Complication rate of overlapping versus nonoverlapping functional and stereotactic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Overlapping surgery, in which one attending surgeon manages two overlapping operating rooms (ORs) and is present for all the critical portions of each procedure, is an important policy that improves healthcare access for patients and case volumes for surgeons and surgical trainees. Despite several studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of overlapping neurosurgical operations, the practice of overlapping surgery remains controversial. To date, there are no studies that have investigated long-term complication rates of overlapping functional and stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the 1-year complication rates and OR times for nonoverlapping versus overlapping functional procedures. The secondary objective was to gain insight into what types of complications are the most prevalent and test for differences between groups. METHODS: Seven hundred eighty-three functional neurosurgical cases were divided into two cohorts, nonoverlapping (n = 342) and overlapping (n = 441). The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scale score was used to compare the preoperative risk for both cohorts. A complication was defined as any surgically related reason that required readmission, reoperation, or an unplanned emergency department or clinic visit that required intervention. Complications were subdivided into infectious and noninfectious. Chi-square tests, independent-samples t-tests, and uni- and multivariable logistic regressions were used to determine significance. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean ASA scale score (2.7 ± 0.6 for both groups, p = 0.997) or overall complication rates (8.8% nonoverlapping vs 9.8% overlapping, p = 0.641) between the two cohorts. Infections accounted for the highest percentage of complications in both cohorts (46.6% vs 41.8%, p = 0.686). There were no statistically significant differences between mean in-room OR time (187.5 ± 141.7 minutes vs 197.1 ± 153.0 minutes, p = 0.373) or mean open-to-close time (112.2 ± 107.9 minutes vs 121.0 ± 123.1 minutes, p = 0.300) between nonoverlapping and overlapping cases. CONCLUSIONS: There was no increased risk of 1-year complications or increased OR time for overlapping functional and stereotactic neurosurgical procedures compared with nonoverlapping procedures.

Telemedicine in Spine Surgery: Outcomes for 138 Patients With Virtual Preoperative Assessment Compared to Historical Controls.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has accelerated the use of telemedicine in all aspects of health care delivery, including initial surgical evaluation. No existing literature investigates the safety and efficacy of telemedicine to preoperatively evaluate spine surgery candidates. Our objectives were: (1) Compare the change in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores between the telemedicine preoperative visit and in-person preoperative visit groups. (2) Compare the average surgical time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), rates of intraoperative complications, rates of readmission, and rates of reoperation between the telemedicine preoperative visit and in-person preoperative visit groups. METHODS: The previously stated metrics were collected for 276 patients, 138 who were exclusively evaluated preoperatively with telemedicine and 138 historical controls who were evaluated preoperatively in person. We used χ2 and independent samples t tests to determine significance. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the mean change in VAS scores (-2.7 ± 3.1 telemedicine vs. -2.2 ± 3.7 in-person, P = 0.317), mean percentage change in VAS scores (-40.5% ± 54.3% vs. -39.5% ± 66.6%, P = 0.811), mean surgical time (2.4 ± 1.4 hours vs. 2.3 ± 1.3 ours, P = 0.527), mean EBL (150.4 ± 173.3 mL vs. 156.7 ± 255.0 mL, P = 0.811), mean LOS (3.3 ± 2.4 days vs. 3.3 ± 2.5 days, P = 0.954), intraoperative complication rates (0.7% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.558), reoperation rates (7.9% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.208), or readmission rates (10.1% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.091) between the telemedicine preoperative visit and in-person preoperative visit groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative evaluation via telemedicine leads to the same short-term surgical outcomes as in-person evaluation with no increased risk of surgical complications.