RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Elective lumbar fusions have received criticism for inappropriate utilization. Here, we use a novel Operative Value Index (OVI) to assess whether "indicated," evidence-based lumbar fusions are associated with increased value (outcomes per dollar spent). METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of 294 patients undergoing elective lumbar fusions at a single large academic institution. All patients were preoperatively evaluated by a panel of neurosurgeons for concordance with evidence-based medicine (EBM), determined through guidelines from the North American Spine Society. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected for all patients both preoperatively and at 6-months postoperatively. Time-driven activity-based costing was employed to determine both direct and indirect intraoperative costs. The OVI was defined as the percent improvement in ODI per $1000 spent intraoperatively. Generalized linear mixed model regression, adjusting for confounders, was performed to assess whether EBM-concordant surgeries were associated with higher OVI. RESULTS: Of 294 elective lumbar fusions, 92.9% (n = 273) were EBM-concordant. The average total cost of an EBM-concordant lumbar fusion was $17,932 (supplies: $13,020; personnel: $4314), compared to $20,616 (supplies: $15,467; personnel: $4758) for an EBM-discordant fusion. Average OVI was 2.27 for a concordant fusion, compared to 0.11 for a discordant fusion. Generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed that EBM-concordant cases were associated with significantly higher OVI (ß-coefficient 2.0, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EBM-concordant fusions were associated with 2% greater improvement in ODI scores from baseline for every $1000 spent intraoperatively. Systematic methods for increasing guideline adherence for lumbar fusions could therefore improve value at scale.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (ED) is a minimally invasive option for addressing lumbar disk herniations. With the introduction of value-based care systems, assessing the true cost of certain procedures is critical when creating reimbursement models and comparing procedures. Here, we compared the costs of performing a microdiskectomy (MD) and ED using time-driven activity-based costing. METHODS: Total cost for the intraoperative episode was calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation and 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. A retrospective analysis was performed on 202 patients who underwent lumbar diskectomy through either MD (n = 167) or ED (n = 35) from 2018 to 2022. Personnel cost was calculated by multiplying the cost per unit time for each personnel type by the length of time spent in the operating room. Supply cost was calculated by aggregating the cost of all individual supplies, from medications to consumables to surgical trays, used during the case. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed comparing the costs between these procedures. RESULTS: The average intraoperative cost per case for ED and MD was $3915 ± $1025 and $3162 ± $954, respectively. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that ED had higher total cost (ß-coefficient: $912 ± $281, P = <.01) and supply cost (ß-coefficient: $474 ± $155, P = <.01) than MD. When accounting for surgeon as a covariate, however, total cost (P = .478) and supply cost (P = .468) differences between ED and MD were negligible. CONCLUSION: ED has shown to be a better value option in addressing lumbar disk herniations, mostly because of advantages in perioperative care. Here, we show that when correcting for surgeon-level effects, the cost between the two procedures is statistically insignificant, reaffirming the value provided by ED.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Costos y Análisis de Costo , Vértebras Lumbares , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Fusión Vertebral , Humanos , Fusión Vertebral/economía , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Fusión Vertebral/instrumentación , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/economía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Costos y Análisis de Costo/métodos , Anciano , Tornillos Pediculares/economía , AdultoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Índice de Masa Corporal , Vértebras Cervicales , Discectomía , Tempo Operativo , Fusión Vertebral , Humanos , Discectomía/economía , Discectomía/métodos , Fusión Vertebral/economía , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Femenino , Masculino , Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Anciano , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Quirófanos/economía , AdultoRESUMEN
Ebstein's anomaly of the tricuspid valve (EA) is an uncommon congenital cardiac malformation. It can present with atrioventricular tachycardia (AVRT), atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT), atrial arrhythmias, and rarely with ventricular tachycardia. The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is critically important and often diagnostic even prior to an electrophysiology study (EPS). Due to its complex anatomy, it poses particular challenges for mapping and ablation, even for an experienced electrophysiologist. In this review, we aim to provide insight into the electrophysiological perspective of EA and an in-depth analysis of the various arrhythmias encountered in diverse clinical scenarios.
Asunto(s)
Anomalía de Ebstein , Electrocardiografía , Anomalía de Ebstein/cirugía , Anomalía de Ebstein/fisiopatología , Anomalía de Ebstein/diagnóstico por imagen , Humanos , Electrocardiografía/métodos , Técnicas Electrofisiológicas Cardíacas/métodos , Ablación por Catéter/métodos , Femenino , Masculino , Taquicardia por Reentrada en el Nodo Atrioventricular/cirugía , Taquicardia por Reentrada en el Nodo Atrioventricular/fisiopatología , Taquicardia por Reentrada en el Nodo Atrioventricular/diagnósticoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to compare the intraoperative costs of 3 different surgical visualization techniques for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Specifically, we used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology to compare costs between ACDFs performed with operative microscopes (OM-ACDF), exoscopes (EX-ACDF), and loupes (loupes-ACDF). 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. We identified all instances of loupes-ACDF (n = 882), EX-ACDF (n = 26), and OM-ACDF (n = 52) performed at our institution. We performed multivariable linear regression analyses to compare costs between these modalities, accounting for patient-specific factors as well as number of levels fused, surgeon, and hospital site. RESULTS: The average total intraoperative costs per loupes-ACDF, EX-ACDF, and OM-ACDF cases were $7081 +/- $2,942, $7951 +/- $3,488, and $6557 +/- $954, respectively. Regression analysis revealed no difference in intraoperative cost between loupes-ACDF and EX-ACDF (P = 0.717), loupes-ACDF and OM-ACDF (0.954), or OM-ACDF and EX-ACDF (0.217). On a more granular level, however, EX-ACDF was associated with increased cost of consumables, including drapes, compared to both OM-ACDF (ß-coefficient: $369 +/- $121, P = 0.002) and loupes-ACDF (ß-coefficient: $284 +/- $86, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although hospitals may be aware of the purchasing fees associated with microscopes and exoscopes, there is no clear documentation of how these technologies affect intraoperative cost. We demonstrate a novel use of TDABC for this purpose.
Asunto(s)
Fusión Vertebral , Cirujanos , Humanos , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Discectomía/métodos , Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. INTRODUCTION: The 11-item modified Frailty index (mFI-11) by the ACS-NSQIP database was used to predict which patients are high risk for complications and inpatient mortality. ACS-NSQIP now has switched to the 5-item MFI. However, there are no studies on how these frailty indices fare against each other and their prognostic value of functional independence in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVE: To compare the mFI-5 and mFI-11 in order to standardize frailty assessment in the SCI population. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 272,174 patients with SCI from 2010 to 2020 from the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation (PTSF) registry. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the predictive value of mFI for functional independence as determined by locomotion and transfer mobility. RESULTS: A total of 1907 patients were included with a mean age of 46.9 ± 15.1 years. The 3 most common MFI factors were hypertension (32.2%), diabetes mellitus (13.7%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (8.5%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses using MFI-5 and MFI-11 showed that a higher frailty score in MFI-5 (OR 1.375, P < .001) and in MFI-11 (OR 1.366, P < .001) were each predictive of poor functional status at discharge. ROC curves for the MFI-5 (AUC = .818, P < .001) and MFI-11 (AUC = .819, P < .001) demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: The new MFI-5 is equivalent to its predecessor, the MFI-11, and predictive of functional outcomes in patients with SCI. MFI-5 can serve as the preferred frailty index at the point of care and in research contexts.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: To determine the ability of early vital sign abnormalities to predict functional independence in patients with SCI that required surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data extracted from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database. Inclusion criteria were patients >18 years with a diagnosis of SCI who required urgent spine surgery in Pennsylvania from 1/1/2010-12/31/2020 and had complete records available. RESULTS: A total of 644 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 47.1 ± 14.9 years old and the mean injury severity score (ISS) was 22.3 ± 12.7 with the SCI occurring in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine in 61.8%, 19.6% and 18.0%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analyses for predictors of functional independence at discharge showed that higher HR at the scene (OR 1.016, 95% CI 1.006-1.027, P = .002) and lower ISS score (OR .894, 95% CI .870-.920, P < .001) were significant predictors of functional independence. Similarly, higher admission HR (OR 1.015, 95% CI 1.004-1.027, P = .008) and lower ISS score (OR .880, 95% CI 0.864-.914, P < .001) were significant predictors of functional independence. Peak Youden indices showed that patients with HR at scene >70 and admission HR ≥83 were more likely to achieve functional independence. CONCLUSIONS: Early heart rate is a strong predictor of functional independence in patients with SCI. HR at scene >70 and admission HR ≥83 is associated with improved outcomes, suggesting lack of neurogenic shock.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: The present study design was that of a single center, retrospective cohort study to evaluate the influence of surgeon-specific factors on patient functional outcomes at 6 months following lumbar fusion. Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis identified the present study population. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to evaluate surgeon-specific variable effects on patient-reported outcomes such as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the effect of North American Spine Society (NASS) concordance on outcomes in the setting of variable surgeon characteristics. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar fusion is one of the fastest growing procedures performed in the United States. Although the impact of surgeon-specific factors on patient-reported outcomes has been contested, studies examining these effects are limited. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective cohort study analyzing a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis by 1 of 5 neurosurgery fellowship trained spine surgeons. The primary outcome was improvement of ODI at 6 months postoperative follow-up compared with preoperative ODI. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were identified for analysis. Overall, 62% of the study population achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI score at 6 months. Years in practice and volume of lumbar fusions were statistically significant independent predictors of MCID ODI on multivariable logistic regression ( P =0.0340 and P =0.0343, respectively). Concordance with evidence-based criteria conferred a 3.16 (95% CI: 1.03, 9.65) times greater odds of achieving MCID. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that traditional surgeon-specific variables predicting surgical morbidity such as experience and procedural volume are also predictors of achieving MCID 6 months postoperatively from lumbar fusion. Independent of surgeon factors, however, adhering to evidence-based guidelines can lead to improved outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Fusión Vertebral , Cirujanos , Humanos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estudios Retrospectivos , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Fusión Vertebral/métodosRESUMEN
Iatrogenic chyle leak (CL) following lymphatic vessel damage is an uncommon but serious complication of neck dissections. In the setting of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), left-sided CL are an exceedingly rare complication, with an incidence of only 0.02 %. Only three cases of right-sided CL during an ACDF have been reported. The case presented is the first right-sided CL to be successfully identified intraoperatively and treated. Intraoperative and postoperative management are discussed. This case will hopefully bring clinical and surgical awareness to providers caring for patients undergoing an ACDF.
Asunto(s)
Quilo , Fusión Vertebral , Humanos , Vértebras Cervicales/diagnóstico por imagen , Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Fusión Vertebral/efectos adversos , Discectomía/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/diagnóstico por imagen , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
We report the case of a 62-year-old man who presented with a progressive myelopathy secondary to spinal cord compression from an odontoid process fracture and subaxial central canal stenosis. The patient underwent a C1-T2 posterior decompression and instrumented fusion (PCDF) and did well immediately postoperatively. However, on POD1, he developed a right hypoglossal nerve (HN) palsy attributed to direct mechanical compression or injury from the C1 lateral mass screw (LMS), which improved following a revision and screw replacement. While HN injury is a known complication of high anterior and anterolateral cervical spine approaches as well as transcondylar screw fixation, this case aims to expand on the limited reports available regarding hypoglossal nerve injury following placement of bicortical C1 LMS. Furthermore, the use of fluoroscopic guidance in addition to anatomic landmarks and triggered electromyography of the tongue are offered as potential solutions to prevent HN injury intraoperatively.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. OBJECTIVE: To compare health-related quality of life outcomes at one-year follow-up between patients who did and did not develop surgical site infection (SSI) after thoracolumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SSI is among the most common healthcare-associated complications. As healthcare systems increasingly emphasize the value of delivered care, there is an increased need to understand the clinical impact of SSIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective 3:1 (control:SSI) propensity-matched case-control study was conducted for adult patients who underwent thoracolumbar fusion from March 2014 to January 2020 at a single academic institution. Exclusion criteria included less than 18 years of age, incomplete preoperative and one-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures, and revision surgery. Continuous and categorical data were compared via independent t tests and χ 2 tests, respectively. Intragroup analysis was performed using paired t tests. Regression analysis for ∆ patient-reported outcome measures (postoperative minus preoperative scores) controlled for demographics. The α was set at 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients (105 control, 35 SSI) were included in final analysis. The infections group had a higher rate of readmission (100% vs. 0.95%, P <0.001) and revision surgery (28.6% vs. 12.4%, P =0.048). Both groups improved significantly in Physical Component Score (control: P =0.013, SSI: P =0.039), Oswestry Disability Index (control: P <0.001, SSI: P =0.001), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back (both, P <0.001), and VAS Leg (control: P <0.001, SSI: P =0.030). Only the control group improved in Mental Component Score ( P <0.001 vs. SSI: P =0.228), but history of a SSI did not affect one-year improvement in ∆MCS-12 ( P =0.455) on regression analysis. VAS Leg improved significantly less in the infection group (-1.87 vs. -3.59, P =0.039), which was not significant after regression analysis (ß=1.75, P =0.050). CONCLUSION: Development of SSI after thoracolumbar fusion resulted in increased revision rates but did not influence patient improvement in one-year pain, functional disability, or physical and mental health status.
Asunto(s)
Fusión Vertebral , Adulto , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Calidad de Vida , Estudios Retrospectivos , Fusión Vertebral/efectos adversos , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/epidemiología , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/etiología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of surgically treated cervical myelopathy and lumbar pathology requiring fusion present complex challenges, and literature describing patient-reported outcomes in this cohort beyond patients with tandem spinal stenosis is sparse. This has led to unclear guidelines in the literature. We present the first dataset comparing patient-reported outcomes for lumbar fusion in patients with isolated lumbar pathology versus patients with a history of surgically treated cervical myelopathy. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected lumbar fusion database, variables of interest included demographics, comorbidities, type and levels of fusion, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: Of 325 patients identified, 309 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 29 patients had previous cervical surgery to address cervical myelopathy. Median time between cervical and lumbar surgery was 4.0 years (range, 0.3-19.7). There was no statistical difference in preoperative ODI score (24.8 vs. 25.6, P = 0.687), 6-month postoperative ODI score (17.3 vs. 18.7, P = 0.459), change in ODI score (7.5 vs. 6.9, P = 0.673), or minimal clinically important difference for ODI score (62.1% vs. 58.6%, P = 0.710) in patients who had undergone cervical surgery versus patients who had not. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of previously treated cervical myelopathy have a similar rate of clinically relevant improvement after lumbar fusion compared with patients without such history. As such, these patients appear to benefit from lumbar fusion surgery to the same degree as patients without a history of surgically treated cervical myelopathy.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades de la Médula Espinal , Humanos , Región Lumbosacra , Diferencia Mínima Clínicamente Importante , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Estudios Retrospectivos , Enfermedades de la Médula Espinal/cirugíaRESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of patients with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) with dysphagia who underwent cricopharyngeal myotomy (CPM) in conjunction with anterior osteophytectomy (OP). METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of 9 patients that received combined intervention by neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists. Inclusion criteria for surgery consisted of patients who failed to respond to conservative treatments for dysphagia and had evidence of both upper esophageal dysfunction and osteophyte compression. We present the largest series in literature to date including patients undergoing combined OP and CPM. RESULTS: A total of 88.9% (8/9) of the patients who underwent OP and CPM showed improvement in their symptoms. Of the aforementioned group, 22.2% of these patients had complete resolution of their symptoms, 11.1% did not improve, and only 2 patients showed recurrence of their symptoms. None of the patients in whom surgery was performed required reoperation or suffered serious complication related to the surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Based on the literature results, high rate of improvements in dysphagia, and low rate of complications, combined OP and CPM procedures may be beneficial to a carefully selected group of patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information regarding treatment strategies and variables affecting outcomes of revision lumbar fusions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of primary vs different surgeon on functional outcomes of revisions. METHODS: All elective lumbar fusion revisions, March 2018 to August 2019, were retrospectively categorized as performed by the same or different surgeon who performed the primary surgery. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and clinical variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression identified multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) of independent variables analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 130 cases, 117 (90%) had complete data. There was a slight difference in age in the same (median: 59; interquartile range [IQR], 54-66) and different surgeon (median: 67; IQR, 56-72) groups (P = .02); all other demographic variables were not significantly different (P > .05). Revision surgery with a different surgeon had an ODI improvement (median: 8; IQR, 2-14) greater than revisions performed by the same surgeon (median: 1.5; IQR, -3 to 10) (P < .01). Revisions who achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) performed by different surgeon (59.7%) were also significantly greater than the ones performed by the same surgeon (40%) (P = .042). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a different surgeon revising (OR, 2.37; [CI]: 1.007-5.575, P = .04) was an independent predictor of MCID achievement, each additional 2 years beyond the last surgery conferred a 2.38 ([CI]: 1.36-4.14, P < .01) times greater odds of MCID achievement, and the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach decreased the chance of achieving MCID (OR, 0.19; [CI]: 0.04-0.861, P = .03). CONCLUSION: All revision lumbar spinal fusion approaches may not achieve the same outcomes. This analysis suggests that revision surgeries may have better outcomes when performed by a different surgeon.
Asunto(s)
Fusión Vertebral , Cirujanos , Humanos , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The authors compared primary lumbar spine fusions with revision fusions by using patient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to evaluate the impact of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based medicine (EBM) lumbar fusion indications on patient-reported outcome measures of revision surgeries. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single quaternary spine surgery service and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. A prospective quality improvement database was constructed that included the data from all elective lumbar spine surgeries, which were categorized prospectively as primary or revision surgeries and EBM-concordant or EBM-discordant revision surgeries based on the NASS coverage EBM policy. In total, 309 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The ODIs of all groups (primary, revision, revision EBM concordant, and revision EBM discordant) were statistically compared. Differences in frequencies between cohorts were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. The unpaired 2-tailed Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric data were used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was performed to determine the associations between independent variables (surgery status and NASS criteria indications) and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Primary lumbar fusions were significantly associated with improved functional outcomes compared with revisions, as evidenced by ODI scores (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16-2.95 to achieve a minimal clinically important difference, p = 0.01). The percentage of patients whose functional status had declined at the 6-month postoperative evaluation was significantly higher in patients who had undergone a revision surgery than in those who underwent a primary surgery (23% vs 12.3%, respectively). An increase in ODI score, indicating worse clinical outcome after surgery, was greater in patients who underwent revision procedures (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.17-3.91, p = 0.0014). Patients who underwent EBM-concordant revision surgery had significantly improved mean ODI scores compared with those who underwent EBM-discordant revision surgery (7.02 ± 5.57 vs -4.6 ± 6.54, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective quality improvement program investigation illustrate that outcomes of primary lumbar fusions were superior to outcomes of revisions. However, revision procedures that met EBM guidelines were associated with greater improvements in ODI scores, which indicates that the use of defined EBM guideline criteria for reoperation can improve clinical outcomes of revision lumbar fusions.
Asunto(s)
Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Región Lumbosacra/cirugía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Evaluación de la Discapacidad , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos/efectos adversos , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Reoperación/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Fusión Vertebral/métodosRESUMEN
Incidental durotomies, or dural tears, can be very difficult and time consuming to repair properly when they are encountered in confined spaces. A novel dural repair device was developed to address these situations. In this paper, the novel device was assessed against the use of traditional tools and techniques for dural repairs in two independent studies using an intricate clinical simulation model. The aim was to examine the results of the two assessments and link the outcomes to the clinical use of the novel device in the operating room. The novel device outperformed conventional techniques as measured by dural repair time, CSF leak pressure and nerve root avoidance in the simulation. The results were generally replicable clinically, however, numerous additional clinical scenarios were also encountered that the simulation model was unable to capture due to various inherent limitations. The simulation model design, potential contributors to watertightness, clinical experiences, and limitation are discussed.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Instrumented fusion procedures are essential in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease to alleviate pain and improve neurological function, but they are being performed with increasing incidence and variability. We implemented a training module for neurosurgery residents that is based on evidence-based criteria for lumbar fusion surgery and measured its effectiveness in residents' decision making regarding whether patients should or should not undergo instrumented fusion. METHODS: The study design was a pretest versus posttest experiment conducted from September 2019 until July 2020 to measure improvement after formalized instruction on evidence-based guidelines. Neurosurgery residents of all training levels at our institution participated. A test was administered at the beginning of each academic year. The highest possible score was 18 points in each pretest and posttest. RESULTS: There was a general trend of test score improvement across all levels of training with a greater degree of change for participants with lower compared with higher pretest scores, indicating a possible ceiling effect. Paired t test demonstrated an overall mean score increase of 2 points (P < 0.0001), equivalent to an 11.11% increase (P < 0.0001). Stratified by training group, mean absolute change in test score was 2 (P = 0.0217), 1.67 (P = 0.0108), and 2.25 (P = 0.0173) points for junior, midlevel, and senior training groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating a targeted evidence-based learning module for lumbar spine fusion surgery can improve neurosurgery residents' clinical decision making toward a more uniform practice supported by published data.