an evaluation of various risk factors for ASD following cervical decompression and fusion including surgeon-controlled factors such as the number of levels fused and approach taken, patient cervical pathology including cervical disc disorder and cervical spondylosis, and underlying patient medical comorbidities including osteoporosis and vitamin D deficiency, and substance use. Results: A total of 60,292 patient records were analyzed, where the overall reoperation incidence for symptomatic ASD was 6.57%, peaking at 8.12% among those aged 30 to 39 and decreasing with age. Regression analysis revealed ages lower than 50 years as more predictive for the development of symptomatic ASD requiring reoperation. Multivariate regression analysis identified predictive factors for reoperation, including age, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI), multiple-level surgery, cervical spondylosis, cervical disc disorder, osteoporosis, and vitamin D deficiency. Notably, these factors had a variable impact across various age groups, as revealed by subgroup analysis. Conclusions: The incidence of reoperation secondary to symptomatic ASD is 6.57%, highest in those aged 30 to 39. The surgical approach had no significant impact on the need for reoperation, but multiple-level fusions posed a consistent risk in the development of symptomatic ASD requiring reoperation. Patient factors like degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, osteoporosis, and vitamin D deficiency were associated, urging further age-specific risk assessment and nonoperative intervention exploration.

Incidence of subsequent surgical decompression following minimally invasive approaches to treat lumbar spinal stenosis: A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical decompression is the definitive treatment for managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis; however, select patients are poor surgical candidates. Consequently, minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity, but there exists the potential for failure of therapy necessitating eventual surgical decompression. PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of patients who require surgical decompression following minimally invasive procedures to treat lumbar spinal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis (Percutaneous Image-guided Lumbar Decompression [PILD] or interspinous spacer device [ISD]) and progressed to subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of surgical decompression within 5 years following the minimally invasive approach. Secondary outcomes included demographic and comorbid factors associated with increased odds of requiring subsequent surgery. METHODS: Patient data were collected using the PearlDiver-Mariner database. The rate of subsequent decompression was described as a percentage while univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used for the analysis of predictors. RESULTS: A total of 5278 patients were included, of which 3222 (61.04%) underwent PILD, 1959 (37.12%) underwent ISD placement, and 97 (1.84%) had claims for both procedures. Overall, the incidence of subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years was 6.56% (346 of 5278 patients). Variables associated with a significantly greater odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of requiring subsequent surgical decompression included male gender and a prior history of surgical decompression by 1.42 ([1.14, 1.77], p = 0.002) and 2.10 times ([1.39, 3.17], p < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, age 65 years and above, a diagnosis of obesity, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three or greater were associated with a significantly reduced OR [95% CI] by 0.64 ([0.50, 0.81], p < 0.001), 0.62 ([0.48, 0.81], p < 0.001), and 0.71 times ([0.56, 0.91], p = 0.007), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive procedures may provide an additional option to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who do not desire open decompression; however, there still exists a subset of patients who will require subsequent surgical decompression. Factors such as gender and prior surgical decompression increase the likelihood of subsequent surgery, while older age, obesity, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score reduce it. These findings aid in selecting suitable surgical candidates for better outcomes in the elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Osteobiologics and Value-Based Care: Challenges and Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Autologous bone grafts, sourced from the iliac crest, are the gold standard for bone substitution in spine surgery. However, harvesting autografts increases the risk of postoperative complications. Bone allografts are another popular source of graft material, but their use is rapidly surpassing their availability. There has been considerable interest in manufactured bone graft substitutes, commonly referred to as osteobiologics, which mimic the properties of autologous bone and may be osteoconductive, osteoinductive, osteogenic, or a combination. OBJECTIVE: Osteobiologics have been developed to mimic the properties of autologous bone, but their high cost and variable effectiveness raise questions about their value. This article explores the challenges and opportunities associated with the use of osteobiologics used to aid in bone healing in spinal fusion surgery within a value-based care framework. Spinal fusion treatments such as bone morphogenetic proteins, platelet-rich plasma, autologous conditioned serum, demineralized bone matrix, biomaterial scaffolds, stem cells, and cellular bone matrices are compared. SUMMARY: Bone morphogenetic proteins are highly effective but often associated with serious risks; platelet-rich plasma shows promising results but lacks standardization in research protocols. Autologous conditioned serum is inconclusive and cost-effective, while demineralized bone matrix has variable effectiveness and limited data to use in anterior spinal fusions. Biomaterial scaffolds have limited application in the anterior spine but demonstrate high efficacy when it comes to spinal fusion. Stem cells demonstrate improved postsurgical outcomes but have low yield from bone marrow and potential risks associated with genetic engineering and cell therapy. Cellular bone matrices show promising results and have high fusion rates, yet there is currently no US Food and Drug Adminstration requirement for preclinical or clinical data before commercial usage. Although osteobiologics have considerable potential, their high price and uncertain efficiency raise questions concerning their usefulness in spinal fusion surgery. To ensure better patient outcomes, extensive research is needed to explore their utilization within a value-based care framework.

Applications of Augmented Reality in Orthopaedic Spine Surgery.

The application of augmented reality (AR) in surgical settings has primarily been as a navigation tool in the operating room because of its ease of use and minimal effect on surgical procedures. The surgeon can directly face the surgical field while viewing 3D anatomy virtually, thus reducing the need to look at an external display, such as a navigation system. Applications of AR are being explored in spine surgery. The basic principles of AR include data preparation, registration, tracking, and visualization. Current literature provides sufficient preclinical and clinical data evidence for the use of AR technology in spine surgery. AR systems are efficient assistive devices, providing greater accuracy for insertion points, more comfort for surgeons, and reduced operating time. AR technology also has beneficial applications in surgical training, education, and telementorship for spine surgery. However, costs associated with specially designed imaging equipment and physicians' comfort in using this technology continue to remain barriers to its adoption. As this technology evolves to a more widespread use, future applications will be directed by the cost-effectiveness of AR-assisted surgeries.

Are Foot & Ankle Surgeons Being Adequately Compensated for Ankle Fractures? - An Analysis of Relative Value Units.

The current relative value units (RVU)-based system is built to reflect the varying presentation of ankle fractures (uni-malleolar vs bi-malleolar vs tri-malleolar) by assigning individual RVUs to different fracture complexities. However, no study has evaluated whether the current RVUs reflect an appropriate compensation per unit time following open reduction internal fixation for uni-malleolar versus bi-malleolar versus tri-malleolar ankle fractures. The 2012 to 2017 American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files were queried using current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation for uni-malleolar (CPT-27766,CPT-27769,CPT-27792), bi-malleolar (CPT-27814), and tri-malleolar (CPT-27822,CPT-27823) ankle fractures. A total of 7830 (37.2%) uni-malleolar, 7826 (37.2%) bi-malleolar and 5391 (25.6%) tri-malleolar ankle fractures were retrieved. Total RVUs, Mean RVU/minute and Reimbursement rate ($/min) and Mean Reimbursement/case for each fracture type were calculated and compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. The mean total RVU for each fracture type was as follows: (1) Uni-malleolar: 9.99, (2) Bi-malleolar = 11.71 and 3) Tri-malleolar = 12.87 (p < .001). A statistically significant difference was noted in mean operative time (uni-malleolar = 63.2 vs bi-malleolar = 78.6 vs tri-malleolar = 95.5; p < .001) between the 3 groups. Reimbursement rates ($/min) decreased significantly as fracture complexity increased (uni-malleolar = $7.21/min vs bi-malleolar = $6.75/min vs tri-malleolar = $6.10; p < .001). The average reimbursement/case was $358, $420, and $462 for uni-malleolar, bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar fractures respectively. Foot & ankle surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate ($/min) for treating a simple uni-malleolar fracture as compared to bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar fractures, despite the higher complexity and longer operative times seen in the latter. The study highlights the need of a change in the RVUs for bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar ankle fractures to ensure that surgeons are adequately reimbursed per unit time for treating a more complex fracture case.

Is Outpatient Anterior Lumbar Fusion (ALIF) Safe? An Analysis of 30-day Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Review of publicly available database. OBJECTIVE: To compare 30-day outcomes of single-level ALIF procedures performed in outpatient and inpatient settings. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite a growing interest in performing standalone anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs) as an outpatient procedure, no study has evaluated the safety or efficacy of this procedure outside an inpatient setting. METHODS: The 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) was queried using CPT code 22558 to identify patients undergoing a single-level ALIF. Patients receiving concurrent posterior lumbar surgery/fusion/instrumentation, pelvic fixation, or surgery due to tumor, trauma and/or deformity were excluded to capture an isolated cohort of patients receiving single-level standalone ALIFs. A total of 3728 single-level standalone ALIFs were included in the study. Multivariate regression analyses were used to compare 30-day adverse events and readmissions while controlling for baseline clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Out of a total of 3728 ALIFs, 149 (4.0%) were performed as outpatient procedure. Following adjustment, outpatient ALIFs versus inpatient ALIFs had lower odds of experiencing any 30-day adverse event (2.0% vs. 9.2%, OR 0.24 [95% CI 0.08-0.76]; P =0.015). No significant differences were noted with regard to severe adverse events 9p=0.261), minor adverse events 9p=0.995), and readmission rates ( P =0.95). CONCLUSION: On the basis of the results of the study, it appears that ALIFs may be carried out safely in an outpatient setting in an appropriately selected patient population.

Posterior Cervical Fusion for Fracture Is Not the Same as Fusion for Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease: Implications for a Bundled Payment Model.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective. OBJECTIVE: To understand differences in 30-day outcomes between patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion (PCF) for fracture versus degenerative cervical spine disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current bundled payment models for cervical fusions, such as the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement revolve around the use of diagnosis-related groups to categorize patients for reimbursement purposes. Though a PCF performed for a fracture may have a different postoperative course of care as compared with a fusion being done for degenerative cervical spine pathology, the current DRG system does not differentiate payments based on the indication/cause of surgery. METHODS: The 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried using Current Procedural Terminology code 22600 to identify patients receiving elective PCFs. Multivariate analyses were used to compare rates of 30-day severe adverse events, minor adverse events, readmissions, length of stay, and nonhome discharges between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total 2546 (91.4%) PCFs were performed for degenerative cervical spine pathology and 240 (8.6%) for fracture. After adjustment for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, patients undergoing a PCF for a fracture versus degenerative pathology had higher odds of severe adverse events [18.8% vs. 10.6%, odds ratio (OR): 1.65 (95% CI, 1.10-2.46); P =0.015], prolonged length of stay >3 days [54.2% vs. 40.5%, OR: 1.93 (95% CI, 1.44-2.59); P <0.001], and nonhome discharges [34.2% vs. 27.6%, OR: 1.54 (95% CI, 1.10-2.17); P =0.012]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing PCFs for fracture have significant higher rates of postoperative adverse events and greater resource utilization as compared with individuals undergoing elective PCF for degenerative spine pathology. The study calls into question the need of risk adjustment of bundled prices based on indication/cause of the surgery to prevent the creation of a financial disincentive when taking care/performing surgery in spinal trauma patients.

Does a Reported Penicillin Allergy Affect Outcomes Following Elective Posterior Lumbar Fusions?

BACKGROUND: Patients with a reported penicillin allergy (PA) receive alternative antibiotics that may not be as effective as cephalosporins for surgical site infection (SSI) prophylaxis. While patient-reported PA has been correlated to increased complications in other fields, this has not been conclusively shown in spine surgery. We investigate the impact of PA on 90-day complications and inpatient charges/costs after elective posterior lumbar fusion between PA and non-PA cohorts. METHODS: The 2005 to 2014 SAF100 database was queried using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) procedure codes to identify patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar fusions. The reported PA ICD-9 code was used to divide the study sample into a PA cohort and non-PA cohort. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess significant differences in 90-day complications between PA and non-PA groups after controlling for confounding factors. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to assess for differences in inpatient charges and costs. RESULTS: A total of 286,042 patients, 7497 (2.6%) of whom reported a PA, who underwent elective posterior lumbar fusions were included. Following adjustment for confounding factors, patients in the PA group had significantly higher odds of experiencing SSIs (3.8% vs 3.1%, OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.07-1.36]; P = 0.002), urinary tract infections (12.3% vs 10.0%, OR 1.16 [95% CI 1.08-1.24]; P < 0.001), sepsis (1.5% vs 1.2%, OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.02-1.50]; P = 0.026), acute kidney injuries (3.8% vs 3.2%, OR 1.19 [95% CI 1.05-1.34]; P = 0.006), readmissions (9.8% vs 8.5%, OR 1.15 [95% CI 1.07-1.25]; P < 0.001), increased inpatient charges (+$4340; P < 0.001), and increased reimbursements (+$1221; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a reported PA experienced significantly higher rates of 90-day complications and cost following elective posterior lumbar fusion. The findings of the study highlight the importance of preoperative PA testing to minimize the use of alternative antibiotics and potentially improve patient outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients should be tested for penicillin allergy to minimize the use of alternative antibiotics among patients with a reported PA.

Discharge to inpatient care facilities following hip fracture surgery: incidence, risk factors, and 30-day post-discharge outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Discharge to an inpatient care facility (skilled-care or rehabilitation) has been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes following elective total joint arthroplasties. Current evidence with regard to hip fracture surgeries remains limited. METHODS: The 2015-2016 ACS-NSQIP database was used to query for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation for hip fractures. A total of 15,655 patients undergoing hip fracture surgery were retrieved from the database. Inpatient facility discharge included discharges to skilled-care facilities and inpatient rehabilitation units. Multi-variate regression analysis was used to assess for differences in 30-day post-discharge outcomes between home-discharge versus inpatient care facility discharge, while adjusting for baseline differences between the 2 study populations. RESULTS: A total of 12,568 (80.3%) patients were discharged to an inpatient care facility. Discharge to an inpatient care facility was associated with higher odds of any complication (OR 2.03 [95% CI, 1.61-2.55]; p < 0.001), wound complications (OR 1.79 [95% CI, 1.10-2.91]; p = 0.019), cardiac complications (OR 4.49 [95% CI, 1.40-14.40]; p = 0.012), respiratory complication (OR 2.29 [95% CI, 1.39-3.77]; p = 0.001), stroke (OR 7.67 [95% CI, 1.05-56.29]; p = 0.045, urinary tract infections (OR 2.30 [95% CI, 1.52-3.48]; p < 0.001), unplanned re-operations (OR 1.37 [95% CI, 1.03-1.82]; p = 0.029) and readmissions (OR 1.38 [95% CI, 1.16-1.63]; p < 0.001) following discharge. CONCLUSION: Discharge to inpatient care facilities versus home following hip fracture surgery is associated with higher odds of post-discharge complications, re-operations and readmissions. These results stress the importance of careful patient selection prior to discharge to inpatient care facilities to minimise the risk of complications.

Prevalence of Osteoporosis Treatment and Its Effect on Post-Operative Complications, Revision Surgery and Costs After Multi-Level Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To study the prevalence of pre-operative osteoporosis treatment, and its effect on risk of ORC, revision surgery and costs in osteoporotic patients undergoing ≥3-level spinal fusion for degenerative pathology. METHODS: Patients and procedures of interest were included using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding. Our outcome measures were ORC at 1-year post-operatively and included instrumentation complications, pathological fracture, and revision surgery. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards analysis was done to study the effect of osteoporosis treatment on risk of ORC. RESULTS: We included a total of 849 patients with documented osteoporosis undergoing ≥3-level spinal fusion. White (85.6%), female (82.7%), and 60-79 years of age (79.9%) was the most common demographic. Of entire cohort, 121(14.3%) were on osteoporosis treatment prior to spinal fusion. Of treated patients, 52/121 (43.0%) had continued prescriptions at 1 year post-operatively. Treated patients and not-treated patients had 1-year ORC incidence of 9.1% and 15.0%, respectively. The average 1-year reimbursement/patient for managing ORC was $3,053 (treated) and $21,147 (not-treated). On adjusted cox analysis, pre-operative osteoporosis treatment was associated with a lower risk of ORC (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.28-0.99, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative osteoporosis treatment is associated with lower risk of ORC and revision surgery at 1-year after ≥3-level spinal fusion. There is a low incidence of osteoporosis treatment prior to spinal fusion, and subsequently a low rate of treatment continuation after surgery. These findings highlight the need for heightened awareness, patient education and management of osteoporosis before elective multi-level spinal fusion.

Primary hip arthroscopy and conversion to total hip arthroplasty: trends and survival analysis in the Medicare population.

INTRODUCTION: With limited evidence on national incidences of hip arthroscopy in the elderly population, the current study aims to investigate trends of primary hip arthroscopies being performed in the elderly population, using the US Medicare database, and determine risk factors for conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Medicare Standard Analytic Files were queried using CPT codes to retrieve records of primary hip arthroscopies done for degenerative pathology during 2005-2014. Overall and age-stratified trends in the incidence of hip arthroscopy over time were analysed. Kaplan Meier survival curves were used to assess the overall 2-year conversion rate to a THA. Cox regression analysis was implemented to study risk factors for conversion. RESULTS: 8100 primary hip arthroscopies for degenerative pathology were performed during 2005-2014. There was a 280% increase in overall incidence of arthroscopy. The most commonly performed arthroscopic procedure was for chondroplasty and/or resection of labrum, with 4712 (58.1%) procedures. Around 18.5% patients underwent arthroplasty within 2 years after primary arthroscopy. Following Cox regression an existing diagnosis of osteoarthritis, ages 65-69, ages 70-74, and arthroscopies done in the West were associated with higher risk of conversion to THA within 2 years. Undergoing a repeat arthroscopy was not significantly associated with a higher risk of conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inconclusive clinical evidence, hip arthroscopies are being increasingly used in patients older than 65 in the Medicare population. We conclude that patients in the age bracket of 65-74 years and with a pre-existing diagnosis of osteoarthritis, arthroscopy should be approached with caution.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Posterior Lumbar Fusion-An Analysis of 90-Day Complications and Readmissions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate medical and surgical complication rates between robotic-assisted versus conventional elective posterior lumbar fusions. METHODS: The Symphony Integrated DataVerse was queried using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, Clinical Modification procedure codes to identify patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar fusions for degenerative spine pathologies between 2015 and 2018. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, Clinical Modification procedure codes (8E0W4CZ, 8E0W0CZ, 8E0W3CZ) were used to identify patients undergoing a robotic-assisted spinal fusion. Outcome measures were 90-day medical and surgical complications, 1-year pseudarthrosis, and 1-year revision surgery rates. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether undergoing a robotic-assisted fusion (vs. conventional fusion) was associated with differences in wound complications, medical complications, pseudarthrosis, revision surgery, and readmissions within 90 days of surgery. RESULTS: A total of 39,387 patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar fusions were included in the cohort-of whom 245 (0.62%) patients underwent a robotic-assisted fusion. Multivariate analysis showed that robotic-assisted fusion (vs. conventional fusion) was not associated with significant differences in 90-day rates of wound complications (P = 0.299), urinary tract infections (P = 0.648), acute myocardial infarctions (P = 0.209), acute renal failure (P = 0.461), pneumonia (P = 0.214), stroke (P = 0.917), deep venous thrombosis (P = 0.562), pulmonary embolism (P = 0.401), and readmissions (P = 0.985). In addition, there were no significant differences in the 1-year rates of revision fusions (P = 0.316) and pseudarthrosis (P = 0.695). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent a robotic-assisted fusion had similar rates of surgical and medical complications compared with those who underwent a conventional fusion. Further studies are warranted to better understand the future role of robots in spine surgery.

Octogenarian and Nonagenarians Are at a Higher Risk for Experiencing Adverse 30-Day Outcomes Following ORIF of Ankle Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Despite an increasing number of elderly individuals undergoing surgical fixation for ankle fractures, few studies have investigated peri-operative outcomes and safety of surgery in an octogenarian and nonagenarian population (age >80 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons database was queried for patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation for isolated uni-malleolar, bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar ankle fractures. The study cohort was divided into 3 comparison groups (age <65 years, 65-75 and >80). Multi-variate regression analyzes were used to compare the independent effect of varying age groups on 30-day post-operative outcomes while controlling for baseline clinical characteristics and co-morbidity burdens. RESULTS: A total of 19,585 patients were included: 5.3% were >80 years, 18.1% were 65-79 years, and 76.6% were <65 years. When compared to the non-geriatric population, individuals >80 years were at a significantly Abstract: higher risk of 30-day wound complications (OR 1.84; p = 0.019), pulmonary complications (OR 3.88; p < 0.001), renal complications (OR 1.96; p = 0.015), septic complications (OR 3.72; p = 0.002), urinary tract infections (OR 2.24; p < 0.001), bleeding requiring transfusion (OR 1.90; p = 0.025), mortality (or 7.44; p < 0.001), readmissions (OR 1.65; p = 0.004) and non-home discharge (OR 13.91; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Octogenarians undergoing ankle fracture fixation are a high-risk population in need of significant pre-operative surgical and medical optimization. With the majority of patients undergoing non-elective ORIF procedures, it is critical to anticipate potential complications and incorporate experienced geriatric providers early in the surgical management of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarians and nonagenarians are fundamentally distinct and vulnerable age groups with a high risk of complications, readmissions, mortality and non-home discharges compared to other geriatric (65-79 years) and non-geriatric (<65 years) patients. Pre-operative counseling and risk-stratification are essential in this vulnerable patient population.