Postoperative Discharge to Acute Rehabilitation or Skilled Nursing Facility Compared With Home Does Not Reduce Hospital Readmissions, Return to Surgery, or Improve Outcomes Following Adult Spine Deformity Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity (ASD) study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate 30-day readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for matched ASD patients receiving nonhome discharge (NON), including acute rehabilitation (REHAB), and skilled nursing facility (SNF), or home (HOME) discharge following ASD surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative disposition following ASD surgery frequently involves nonhome discharge. Little data exists for longer term outcomes for ASD patients receiving nonhome discharge versus patients discharged to home. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study were assessed for NON or HOME disposition following hospital discharge. NON was further divided into REHAB or SNF. Propensity score matching was used to match for patient age, frailty, spine deformity, levels fused, and osteotomies performed at surgery. Thirty-day hospital readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and 1-year and minimum 2-year postoperative PROs were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 241 of 374 patients were eligible for the study. NON patients were identified and matched to HOME patients. Following matching, 158 patients remained for evaluation; NON and HOME had similar preoperative age, frailty, spine deformity magnitude, surgery performed, and duration of hospital stay ( P >0.05). Thirty-day readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, and postoperative complications were similar for NON versus HOME and similar for REHAB (N=64) versus SNF (N=42) versus HOME ( P >0.05). At 1-year and minimum 2-year follow-up, HOME demonstrated similar to better PRO scores including Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 36v2 questionnaire Mental Component Score and Physical Component Score, and Scoliosis Research Society scores versus NON, REHAB, and SNF ( P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Acute needs must be considered following ASD surgery, however, matched analysis comparing 30-day hospital readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and PROs demonstrated minimal benefit for NON, REHAB, or SNF versus HOME at 1- and 2-year follow-up, questioning the risk and cost/benefits of routine use of nonhome discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-prognostic.

Would you do it again? Discrepancies between patient and surgeon perceptions following adult spine deformity surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery can improve patient pain and physical function but is associated with high complication rates and long postoperative recovery. Accordingly, if given a choice, patients may indicate they would not undergo ASD surgery again. PURPOSE: Evaluate surgically treated ASD patients to assess if given the option (1) would surgically treated ASD patients choose to undergo the same ASD surgery again, (2) would the treating surgeon perform the same ASD surgery again and if not why, (3) evaluate for consensus and/or discrepancies between patient and surgeon opinions for willingness to perform/receive the same surgery, and (4) evaluate for associations with willingness to undergo or not undergo the same surgery again and patient demographics, patient reported outcomes, and postoperative complications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective ASD study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Surgically treated ASD patients enrolled into a multicenter prospective study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire (SRS-22r), Short Form-36v2 questionnaire (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric pain rating for back pain (NRS back) and leg pain (NRS leg), minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for SRS-22r domains and ODI, intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgeon and patient satisfaction with surgery. METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study were asked at minimum 2-year postoperative, if, based upon their hospital and surgical experiences and surgical recovery experiences, would the patient undergo the same surgery again. Treating surgeons were then matched to their corresponding patients, blinded to the patients' preoperative and postoperative patient reported outcome measures, and interviewed and asked if (1) the surgeon believed that the corresponding patient would undergo the surgery again, (2) if the surgeon believed the corresponding patient was improved by the surgery and (3) if the surgeon would perform the same surgery on the corresponding patient again, and if not why. ASD patients were divided into those indicating they would (YES), would not (NO) or were unsure (UNSURE) if they would have same surgery again. Agreement between patient and surgeon willingness to receive/perform the same surgery was assessed and correlations between patient willingness for same surgery, postoperative complications, spine deformity correction, patient reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: A total of 580 of 961 ASD patients eligible for study were evaluated. YES (n=472) had similar surgical procedures performed, similar duration of hospital and ICU stay, similar spine deformity correction and similar postoperative spinal alignment as NO (n=29; p>.05). UNSURE (n=79) had greater preoperative depression and opioid use rates, UNSURE and NO had more postoperative complications requiring surgery, and UNSURE and NO had fewer percentages of patients reaching postoperative MCID for SRS-22r domains and MCID for ODI than YES (p<.05). Comparison of patient willingness to receive the same surgery versus surgeon perceptions on patient's willingness to receive the same surgery demonstrated surgeons accurately identified YES (91.1%) but poorly identified NO (13.8%; p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: If given a choice, 18.6% of surgically treated ASD patients indicated they were unsure or would not undergo the surgery again. ASD patients indicating they were unsure or would not undergo ASD surgery again had greater preoperative depression, greater preoperative opioid use, worse postoperative PROs, fewer patients reaching MCID, more complications requiring surgery, and greater postoperative opioid use. Additionally, patients that indicated they would not have the same surgery again were poorly identified by their treating surgeons compared to patients indicating they would be willing to receive the same surgery again. More research is needed to understand patient expectations and improve patient experiences following ASD surgery.

Opioid use prior to surgery is associated with worse preoperative and postoperative patient reported quality of life and decreased surgical cost effectiveness for symptomatic adult spine deformity; A matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative opioid is associated with poor postoperative outcomes for several surgical specialties, including neurosurgical, orthopedic, and general surgery. Patients with symptomatic adult spinal deformity (SASD) are among the highest patient populations reporting opioid use prior to surgery. Surgery for SASD has been demonstrated to improve patient reported quality of life, however, little medical economic data exists evaluating impact of preoperative opioid use upon surgical cost-effectiveness for SASD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact that preoperative opioid use has upon SASD surgery including duration of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, postoperative complications, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), and surgical cost-effectiveness using a propensity score matched analysis model. METHODS: Surgically treated SASD patients enrolled into a prospective multi-center SASD study were assessed for preoperative opioid use, and divided into two cohorts; preoperative opioid users (OPIOID) and preoperative opioid non-users (NON). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for patient age, medical comorbidities, spine deformity type and magnitude, and surgical procedures for OPIOID vs NON. Preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative PROMs, duration of ICU and hospital stay, postoperative complications, and opioid use at one and two years postoperative were compared for OPIOID vs NON. Preoperative, one year, and minimum two-year postoperative SF6D values were calculated, and one- and two-year postoperative QALYs were calculated using SF6D change from baseline. Hospital costs at the time of index surgery were calculated and cost/QALY compared at one and two years postop for OPIOID vs NON. RESULTS: 261/357 patients (mean follow-up 3.3 years) eligible for study were evaluated. Following the PSM control, OPIOID (n=97) had similar preoperative demographics, smoking and depression history, spine deformity magnitude, and surgery performed as NON (n=164; p>0.05). Preoperatively, OPIOID reported greater NRS back pain (7.7 vs 6.7) and leg pain (5.2 vs 3.9), worse ODI (50.8 vs 36.9), worse SF-36 PCS (28.8 vs 35.6), and worse SRS-22r self-image (2.3 vs 2.5) than NON, respectively (p<0.05). OPIOID had longer ICU (41.2 vs 21.4 hours) and hospital stay (10.6 vs 8.0 days) than NON, respectively (p<0.05). At last postoperative follow up, OPIOID reported greater NRS back pain (4.1 vs 2.3) and leg pain (2.9 vs 1.7), worse ODI (32.4 vs 19.4), worse SF-36 PCS (37.4 vs 47.0), worse SRS-22r self-image (3.5 vs 4.0), and lower SRS-22r treatment satisfaction score (2.5 vs 4.5) than NON, respectively (p<0.05). At last follow-up postoperative Cost/QALY was higher for OPIOID ($44,558.31) vs NON ($34,304.36; p<0.05). At last follow up OPIOID reported greater postoperative opioid usage than NON [41.2% vs. 12.9%, respectively; odds ratio =4.7 (95% CI=2.6-8.7; p<0.05)]. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective, multi-center, matched analysis demonstrated SASD patients using opioids prior to SASD surgery reported worse preoperative and postoperative quality of life, had longer ICU and hospital stay, had less cost effectiveness of SASD surgery. Preoperative opioid users also reported lower treatment satisfaction, and reported greater postoperative opioid use than non-users. These data should be used to council patients on the negative impact preoperative opioid use can have on SASD surgery.

Effective Prevention of Proximal Junctional Failure in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Requires a Combination of Surgical Implant Prophylaxis and Avoidance of Sagittal Alignment Overcorrection.

STUDY DESIGN: Propensity score matched analysis of a multi-center prospective adult spinal deformity (ASD) database. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate if surgical implant prophylaxis combined with avoidance of sagittal overcorrection more effectively prevents proximal junctional failure (PJF) than use of surgical implants alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PJF is a severe form of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). Efforts to prevent PJF have focused on use of surgical implants. Less information exists on avoidance of overcorrection of age-adjusted sagittal alignment to prevent PJF. METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients (age ≥18 yrs; ≥5 levels fused, ≥1 year follow-up) enrolled into a prospective multi-center ASD database were propensity score matched (PSM) to control for risk factors for PJF. Patients evaluated for use of surgical implants to prevent PJF (IMPLANT) versus no implant prophylaxis (NONE), and categorized by the type of implant used (CEMENT, HOOK, TETHER). Postoperative sagittal alignment was evaluated for overcorrection of age-adjusted sagittal alignment (OVER) versus within sagittal parameters (ALIGN). Incidence of PJF was evaluated at minimum 1 year postop. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty five of 834 eligible for study inclusion were evaluated. Following PSM to control for confounding variables, analysis demonstrated the incidence of PJF was lower for IMPLANT (n = 235; 10.6%) versus NONE (n = 390: 20.3%; P < 0.05). Use of transverse process hooks at the upper instrumented vertebra (HOOK; n = 115) had the lowest rate of PJF (7.0%) versus NONE (20.3%; P < 0.05). ALIGN (n = 246) had lower incidence of PJF than OVER (n = 379; 12.0% vs. 19.2%, respectively; P < 0.05). The combination of ALIGN-IMPLANT further reduced PJF rates (n = 81; 9.9%), while OVER-NONE had the highest rate of PJF (n = 225; 24.2%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Propensity score matched analysis of 625 ASD patients demonstrated use of surgical implants alone to prevent PJF was less effective than combining implants with avoidance of sagittal overcorrection. Patients that received no PJF implant prophylaxis and had sagittal overcorrection had the highest incidence of PJF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Health Impact of Symptomatic Adult Spinal Deformity: Comparison of Deformity Types to United States Population Norms and Chronic Diseases.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicenter database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the health impact of symptomatic adult spinal deformity (SASD) by comparing Standard Form Version 2 (SF-36) scores for SASD with United States normative and chronic disease values. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent data have identified radiographic parameters correlating with poor health-related quality of life for SASD. Disability comparisons between SASD patients and patients with chronic diseases may provide further insight to the disease burden caused by SASD. METHODS: Consecutive SASD patients, with no history of spine surgery, were enrolled into a multicenter database and evaluated for type and severity of spinal deformity. Baseline SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) values for SASD patients were compared with reported U.S. normative and chronic disease SF-36 scores. SF-36 scores were reported as normative-based scores (NBS) and evaluated for minimally clinical important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2011, 497 SASD patients were prospectively enrolled and evaluated. Mean PCS for all SASD was lower than U.S. total population (ASD = 40.9; US = 50; P < 0.05). Generational decline in PCS for SASD patients with no other reported comorbidities was more rapid than U.S. norms (P < 0.05). PCS worsened with lumbar scoliosis and increasing sagittal vertical axis (SVA). PCS scores for patients with isolated thoracic scoliosis were similar to values reported by individuals with chronic back pain (45.5 vs 45.7, respectively; P > 0.05), whereas patients with lumbar scoliosis combined with severe sagittal malalignment (SVA >10 cm) demonstrated worse PCS scores than values reported by patients with limited use of arms and legs (24.7 vs 29.1, respectively; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SASD is a heterogeneous condition that, depending upon the type and severity of the deformity, can have a debilitating impact on health often exceeding the disability of more recognized chronic diseases. Health care providers must be aware of the types of SASD that correlate with disability to facilitate appropriate diagnosis, treatment, and research efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.