Patterns in Decompression and Fusion Procedures for Patients With Lumbar Stenosis After Major Clinical Trial Results, 2016 to 2019.

Importance: Use of lumbar fusion has increased substantially over the last 2 decades. For patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, 2 landmark prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2016 did not find clear evidence in favor of decompression with fusion over decompression alone in this population. Objective: To assess the national use of decompression with fusion vs decompression alone for the surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis from 2016 to 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 121 745 hospitalized adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing 1-level decompression alone or decompression with fusion for the management of lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. All data were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Analyses were conducted, reviewed, or updated on June 9, 2023. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome of this study was the use of decompression with fusion vs decompression alone. For the secondary outcome, multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate factors associated with the decision to perform decompression with fusion vs decompression alone. Results: Among 121 745 eligible hospitalized patients (mean age, 65.2 years [95% CI, 65.0-65.4 years]; 96 645 of 117 640 [82.2%] non-Hispanic White) with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, 21 230 (17.4%) underwent decompression alone, and 100 515 (82.6%) underwent decompression with fusion. The proportion of patients undergoing decompression alone decreased from 2016 (7625 of 23 405 [32.6%]) to 2019 (3560 of 37 215 [9.6%]), whereas the proportion of patients undergoing decompression with fusion increased over the same period (from 15 780 of 23 405 [67.4%] in 2016 to 33 655 of 37 215 [90.4%] in 2019). In univariable analysis, patients undergoing decompression alone differed significantly from those undergoing decompression with fusion with regard to age (mean, 68.6 years [95% CI, 68.2-68.9 years] vs 64.5 years [95% CI, 64.3-64.7 years]; P < .001), insurance status (eg, Medicare: 13 725 of 21 205 [64.7%] vs 53 320 of 100 420 [53.1%]; P < .001), All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group risk of death (eg, minor risk: 16 900 [79.6%] vs 83 730 [83.3%]; P < .001), and hospital region of the country (eg, South: 7030 [33.1%] vs 38 905 [38.7%]; Midwest: 4470 [21.1%] vs 23 360 [23.2%]; P < .001 for both comparisons). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.96 per year; 95% CI, 0.95-0.96 per year), year after 2016 (AOR, 1.76 per year; 95% CI, 1.69-1.85 per year), self-pay insurance status (AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95), medium hospital size (AOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.89), large hospital size (AOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86), and highest median income quartile by patient residence zip code (AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89) were associated with lower odds of undergoing decompression with fusion. Conversely, hospital region in the Midwest (AOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14-1.57) or South (AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54) was associated with higher odds of undergoing decompression with fusion. Decompression with fusion vs decompression alone was associated with longer length of stay (mean, 2.96 days [95% CI, 2.92-3.01 days] vs 2.55 days [95% CI, 2.49-2.62 days]; P < .001), higher total admission costs (mean, $30 288 [95% CI, $29 386-$31 189] vs $16 190 [95% CI, $15 189-$17 191]; P < .001), and higher total admission charges (mean, $121 892 [95% CI, $119 566-$124 219] vs $82 197 [95% CI, $79 745-$84 648]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, despite 2 prospective RCTs that demonstrated the noninferiority of decompression alone compared with decompression with fusion, use of decompression with fusion relative to decompression alone increased from 2016 to 2019. A variety of patient- and hospital-level factors were associated with surgical procedure choice. These results suggest the findings of 2 major RCTs have not yet produced changes in surgical practice patterns and deserve renewed focus.

Time of Discharge and 30-Day Re-Presentation to an Acute Care Setting After Elective Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the consequence of efforts to increase patient throughput and decrease length of stay in the context of elective spine surgery is limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early time of discharge results in increased rates of hospital readmission or return to emergency department for patients admitted after elective, posterior, lumbar decompression surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 779 patients admitted to hospital after undergoing elective, posterior, lumbar decompression surgery. Multiple logistic regression evaluated the relationship between time of discharge and the primary outcome of return to acute care within 30 days, while controlling for sociodemographic, procedural, and discharge characteristics. RESULTS: In multiple logistic regression, time of discharge earlier in the day was not associated with increased odds of return to acute care within 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI 0.92-1.52, P = .19). Weekend discharge (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.04-3.79, P = .04) increased the likelihood of return to acute care. Surgeon experience (<1 year of attending practice, OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-1.00, P = .05 and 2-5 years of attending practice, OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-1.01, P = .054), weekend discharge (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89, P = .02), and physical therapy evaluation (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.33, P < .001) decreased the likelihood of discharge before noon. CONCLUSION: Time of discharge is not associated with risk of readmission or presentation to the emergency department after elective lumbar decompression. Weekend discharge is independently associated with increased risk of readmission and decreased likelihood of prenoon discharge.

Neighborhood-level socioeconomic status, extended length of stay, and discharge disposition following elective lumbar spine surgery.

Background: In the context of increased attention afforded to hospital efficiency and improved but safe patient throughput, decreasing unnecessary hospital length of stay (LOS) is imperative. Given that lumbar spine procedures may be among a hospital's most profitable services, identifying patients at risk of increased healthcare resource utilization prior to surgery is a valuable opportunity to develop targeted pre- and peri-operative intervention and quality improvement initiatives. The purpose of the present investigation was to examine patient factors that predict prolonged LOS as well as discharge disposition following elective, posterior, lumbar spine surgery. Methods: We employed a retrospective cohort analysis on 779 consecutive patients treated with lumbar surgery without fusion. Our primary outcome measures were extended LOS (three or more midnights) and discharge disposition. Patient sociodemographic, procedural, and discharge characteristics were adjusted for in our analysis. Sociodemographic variables included Area of Deprivation Index (ADI), a comprehensive metric of socioeconomic status, utilizing income, education, employment, and housing quality based on patient zip code. Multivariable logistic regression and ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to assess whether covariates were independently predictive of extended LOS and discharge disposition, respectively. Results: 779 patients were studied, with a median age of 66 years (±15) and a median LOS of 1 midnight (range, 1-10 midnights). Patients in the most disadvantaged ADI quintile (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 2.48 95% CI 1.15-5.47), those who underwent a minimally-invasive or tubular retractor surgery (aOR 3.03 95% CI 1.02-8.56), those who had an intra-operative drain placed (aOR 4.46 95% CI 2.53-7.26), who had a cerebrospinal fluid leak (aOR 3.46 95% CI 1.55-7.58), who were discharged anywhere but home (aOR 17.11 95% CI 9.24-33.00), and those who were evaluated by physical therapy (aOR 7.23 95% CI 2.13-45.30) or OT (aOR 2.20 95% CI 1.13-4.22) had a significantly increased chance of an extended LOS. Preoperative opioid use was not associated with an increased LOS following surgery (aOR 1.12 95% CI 0.56-1.46). Extended LOS was not associated with post-discharge emergency department representation or unplanned readmission within 90 days following discharge (p=0.148). Patients who were older (aOR 1.99 95% CI 1.62-2.48), in higher quintiles on ADI (3rd quintile; aOR 1.90 95% CI 1.12-3.23, 4th quintile; aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.05-3.05, 5th quintile; aOR 2.16 95% CI 1.26-3.75), who had a CSF leak (aOR 2.18 95% CI 1.22-3.86), or who had a longer procedure duration (aOR 1.38 95% CI 1.17-1.62) were more likely to require additional services or be sent to a subacute facility upon discharge. Conclusions: Patient sociodemographics, along with procedural factors, and discharge disposition were all associated with an increased likelihood of prolonged LOS and resource intensive discharges following elective lumbar spine surgery. Several of these factors could be reliably identified pre-operatively and may be amenable to targeted preoperative intervention. Improving discharge disposition planning in the peri-operative period may allow for more efficient use of hospitalization and inpatient and post-acute resources.

Neighborhood-Level Socioeconomic Status Predicts Extended Length of Stay After Elective Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: A significant portion of health care spending is driven by a small percentage of the overall population. Understanding risk factors predisposing patients to disproportionate use of health care resources is critical. Our objective was to identify risk factors leading to a prolonged length of stay (LOS) after cervical spine surgery. METHODS: A single-center cohort analysis was performed on patients who underwent elective anterior spine surgery from 2015 to 2021. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated the effects of sociodemographic factors including Area of Deprivation Index (quantifies income, education, employment, and housing quality), procedural, and discharge characteristics on postoperative LOS. Extended LOS was defined as greater than the 90th percentile in midnights for the study population (≥3 midnights). RESULTS: A total of 686 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 57 years (range, 26-92 years), median of 1 level (1-4) fused, and median LOS of 1 midnight (interquartile range, 1-2). After adjusting for confounders, patients had increased odds of extended LOS if they were highly disadvantaged on the Area of Deprivation Index (odds ratio [OR], 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-4.82; P = 0.039); had surgery on Thursday or Friday (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.01-3.72; P = 0.046); had a corpectomy performed (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.26-6.28; P = 0.012); or discharged not to home (OR, 8.24; 95% CI, 2.88-23.56; P < 0.001). Patients with extended LOS were more likely to present to the emergency department or be readmitted within 30 days after discharge (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for potential cofounders, patients most disadvantaged on Area of Deprivation Index were more likely to have an extended LOS.

Influence of Time of Discharge and Length of Stay on 30-Day Outcomes After Elective Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Encouraging early time of discharge (TOD) for medical inpatients is commonplace and may potentially improve patient throughput. It is unclear, however, whether early TOD after elective spine surgery achieves this goal without a consequent increase in re-presentations to the hospital. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early TOD results in increased rates of hospital readmission or return to the emergency department after elective anterior cervical spine surgery. METHODS: We analyzed 686 patients who underwent elective uncomplicated anterior cervical spine surgery at a single institution. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between sociodemographic, procedural, and discharge characteristics, and the outcomes of readmission or return to the emergency department and TOD. RESULTS: In multiple logistic regression, TOD was not associated with increased risk of readmission or return to the emergency department within 30 days of surgery. Weekend discharge (odds ratio [OR] 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.53), physical therapy evaluation (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.71), and occupational therapy evaluation (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17-0.63) were all significantly associated with decreased odds of discharge before noon. Disadvantaged status, as measured by area of deprivation index, was associated with increased odds of readmission or re-presentation (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.95-3.66), although this result did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSION: There does not appear to be an association between readmission or return to the emergency department and early TOD after elective spine surgery. Overuse of inpatient physical and occupational therapy consultations may contribute to decreased patient throughput in surgical admissions.