The impact of elective surgery restrictions during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic on shoulder and elbow surgery: patient perceptions.

BACKGROUND: In late 2019 and early 2020, a novel coronavirus, COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), spread across the world, creating a global pandemic. In the state of Pennsylvania, non-emergent, elective operations were temporarily delayed from proceeding with the normal standard of care. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of patients who required prescription pain medication during the surgical delay. Secondarily, we sought to determine the proportion of patients who perceived their surgical procedure as non-elective and to evaluate how symptoms were managed during the delay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single institutional database was used to retrospectively identify all shoulder and elbow surgical procedures scheduled between March 13 and May 6, 2020. Charts were manually reviewed. Patients who underwent non-shoulder and elbow-related procedures and patients treated by surgeons outside of Pennsylvania were excluded. Patients whose surgical procedures were postponed or canceled were administered a survey evaluating how symptoms were managed and perceptions regarding the delay. Preoperative functional scores were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to determine associations between procedure status, preoperative functional scores, perception of surgery, and requirement for prescription pain medication. RESULTS: A total of 338 patients were scheduled to undergo shoulder and elbow surgery in our practice in Pennsylvania. Surgery was performed as initially scheduled in 89 of these patients (26.3%), whereas surgery was postponed in 179 (71.9%) and canceled in 70 (28.1%). The average delay in surgery was 86.7 days (range, 13-299 days). Responses to the survey were received from 176 patients (70.7%) in whom surgery was postponed or canceled. During the delay, 39 patients (22.2%) required prescription pain medication. The surgical procedure was considered elective in nature by 73 patients (41%). One hundred thirty-seven patients (78%) would have moved forward with surgery if performed safely under appropriate medical guidelines. Lower preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (r = -0.36, P < .001) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores (r = -0.26, P = .016) and higher preoperative visual analog scale scores (r = 0.28, P = .009) were correlated with requiring prescription pain medication. Higher preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were positively correlated with perception of surgery as elective (r = 0.4, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing elective shoulder and elbow surgical procedures during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic experienced a delay of nearly 3 months on average. Fewer than half of patients perceived their surgical procedures as elective procedures. Nearly one-quarter of patients surveyed required extra prescription pain medicine during the delay. This study elucidates the fact that although orthopedic shoulder and elbow surgery is generally considered "elective," it is more important to a majority of patients. These findings may also be applicable to future potential mandated surgical care delays by other third-party organizations.

Modified Frailty Index Does Not Provide Additional Value in Predicting Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Elective Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive value of the modified Frailty Index (mFI) in evaluating sarcopenia and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing 1-level or 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS: Patients who underwent a 1-level or 2-level TLIF between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively identified. Frailty was compared among groups using mFI, and sarcopenia was classified by the psoas muscle cross-sectional area. Bivariate statistics compared demographics, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes. A linear regression model was developed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) or mFI as independent variables to determine potential predictors for improvement in 1-year patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of 488 included patients, 60 were severely frail and 60 patients had sarcopenia, but sarcopenia was not associated with patient frailty (P = 0.469). Severely frail patients had worse baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (P < 0.001), Mental Component Score-12 (P = 0.001), and Physical Component Score-12 (P < 0.001), and worse improvement in ODI (P = 0.037), Physical Component Score-12 (P < 0.001), and visual analog scale (VAS) back (P = 0.007). mFI was an independent predictor of poorer improvement in VAS back and ODI, whereas age + CCI in addition predicted poorer improvement in VAS leg. Patients with higher mFI experienced longer length of stay, less frequent home discharge, and higher rates of complications, but similar readmission and reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Frailer patients experience poorer improvement in back pain, physical functioning, and disability after TLIF. mFI and the combination of age and CCI comparably predict patient-reported outcomes but do not correlate to baseline sarcopenia. Frailty increased the risk of complications, length of hospital stay, and risk of nonhome discharge.

Effect of Fellow Involvement and Experience on Patient Outcomes in Spine Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Investigations in spine surgery have demonstrated that trainee involvement correlates with increased surgical time, readmissions, and revision surgeries; however, the specific effects of spine fellow involvement remain unelucidated. This study aims to investigate the isolated effect of fellow involvement on surgical timing and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) after spine surgery and evaluate how surgical outcomes differ by fellow experience. METHODS: All patients aged 18 years or older who underwent primary or revision decompression or fusion for degenerative diseases and/or spinal deformity between 2017 and 2019 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics, surgical factors, intraoperative timing, transfusion status, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, revision rate, and preoperative and postoperative PROMs were recorded. Surgeries were divided based on spine fellow participation status and occurrence in the start or end of fellowship training. Univariate and multivariate analyses compared outcomes across fellow involvement and fellow experience groups. RESULTS: A total of 1,108 patients were included. Age, preoperative diagnoses, number of fusion levels, and surgical approach differed markedly by fellow involvement. Fellow training experience groups differed by patient smoking status, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical approach. On univariate analysis, spine fellow involvement was associated with extended total theater time, induction start to cut time, cut to close time, and LOS. Increased spine fellow training was associated with reduced cut to close time and LOS. On regression, fellow involvement predicted cut to close extension while increased fellow training experience predicted reduction in cut to close time, both independent of surgical factors and assisting residents or physician assistants. Transfusions, readmissions, revision rate, and PROMs did not differ markedly by fellow involvement or experience. CONCLUSION: Spine fellow participation predicted extended procedural duration. However, the presence of a spine fellow did not affect long-term postoperative outcomes. Furthermore, increased fellow training experience predicted decreased procedural time, underscoring a learning effect. AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIAL: The data sets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

The impact of case order and intraoperative staff changes on spine surgical efficiency.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite concerted efforts toward quality improvement in high-volume spine surgery, there remains concern that increases in case load may compromise the efficient and safe delivery of surgical care. There is a paucity of evidence to describe the effects of spine case order and operating room (OR) team structure on measures of intraoperative timing and OR efficiency. PURPOSE: This study aims to determine if intraoperative staff changes and surgical case order independently predict extensions in intraoperative timing after spinal surgery for spondylotic diseases. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Retrospective cohort analysis PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients over age 18 who underwent primary or revision decompression and/or fusion for degenerative spinal diseases between 2017 to 2019 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Exclusion criteria included absence of descriptive data and intraoperative timing parameters as well as surgery for traumatic injury, infection, and malignancy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraoperative timing metrics including total theater time, wheels in to induction, induction start to cut, cut to close, and close to wheels out. Postoperative outcomes included length of hospital stay and 90-day hospital readmissions. METHODS: Surgical case order and intraoperative changes in staff (circulator and surgical scrub nurse or technician) were determined. Patient demographics, surgical factors, intraoperative timing and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Extensions in each operative stage were determined as a ratio of the actual duration of the parameter divided by the predicted duration of the parameter. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare outcomes within case order and staff change groups. RESULTS: A total of 1,108 patients met the inclusion criteria. First, second, and third start cases differed significantly in intraoperative extensions of total theater time, wheels in to induction, induction start to cut, cut to close, and close to wheels out. On regression, decreasing case order predicted extension in wheels in to induction time. Surgeries with intraoperative staff changes were associated with increases in total theater time, induction start to cut time, cut to close time, close to wheels out time, and length of hospital stay. Switch in primary circulator predicted extended theater time and cut to close time. Relief of primary circulator or scrub predicted extended total theater time, induction start to cut time, cut to close time, and close to wheels out time. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative staff change in spine surgery independently predicted extended operative duration. However, higher case order was not significantly associated with procedural time.