Do robot-related complications influence 1 year reoperations and other clinical outcomes after robot-assisted lumbar arthrodesis? A multicenter assessment of 320 patients.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted platforms in spine surgery have rapidly developed into an attractive technology for both the surgeon and patient. Although current literature is promising, more clinical data is needed. The purpose of this paper is to determine the effect of robot-related complications on clinical outcomes METHODS: This multicenter study included adult (≥18 years old) patients who underwent robot-assisted lumbar fusion surgery from 2012-2019. The minimum follow-up was 1 year after surgery. Both bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine if robot-related factors were associated with reoperation within 1 year after primary surgery. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients were included in this study. The mean (standard deviation) Charlson Comorbidity Index was 1.2 (1.2) and 52.5% of patients were female. Intraoperative robot complications occurred in 3.4% of patients and included intraoperative exchange of screw (0.9%), robot abandonment (2.5%), and return to the operating room for screw exchange (1.3%). The 1-year reoperation rate was 4.4%. Robot factors, including robot time per screw, open vs. percutaneous, and robot system, were not statistically different between those who required revision surgery and those who did not (P>0.05). Patients with robot complications were more likely to have prolonged length of hospital stay and blood transfusion, but were not at higher risk for 1-year reoperations. The most common reasons for reoperation were wound complications (2.2%) and persistent symptoms due to inadequate decompression (1.5%). In the multivariate analysis, robot related factors and complications were not independent risk factors for 1-year reoperations. CONCLUSION: This is the largest multicenter study to focus on robot-assisted lumbar fusion outcomes. Our findings demonstrate that 1-year reoperation rates are low and do not appear to be influenced by robot-related factors and complications; however, robot-related complications may increase the risk for greater blood loss requiring a blood transfusion and longer length of stay.

Health Care Lobbying, Political Action Committees, and Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the political contributions and strategies of the Political Action Committee (PACs) lobbying for the political interests of spine surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 2016, a presidential election year, $514,224,628 was spent on health care lobbying. Only 16% ($85,061,148) was on behalf of health professionals providing care. Below we chronicle the overlapping contributions between the three different physician-based Political Action Committee (PAC) lobbying entities as it relates specifically to spine surgery. METHODS: Data were abstracted for the PACs of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), and the North American Spine Society (NASS). These data were obtained using OpenSecrets (opensecrets.org), and the Federal Election Commission (fec.gov) website. All data points were collected biannually from 2006 to 2018 and statistically analyzed as appropriate. RESULTS: In 2016, the AAOS PAC contributed $2,648,218, the AANS PAC $348,091, and the NASS PAC $183,612. After accounting for respective group size, the AAOS spent >2.34 times that of the AANS. Orthopedists were 3.84 times (95% confidence interval 3.42-4.3) more likely to donate to their PAC than neurosurgeons (P < 0.001) during the 2016 election. The majority of contributions among the three different lobbyist organizations were to federal candidates, followed by fundraising committees, and finally to the national party. Eighty-eight percent of AANS donations went to Republican candidates, whereas AAOS and NASS were 63% and 67%, respectively. From 2008 to 2016, the AAOS PAC had a highest political contributions spend per active member of parent organization ($126.39) as compared to AANS ($80.52) and NASS ($17.81). The AAOS had five surgeons for every donor to the AAOS PAC, whereas the AANS had 14 surgeons and NASS 38 members per each donor. The AANS had a higher percentage of Republican donations with 78.9% of donations going to Republicans as compared to 61.8% of AAOS contributions and 67.9% of NASS contributions. CONCLUSION: Spine surgery is unique in that three different physician-based lobbyist organizations seek to influence legislative priorities with the AAOS having the most substantial fiscal impact and greatest participation. Choreography of donation strategies is essential to maximize physician voice at the policy level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.