Predictors of serious, preventable, and costly medical complications in a population of adult spinal deformity patients.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established a list of hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) with significant deleterious effects on both patients and providers. Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is complex and highly invasive, and as such may result in significant morbidity including these HACs. PURPOSE: Identify predictors for developing the most common HACs among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients undergoing corrective surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: One thousand one hundred and seventy-one ASD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: HACs, Health-Related Quality of Life scores(HRQLs), Reoperation, Integrated Health State (IHS) METHODS: ASD pts undergoing surgery (>18 years, scoliosis ≥20°, SVA ≥5 cm, PT ≥25° and/or TK >60°) with complete data at BL and up to 2 years post-op were included. Patients were stratified by presence of >1 HAC, defined as at least one superficial/deep SSI, UTI, DVT, or PE within a 30-day post-op window. Random forest analysis generated 5,000 Conditional Inference Trees to compute a variable importance table for top predictors of HACs. An area-under-the-curve (AUC) methodology compared normalized HRQL scores between groups to determine an IHS with 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Total of 1,171 pts (59.8 years, 76.2%F, 28.1kg/m2) underwent corrective ASD surgery, with 1,053 pts in the non-HAC group and 118 in the HAC group. Of these pts, 25.4% had UTI, 15.4% DVT, 19.2% superficial SSI, 20.8% deep SSI, and 19.2% PE. HAC pts were on average older (63.5 vs 59.3, p=.004) and more often frail (51.3 vs 39.7%, p=.021) than non-HAC pts. Postop LOS and reoperation were most associated with HAC groups: [1] LOS >7 days [2] reoperation. Patient-related predictors of HACs were [3] age >50 yerr, [4] frailty, and [13] BMI >31. Procedure-related predictors of HACs were [5] operative-time >405 minutes, [6] levels fused >9, EBL >1450 mL, and [11] decompression. BL radiographic predictors were [7] PT >20°, [9] PI-LL>6°, [10] TL Cobb angle >15°, [12] SVA C7-S1 >29 mm. No differences were observed between groups with regards to IHS ODI (0.73 vs 0.74, p=.863), SRS (1.3 vs1.3, p=.374), NRS Back (0.6 vs 0.6, p=.158). HAC had higher rates of reoperation than non-HAC (0.08 vs 0.01, p=.066), and any HAC within 30-days of index was a significant predictor of reoperation (OR: 2.448 [1.94-3.09], p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a population of ASD patients, HACs were associated with length of stay, reoperation, age, and frailty. Radiographic parameters such as pelvic tilt >20°, PI-LL >6°, & SVA >29 mm also increased odds of HACs, and should raise postoperative awareness for HAC development.

Recovery kinetics following spinal deformity correction: a comparison of isolated cervical, thoracolumbar, and combined deformity morphometries.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The postoperative recovery patterns of cervical deformity patients, thoracolumbar deformity patients, and patients with combined cervical and thoracolumbar deformities, all relative to one another, is not well understood. Clear objective benchmarks are needed to quantitatively define a "good" versus a "bad" postoperative recovery across multiple follow-up visits, varying deformity types, and guide expectations. PURPOSE: To objectively define and compare the complete 2-year postoperative recovery process among operative cervical only, thoracolumbar only, and combined deformity patients using area-under-the-curve (AUC) methodology. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of 2 prospective, multicenter adult cervical and spinal deformity databases. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred seventy spinal deformity patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Common health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessments across both databases included the EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) back pain assessment. In order to compare disability improvements, the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were merged into one outcome variable, the ODI-NDI. Both assessments are gauged on the same scale, with minimal question deviation. Sagittal Radiographic Alignment was also assessed at pre- and all postoperative time points. METHODS: Operative deformity patients >18 years old with baseline (BL) to 2-year HRQOLs were included. Patients were stratified by cervical only (C), thoracolumbar only (T), and combined deformities (CT). HRQOL and radiographic outcomes were compared within and between deformity groups. AUC normalization generated normalized HRQOL scores at BL and all follow-up intervals (6 weeks, 3 months, 1 year, and 2 year). Normalized scores were plotted against follow-up time interval. AUC was calculated for each follow-up interval, and total area was divided by cumulative follow-up length, determining overall, time-adjusted HRQOL recovery (Integrated Health State, IHS). Multiple linear regression models determined significant predictors of HRQOL discrepancies among deformity groups. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients were included (27 C, 27 T, and 116 CT). Age, BMI, sex, smoking status, osteoporosis, depression, and BL HRQOL scores were similar among groups (p >. 05). T and CT patients had higher comorbidity severities (CCI: C 0.696, T 1.815, CT 1.699, p = .020). Posterior surgical approaches were most common (62.9%) followed by combined (28.8%) and anterior (6.5%). Standard HRQOL analysis found no significant differences among groups until 1-year follow-up, where C patients exhibited comparatively greater NRS back pain (4.88 vs. 3.65 vs. 3.28, p = .028). NRS Back pain differences between groups subsided by 2-years (p>.05). Despite C patients exhibiting significantly faster ODI-NDI minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement (33.3% vs. 0% vs. 23.0%, p < .001), all deformity groups exhibited similar ODI-NDI MCID achievement by 2-years (51.9% vs. 59.3% vs. 62.9%, p = 0.563). After HRQOL normalization, similar results were observed relative to the standard analysis (1-year NRS Back: C 1.17 vs. T 0.50 vs. CT 0.51, p < .001; 2-year NRS Back: 1.20 vs. 0.51 vs. 0.69, p = .060). C patients exhibited a worse NRS back normalized IHS (C 1.18 vs. T 0.58 vs. CT 0.63, p = .004), indicating C patients were in a greater state of postoperative back pain for a longer amount of time. Linear regression models determined postoperative distal junctional kyphosis (adjusted beta: 0.207, p = .039) and osteoporosis (adjusted beta: 0.269, p = .007) as the strongest predictors of a poor NRS back IHS (model summary: R2 = 0.177, p = .039). CONCLUSIONS: Despite C patients exhibiting a quicker rate of MCID disability (ODI-NDI) improvement, they exhibited a poorer overall recovery of back pain with worse NRS back scores compared with BL status and other deformity groups. Postoperative distal junctional kyphosis and osteoporosis were identified as primary drivers of a poor postoperative NRS back IHS. Utilization of the IHS, a single number adjusting for all postoperative HRQOL visits, in conjunction with predictive modelling may pose as an improved method of gauging the effect of surgical details and complications on a patient's entire recovery process.

Recovery Kinetics: Comparison of Patients Undergoing Primary or Revision Procedures for Adult Cervical Deformity Using a Novel Area Under the Curve Methodology.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available to objectively define what constitutes a "good" versus a "bad" recovery for operative cervical deformity (CD) patients. Furthermore, the recovery patterns of primary versus revision procedures for CD is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To define and compare the recovery profiles of CD patients undergoing primary or revision procedures, utilizing a novel area-under-the-curve normalization methodology. METHODS: CD patients undergoing primary or revision surgery with baseline to 1-yr health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores were included. Clinical symptoms and HRQL were compared among groups (primary/revision). Normalized HRQL scores at baseline and follow-up intervals (3M, 6M, 1Y) were generated. Normalized HRQLs were plotted and area under the curve was calculated, generating one number describing overall recovery (Integrated Health State). Subanalysis identified recovery patterns through 2-yr follow-up. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were included (45 primary, 38 revision). Age (61.3 vs 61.9), gender (F: 66.7% vs 63.2%), body mass index (27.7 vs 29.3), Charlson Comorbidity Index, frailty, and osteoporosis (20% vs 13.2%) were similar between groups (P > .05). Primary patients were more preoperatively neurologically symptomatic (55.6% vs 31.6%), less sagittally malaligned (cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA]: 32.6 vs 46.6; T1 slope: 28.8 vs 36.8), underwent more anterior-only approaches (28.9% vs 7.9%), and less posterior-only approaches (37.8% vs 60.5%), all P < .05. Combined approaches, decompressions, osteotomies, and construct length were similar between groups (P > .05). Revisions had longer op-times (438.0 vs 734.4 min, P = .008). Following surgery, complication rate was similar between groups (66.6% vs 65.8%, P = .569). Revision patients remained more malaligned (cSVA, TS-CL; P < .05) than primary patients until 1-yr follow-up (P > .05). Normalized HRQLs determined primary patients to exhibit less neck pain (numeric rating scale [NRS]) and myelopathy (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association) symptoms through 1-yr follow-up compared to revision patients (P < .05). These differences subsided when following patients through 2 yr (P > .05). Despite similar 2-yr HRQL outcomes, revision patients exhibited worse neck pain (NRS) Integrated Health State recovery (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Despite both primary and revision patients exhibiting similar HRQL outcomes at final follow-up, revision patients were in a greater state of postoperative neck pain for a greater amount of time.

Recovery Kinetics of Radiographic and Implant-Related Revision Patients Following Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have observed similar health-related quality of life (HRQL) in revisions and nonrevision (NR) patients following adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction. However, a novel comparison approach may allow better comparisons in spine outcomes groups. OBJECTIVE: To determine if ASD revisions for radiographic and implant-related complications undergo a different recovery than NR patients. METHODS: Inclusion: ASD patients with complete HRQL (Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form-36 version 2 (SF-36), Scoliosis Research Society [SRS]-22) at baseline, 6 wk, 1 yr, 2 yr. Generated revision groups: nonrevision (NR), revised-complete data (RC; with follow-up 2 yr after revision), and revised-incomplete data (RI; without 2-yr follow-up after revision). In a traditional analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared baseline HRQLs to follow-up changes. In a novel approach, integrated health state was normalized at baseline using area under curve analysis before ANOVA t-tests compared follow-up statuses. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients were included with 50 undergoing reoperations (19.4%). Rod fractures (n = 15) and proximal joint kyphosis (n = 9) were most common. In standard HRQL analysis, comparing RC index surgery and RC revision surgery HRQLS revealed no significant differences throughout the 2-yr follow-up from either the initial index or revision procedure. Using normalized HRQL/integrated health state, RI displayed worse scores in SF-36 Physical Component Score, SRS activity, and SRS appearance relative to NR (P < .05), indicating less improvement over the 2-yr period. RC were significantly worse than RI in SF-36 Mental Component Score, SRS mental, SRS satisfaction, and SRS total (P < .05). CONCLUSION: ASD patients indicated for revisions for radiographic and implant-related complications differ significantly in their overall 2-yr recovery compared to NR, using a normalized integrated health state method. Traditional methods for analyzing revision patients' recovery kinetics may overlook delayed improvements.

Cell Saver for Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Reduces Cost.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: To determine if the use of cell saver reduces overall blood costs in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent studies have questioned the clinical value of cell saver during spine procedures. METHODS: ASD patients enrolled in a prospective, multicenter surgical database who had complete preoperative and surgical data were identified. Patients were stratified into (1) cell saver available during surgery, but no intraoperative autologous infusion (No Infusion group), or (2) cell saver available and received autologous infusion (Infusion group). RESULTS: There were 427 patients in the Infusion group and 153 in the No infusion group. Patients in both groups had similar demographics. Mean autologous infusion volume was 698 mL. The Infusion group had a higher percentage of EBL relative to the estimated blood volume (42.2%) than the No Infusion group (19.6%, p < .000). Allogeneic transfusion was more common in the Infusion group (255/427, 60%) than the No Infusion group (67/153, 44%, p = .001). The number of allogeneic blood units transfused was also higher in the Infusion group (2.4) than the No Infusion group (1.7, p = .009). Total blood costs ranged from $396 to $2,146 in the No Infusion group and from $1,262 to $5,088 in the Infusion group. If the cost of cell saver blood was transformed into costs of allogeneic blood, total blood costs for the Infusion group would range from $840 to $5,418. Thus, cell saver use yielded a mean cost savings ranging from $330 to $422 (allogeneic blood averted). Linear regression showed that after an EBL of 614 mL, cell saver becomes cost-efficient. CONCLUSION: Compared to transfusing allogeneic blood, cell saver autologous infusion did not reduce the proportion or the volume of allogeneic transfusion for patients undergoing surgery for adult spinal deformity. The use of cell saver becomes cost-efficient above an EBL of 614 mL, producing a cost savings of $330 to $422. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.