Do Busier Surgeons Have Lower Intraoperative Costs? An Analysis of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

STUDY DESIGN: The present study is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing neurosurgical anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to use time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology to determine whether surgeons' case volume influenced the true intraoperative costs of ACDFs performed at our institution. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Successful participation in emerging reimbursement models, such as bundled payments, requires an understanding of true intraoperative costs, as well as the modifiable drivers of those costs. Certain surgeons may have cost profiles that are favorable for these "at-risk" reimbursement models, while other surgeons may not. METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation, electronic medical records, and through querying multiple departments (business operations, sterile processing, plant operations, and pharmacy). Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. All surgeons performing ACDFs at our primary and affiliated hospital sites from 2017 to 2022 were divided into four volume-based cohorts: 1-9 cases (n=10 surgeons, 38 cases), 10-29 cases (n=7 surgeons, 126 cases), 30-100 cases (n=3 surgeons, 234 cases), and > 100 cases (n=2 surgeons, 561 cases). RESULTS: The average total intraoperative cost per case was $7,116 +/- $2,945. The major cost contributors were supply cost ($4,444, 62.5%) and personnel cost ($2,417, 34.0%). A generalized linear mixed model utilizing Poisson distribution was performed with the surgeon as a random effect. Surgeons performing 1-9 total cases, 10-29 cases, and 30-100 cases had increased total cost of surgery (P < 0.001; P < 0.001; and P<0.001, respectively) compared to high-volume surgeons (> 100 cases). Among all volume cohorts, high-volume surgeons also had the lowest mean supply cost, personnel cost, and operative times, while the opposite was true for the lowest-volume surgeons (1-9 cases). CONCLUSION: It is becoming increasingly important for hospitals to identify modifiable sources of variation in cost. We demonstrate a novel use of TDABC for this purpose. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-III.

What is the Marginal Cost of Using Robot Assistance or Navigation for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to compare the marginal intraoperative cost of 3 different methods for pedicle screw placement as part of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs). Specifically, we used time-driven activity-based costing to compare costs between robot-assisted TLIF (RA-TLIF), TLIF with intraoperative navigation (ION-TLIF), and freehand (non-navigated, nonrobotic) TLIF. METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. We identified all instances of RA-TLIF (n = 20), ION-TLIF (n = 59), and freehand TLIF (n = 233) from 2020 to 2022 at our institution. Software was developed to automate the extraction of all intraoperatively used personnel and material resources from the electronic medical record. Total costs were determined through a combination of direct observation, electronic medical record extraction, and interdepartmental collaboration (business operations, sterile processing, pharmacy, and plant operation departments). Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to compare costs between TLIF modalities, accounting for patient-specific factors as well as number of levels fused, surgeon, and hospital site. RESULTS: The average total intraoperative cost per case for the RA-TLIF, ION-TLIF, and freehand TLIF cohorts was $24 838 ± $10 748, $15 991 ± $6254, and $14 498 ± $6580, respectively. Regression analysis revealed that RA-TLIF had significantly higher intraoperative cost compared with both ION-TLIF (ß-coefficient: $7383 ± $1575, P < .001) and freehand TLIF (ß-coefficient: $8182 ± $1523, P < .001). These cost differences were primarily driven by supply cost. However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative cost between ION-TLIF and freehand TLIF ( P = .32). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a novel use of time-driven activity-based costing methodology to compare different modalities for executing the same type of lumbar fusion procedure. RA-TLIF entails significantly higher supply cost when compared with other modalities, which explains its association with higher total intraoperative cost. The use of ION, however, does not add extra expense compared with freehand TLIF when accounting for confounders. This might have implications as surgeons and hospitals move toward bundled payments.

Does Body Mass Index Influence Intraoperative Costs and Operative Times for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Spine surgeons are often unaware of drivers of cost variation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We used time-driven activity-based costing to assess the relationship between body mass index (BMI), total cost, and operating room (OR) times for ACDFs. METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation, electronic medical records, and through querying multiple departments. Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. Total intraoperative costs were estimated for all ACDFs from 2017 to 2022. All patients were categorized into distinct BMI-based cohorts. Linear regression models were performed to assess the relationship between BMI, total cost, and OR times. RESULTS: A total of 959 patients underwent ACDFs between 2017 and 2022. The average age and BMI were 58.1 ± 11.2 years and 30.2 ± 6.4 kg/m2, respectively. The average total intraoperative cost per case was $7120 ± $2963. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that BMI was not significantly associated with total cost (P = 0.36), supply cost (P = 0.39), or personnel cost (P = 0.20). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased time spent in the OR (P = 0.018); however, it was not a significant factor for the duration of surgery itself (P = 0.755). Rather, higher BMI was significantly associated with nonoperative OR time (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing is a feasible and scalable methodology for understanding the true intraoperative costs of ACDF. Although higher BMI was not associated with increased total cost, it was associated with increased preparatory time in the OR.

Smartphone-based activity tracking for spine patients: Current technology and future opportunities.

Activity trackers and wearables allow accurate determination of physical activity, basic vital parameters, and tracking of complex medical conditions. This review attempts to provide a roadmap for the development of these applications, outlining the basic tools available, how they can be combined, and what currently exists in the marketplace for spine patients. Various types of sensors currently exist to measure distinct aspects of user movement. These include the accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, barometer, global positioning system (GPS), Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, and microphone. Integration of data from these sensors allows detailed tracking of location and vectors of motion, resulting in accurate mobility assessments. These assessments can have great value for a variety of healthcare specialties, but perhaps none more so than spine surgery. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are subject to bias and are difficult to track frequently - a problem that is ripe for disruption with the continued development of mobility technology. Currently, multiple mobile applications exist as an extension of clinical care. These include Manage My Surgery (MMS), SOVINITY-e-Healthcare Services, eHealth System, Beiwe Smartphone Application, QS Access, 6WT, and the TUG app. These applications utilize sensor data to assess patient activity at baseline and postoperatively. The results are evaluated in conjunction with PROMs. However, these applications have not yet exploited the full potential of available sensors. There is a need to develop smartphone applications that can accurately track the functional status and activity of spine patients, allowing a more quantitative assessment of outcomes, in contrast to legacy PROMs.

Are We Finally Ready for Total Joint Replacement of the Spine? An Extension of Charnley's Vision.

Professor Sir John Charnley has been rightfully hailed as a visionary innovator for conceiving, designing, and validating the Operation of the Century-the total hip arthroplasty. His groundbreaking achievement forever changed the orthopedic management of chronically painful and dysfunctional arthritic joints. However, the well-accepted surgical approach of completely removing the diseased joint and replacing it with a durable and anatomically based implant never translated to the treatment of the degenerated spine. Instead, decompression coupled with fusion evolved into the workhorse intervention. In this commentary, the authors explore the reasons why arthrodesis has remained the mainstay over arthroplasty in the field of spine surgery as well as discuss the potential shift in the paradigm when it comes to treating degenerative lumbar disease.

When Does Intervention End and Surgery Begin? The Role of Interventional Pain Management in the Treatment of Spine Pathology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent advances in the field of interventional pain management (IPM) involve minimally invasive procedures such as percutaneous lumbar decompression, interspinous spacer placement, interspinous-interlaminar fusion and sacroiliac joint fusion. These developments have received pushback from surgical professional societies, who state spinal instrumentation and arthrodesis should only be performed by spine surgeons. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the validity of this claim. A literature search was conducted on Google Scholar and PubMed databases. Articles were included which examined IPM in the following contexts: credentialing and procedural privileging guidelines, fellowship training and education, and procedural outcomes compared to those of surgical specialties. Our primary research question is: "Should interventionalists be performing decompression and fusion procedures?". FINDINGS: Advanced percutaneous spine procedures are not universally incorporated into pain fellowship curriculums. Trainees attempt to compensate for these deficiencies through industry-led training, which has been criticized for lacking central regulation. There is also a paucity of studies comparing procedural outcomes between surgeons and interventionalists for complex spine procedures, including decompression and fusion. Pain fellowship curriculums have not kept pace with some of procedural advancements within the field. Interventionalists are also not trained to manage potential complications of spinal instrumentation and arthrodesis, which has been recognized as an essential requirement for procedural privileging. Decompression and fusion may therefore be outside the scope of an interventionalist's practice.

Bulbocavernosus Reflex Has No Prognostic Features During the Acute Evaluation of Spinal Cord Injuries.

The bulbocavernosus reflex (BCR) has been used during the initial evaluation of a spinal cord injury patient as a metric to determine prognosis and whether the patient is in "spinal shock." This reflex has been less utilized over the last decade, and therefore a review was performed to assess the value of BCR in patient prognosis. The North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) for Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) is a consortium of tertiary medical centers that includes a prospective SCI registry. The NACTN registry data was analyzed to evaluate the prognostic implication of the BCR during the initial evaluation of a spinal cord injury patient. SCI patients were divided into those with an intact or absent BCR during their initial evaluation. Associations of participants' descriptors and neurological status on follow-up were performed, followed by associations with the presence of a BCR. A total of 769 registry patients with recorded BCRs were included in the study. The median age was 49 years (32-61 years), and the majority were male (n = 566, 77%) and white (n = 519, 73%). Among included patients, high blood pressure was the most common comorbidity (n = 230, 31%). Cervical spinal cord injury was the most common (n = 470, 76%) with fall (n = 320, 43%) being the most frequent mechanism of injury. BCR was present in 311 patients (40.4%), while 458 (59.6%) had a negative BCR within 7 days of injury or before surgery. At 6 months post-injury, 230 patients (29.9%) followed up, of which 145 had a positive BCR, while 85 had a negative BCR. The presence/absence of BCR was significantly different in patients with cervical (p = 0.0015) or thoracic SCI (p = 0.0089), or conus medullaris syndrome (p = 0.0035), and in those who were American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade A (p = 0.0313). No significant relationship was observed between BCR results and demographics, AIS grade conversion, motor score changes (p = 0.1669), and changes in pin prick (p = 0.3795) and light touch scores (p = 0.8178). In addition, cohorts were not different in surgery decision (p = 0.7762) and injury to surgery time (p = 0.0681). In our review of the NACTN spinal cord registry, the BCR did not provide prognostic utility in the acute evaluation of spinal cord injury patients. Therefore, it should not be used as a reliable marker for predicting neurological outcomes post-injury.

Ambulatory Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review of Perioperative Protocols, Patient Selection Criteria, and Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose was to propose patient selection criteria and perioperative best practices that can serve as a starting point for an ambulatory lumbar fusion program. The secondary purpose was to review patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after ambulatory lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: As healthcare costs rise, there is an increasing emphasis on cost saving strategies (i.e. outpatient/ambulatory surgeries). Lumbar fusion procedures remain a largely inpatient surgery. Early studies have shown that fusion procedures can be safely preformed in an outpatient setting but no review has summarized these findings and best practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched. The following data were collected: (1) study design; (2) number of participants; (3) patient population; (4) procedure types; (5) procedure setting; (6) inclusion criteria; (7) protocols; (8) adverse events; (9) PROs; and (10) associations between patient/surgical factors, setting, and outcomes. RESULTS: The search yielded 20 publications. The following selection criteria for ambulatory lumbar fusion were identified: age below 70, minimal comorbidities, low/normal body mass index, no tobacco use, and no opioid use. The perioperative protocol can include a multimodal analgesic regimen. The patient should be observed for at least three hours after surgery. The patient should not be discharged without an alertness check and a neurological examination. Patients experienced significant improvements in PROs after ambulatory lumbar fusion; similarly, when compared to an inpatient group, ambulatory lumbar fusion patients experienced a comparable or superior improvement in PROs. CONCLUSION: There are two critical issues surrounding ambulatory lumbar fusion: (1) Who is the ideal patient, and (2) What needs to be done to enable expedited discharge? We believe this review will provide a foundation to assist surgeons in making decisions regarding the performance of lumbar fusion on an ambulatory basis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding. PURPOSE: To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy). CONCLUSIONS: These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

A Multi-Disciplinary Review of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Practical Considerations for Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: A multi-disciplinary review. OBJECTIVES: To provide a roadmap for implementing time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for spine surgery. This is achieved by organizing and scrutinizing publications in the spine, neurosurgical, and orthopedic literature which utilize TDABC and related methodologies. METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles. The articles were selected by two independent researchers. After article selection, data was extracted and summarized into research domains. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) systematic review process was followed. RESULTS: Of the 524 articles screened, thirty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Each included article was examined and reviewed to define the primary research question and objective. Comparing different procedures was the most common primary objective. Direct observation along with one other strategy (surveys, interviews, surgical database, or EMR) was most commonly employed during process map development. Across all surgical subspecialties (spine, neurologic, and orthopedic surgery), costs were divided into direct cost, indirect cost, cost to patient, and total costs. The most commonly calculated direct costs included personnel and supply costs. Facility costs, hospital overhead costs, and utilities were the most commonly calculated indirect costs. Transportation costs and parental lost wages were considered when calculating cost to patient. The total cost was a sum of direct costs, indirect costs, and costs to the patient. CONCLUSION: TDABC provides a common platform to accurately estimate costs of care delivery. Institutions embarking on TDABC for spine surgery should consider the breadth of methodologies highlighted in this review to determine which type of calculations are appropriate for their practice.

The Feasibility of 3D Intraoperative Navigation in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Perioperative Outcomes, Accuracy of Cage Placement and Radiation Exposure.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using 3D intraoperative navigation (ION), compared to conventional 2D fluoroscopy only. METHODS: The perioperative outcomes and accuracy of cage placement were examined in all patients who underwent LLIF using ION (ION group) or fluoroscopy only (non-ION group) by a single surgeon. The radiation exposure was examined in patients who underwent stand-alone LLIF. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients with 154 levels (ION 49 patients with 79 levels/ non-ION 38 patients with 75 levels) were included. There were no significant differences in operative time (ION 143.5 min vs. non-ION 126.0 min, P = .406), time from induction end to surgery start (ION 31.0 min vs. non-ION 31.0 min, P = .761), estimated blood loss (ION 37.5 ml vs. non-ION 50.0 ml, P = .351), perioperative complications (ION 16.3% vs. non-ION 7.9%, P = .335) and length of stay (ION 50.6 hours vs. non-ION 41.7 hours, P = .841). No significant difference was found in the accuracy of cage placement (P = .279). ION did not significantly increase total radiation dose (ION 51.0 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .237) and tended to reduce radiation dose during the procedure (ION 32.2 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .932). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in LLIF using ION were comparable to those using fluoroscopy only. The use of ION in LLIF was feasible, safe and accurate and may reduce radiation dose to the surgeon and surgical team.

Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Tritanium Posterolateral Cage (vs. Propensity-Matched Cohort of PEEK Cage).

Introduction: Surgical management of degenerative lumbar spine disorders is effective at improving patient pain, disability, and quality of life; however, obtaining a durable posterolateral fusion after decompression remains a challenge. Interbody fusion technologies are viable means of improving fusion rates in the lumbar spine, specifically various graft materials including autograft, structural allograft, titanium, and polyether ether ketone. This study assesses the effectiveness of Tritanium posterolateral cage in the treatment of degenerative disk disease. Methods: Nearest-neighbor 1:1 matched control transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with PEEK vs. Tritanium posterior lumbar (PL) cage interbody fusion patients were identified using propensity scoring from patients that underwent elective surgery for degenerative disk diseases. Line graphs were generated to compare the trajectories of improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from baseline to 3 and 12 months postoperatively. The nominal data were compared via the χ2 test, while the continuous data were compared via Student's t-test. Results: The two groups had no difference regarding either the 3- or 12-month Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D), numeric rating scale (NRS) leg pain, and NRS back pain; however, the Tritanium interbody cage group had better Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores compared to the control group of the PEEK interbody cage at both 3 and 12 months (p=0.013 and 0.048). Conclusions: Our results indicate the Tritanium cage is an effective alternative to the previously used PEEK cage in terms of PROs, surgical safety, and radiological parameters of surgical success. The Tritanium cohort showed better ODI scores, higher fusion rates, lower subsidence, and lower indirect costs associated with surgical management, when compared to the propensity-matched PEEK cohort.

Recovery Kinetics After Commonly Performed Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Procedures.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days. RESULTS: In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84). CONCLUSION: Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

Factors Causing Delay in Discharge in Patients Eligible for Ambulatory Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the postoperative factors that led delayed discharge in patients who would have been eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion (ALF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Assessing postoperative inefficiencies is vital to increase the feasibility of ALF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and would have met the eligibility criteria for ALF were included. Length of stay (LOS); time in postanesthesia recovery unit (PACU); alertness and neurological examination, and pain scores at three and six hours; type of analgesia; time to physical therapy (PT) visit; reasons for PT nonclearance; time to per-oral (PO) intake; time to voiding; time to readiness for discharge were assessed. Time taken to meet each discharge criterion was calculated. Multiple regression analyses were performed to study the effect of variables on postoperative parameters influencing discharge. RESULTS: Of 71 patients, 4% were discharged on the same day and 69% on postoperative day 1. PT clearance was the last-met discharge criterion in 93%. Sixty-six percent did not get PT evaluation on the day of surgery. Seventy-six percent required intravenous opioids and <60% had adequate pain control. Twenty-six percent had orthostatic intolerance. The median postoperative LOS was 26.9 hours, time in PACU was 4.2 hours, time to PO intake was 6.5 hours, time to first void was 6.3 hours, time to first PT visit was 17.7 hours, time to PT clearance was 21.8 hours, and time to discharge readiness was 21.9 hours. Regression analysis showed that time to PT clearance, time to PO intake, time to voiding, time in PACU, and pain score at three hours had a significant effect on LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Unavailability of PT, surgery after 1  pm , orthostatic intolerance, inadequate pain control, prolonged PACU stay, and long feeding and voiding times were identified as modifiable factors preventing same-day discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Advanced Technologies for Outpatient Lumbar Fusion: Barriers and Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been increasing interest in outpatient spine surgery. Minimally invasive techniques have created an opportunity for ambulatory lumbar fusion, and these techniques increasingly involve advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers, advantages, and future predictions for such technology in the context of outpatient lumbar fusions. METHODS: This is a narrative review of studies examining the advantages, limitations, and cost-effectiveness of navigation and spinal robotics in conjunction with the outcomes and costs of outpatient lumbar fusion. RESULTS: Outpatient lumbar fusion is a growing trend with ample evidence of its safety, favorable patient outcomes, and cost savings. Navigation and spinal robotics are associated with improved instrumentation accuracy and fewer complications, and the long-term cost savings can make these technologies financially practical in the outpatient setting. Future capabilities with robotics will only increase their value. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics are strategic long-term investments in the context of outpatient lumbar fusion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The favorable outcomes and costs associated with navigation and robotics will be relevant to any spine surgeon interested in developing an outpatient lumbar fusion program.

Cervical Disc Replacement for Radiculopathy Versus Myeloradiculopathy: An MCID Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) across multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing cervical disc replacement (CDR) for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To date, a limited number of studies have demonstrated mostly similar results in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy undergoing CDR. However, each of these previous studies have focused on statistically significant differences, which may not correlate with patient perceived improvements in outcomes or success. METHODS: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level CDR with radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic variables, preoperative diagnosis, and operative variables were collected for each patient. The following PROs were prospectively collected: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS)-Neck, VAS-Arm, Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS), PROMIS Physical Function (PF). An MCID analysis of PROs for each diagnosis group was performed and the percentage of patients achieving the MCID was compared between the two diagnosis groups. RESULTS: Eight-five patients, of which 56% had radiculopathy and 44% had myeloradiculopathy. MCID analysis demonstrated that at 6-week, 12-week, and final postoperative follow-up there was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy achieving the MCID for each PRO assessed. In both diagnosis groups the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO continued to increase from the 6-week to final postoperative follow-up except for the SF-12 MCS in patients with myeloradiculopathy. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients achieving the MCID was not significantly different at each postoperative period assessed in the radiculopathy and myeloradiculopathy groups treated with CDR. In addition, the percentage of patients achieving the MCID continued to increase from 6 weeks to final follow-up in both groups for almost all PROs assessed.

Rating Spine Surgeons: Physician Review Websites Versus a Patient-reported Outcomes-derived Ranking.

STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational study. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the correlation between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) pulled from a national spine registry and physician ratings from physician review websites (PRWs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PRWs are frequently utilized by patients to make health care decisions; however, many PRWs appear to incorporate subjective experiences unrelated to a surgeon's clinical performance into ratings. As such, their utility as a health care decision-making tool remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated 8834 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) who underwent 1-level elective lumbar spine surgery. The lumbar module of QOD was queried to rank 124 surgeons using PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, Numerical Rating Scale-back/leg pain, and patient satisfaction). The QOD PRO-ranking system was compared against PRWs including Healthgrades, Vitals, WebMD, and Google. The Spearman correlation coefficients, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and multiple linear regression models were used for statistical comparison. The primary outcome was the correlation between PRW scores and PROs. RESULTS: Surgeon PRO-derived ranking showed high intercorrelational congruence with coefficients between the 3 PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, Numerical Rating Scale back/leg) ranging between 0.70 and 0.88. Low correlations were observed between PRO-derived rankings and PRWs, ranging from 0.23 to 0.37. Healthgrades performed most similarly to PRO-derived rankings, correlating best with patient satisfaction, though the correlation was low (ρ=0.37). CONCLUSIONS: While PRWs are often used to evaluate surgeon competency, these results demonstrate they poorly correlate with a surgeon's clinical ability measured by PROs. PRWs should be used with caution when making health care decisions by patients, payers, and administrators. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Surface Navigation and the Influence of Navigation on MIS Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for surface-based navigation in minimally-invasive spine surgery (MIS), provide an outline for its workflow, and present a wide range of MIS case examples in which surface-based navigation may be advantageous. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings related to surface-based navigation in MIS was performed. Workflow and case examples utilizing surface-based navigation were described. RESULTS: The nascent literature regarding surface-based intraoperative navigation (ION) in spine surgery is encouraging and initial studies have shown that surface-based navigation can allow for accurate pedicle screw placement and decreased operative time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation exposure when compared to traditional fluoroscopic imaging. Surface-based navigation may be particularly useful in MIS cervical and lumbar decompressions and MIS lumbar instrumentation cases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, it is possible that surface-based ION will become a mainstay in the armamentarium of enabling technologies utilized by minimally-invasive spine surgeons, but further studies are needed assessing its accuracy, complications, and cost-effectiveness.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Replacement in Patients With Significant Cervical Spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with significant cervical spondylosis treated with cervical disc replacement (CDR) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As CDR utilization has increased over the past decade, recent studies have investigated the outcomes of CDR in patients with more significant spondylotic changes and demonstrated improved postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). However, no prior study has investigated clinical outcomes of patients with significant spondylotic changes treated with CDR in comparison to ACDF. METHODS: Patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level CDR or ACDF with significant cervical spondylosis, quantified using a validated grading scale, were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. The following PROs were analyzed: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale-Neck, visual analog scale-Arm, and PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) Computer Adaptive Test Score. Demographic, operative, and radiographic variables, and achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for each PRO were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were included in the present study, of which 35 (53%) were treated with CDR and 31 (47%) with ACDF. The preoperative cervical spondylotic grade was similar between the 2 groups (1.8 vs. 2.2, P=0.27). At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the absolute value for each PRO between the 2 groups (P>0.19) and both groups demonstrated significant improvement in each PRO compared with preoperative values (P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO when comparing CDR to ACDF (P>0.09). CONCLUSIONS: A similar percentage of patients with significant degenerative cervical spondylosis achieved the MCID across multiple PROs when treated with CDR or ACDF. Patients in both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in all PROs assessed when compared with preoperative values. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.