Limited English proficiency, cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular risk factors and history of cardiovascular disease are associated with greater morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Limited English proficiency (LEP) has also been associated with worse outcomes in this setting, including requiring intensive care unit (ICU) level of care and in-hospital death. Whether non-English-language preference (NELP) modifies the association between cardiovascular risk factors or disease and outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to a large New England health system between March 1 and December 31, 2020, who tested positive for COVID-19. NELP was defined as having a preferred language that was not English noted in the electronic health record. METHODS: Cardiovascular risk factors, history of cardiovascular disease, and NELP were related to the primary composite clinical outcome-death or ICU admission-using multivariable binary logistic regression adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics. Interaction terms for NELP and model covariates were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 3582 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1024 (28.6%) had NELP; 812 (79.3%) of the patients with NELP received interpreter services. Death or ICU admission occurred in 794 (22.2%) of the hospitalized patients. NELP was not significantly associated with the primary composite outcome in unadjusted or adjusted analyses. In the adjusted analyses, only male gender, coronary artery disease, pulmonary circulatory disease, and liver disease significantly predicted the primary outcome. NELP did not modify the effect of these associations. CONCLUSIONS: NELP was not significantly associated with odds of death or ICU admission, nor did it modify the association between cardiovascular risk factors or history of cardiovascular disease and this composite outcome. Because most patients with NELP received interpreter services, these findings may support the role of such services in ensuring equitable outcomes.

The impact of anxiety and depression on lumbar spine surgical outcomes: a Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: The presence of depression and anxiety has been associated with negative outcomes in spine surgery patients. While it seems evident that a history of depression or anxiety can negatively influence outcome, the exact additive effect of both has not been extensively studied in a multicenter trial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between a patient's history of anxiety and depression and their patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after lumbar surgery. METHODS: Patients in the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry undergoing lumbar spine surgery between July 2016 and December 2021 were grouped into four cohorts: those with a history of anxiety only, those with a history of depression only, those with both, and those with neither. Primary outcomes were achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function 4-item Short Form (PROMIS PF), EQ-5D, and numeric rating scale (NRS) back pain and leg pain, and North American Spine Society patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection, hospital readmission, and return to the operating room. Multivariate Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to report incidence rate ratios (IRRs) from patient baseline variables. RESULTS: Of the 45,565 patients identified, 3941 reported a history of anxiety, 5017 reported a history of depression, 9570 reported both, and 27,037 reported neither. Compared with those who reported having neither, patients with both anxiety and depression had lower patient satisfaction at 90 days (p = 0.002) and 1 year (p = 0.021); PROMIS PF MCID at 90 days (p < 0.001), 1 year (p < 0.001), and 2 years (p = 0.006); EQ-5D MCID at 90 days (p < 0.001), 1 year (p < 0.001), and 2 years (p < 0.001); NRS back pain MCID at 90 days (p < 0.001) and 1 year (p < 0.001); and NRS leg pain MCID at 90 days (p < 0.001), 1 year (p = 0.024), and 2 years (p = 0.027). Patients with anxiety only (p < 0.001), depression only (p < 0.001), or both (p < 0.001) were more likely to be readmitted within 90 days. Additionally, patients with anxiety only (p = 0.015) and both anxiety and depression (p = 0.015) had higher rates of surgical site infection. Patients with anxiety only (p = 0.006) and depression only (p = 0.021) also had higher rates of return to the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: The authors observed an association between a history of anxiety and depression and negative outcome after lumbar spine surgery. In addition, they found an additive effect of a history of both anxiety and depression with an increased risk of negative outcome when compared with either anxiety or depression alone.

Risk factors of emergency department visits following elective cervical and lumbar surgical procedures: a multi-institution analysis from the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency department visits 90 days after elective spinal surgery are relatively common, with rates ranging from 9% to 29%. Emergency visits are very costly, so their reduction is of importance. This study's objective was to evaluate the reasons for emergency department visits and determine potentially modifiable risk factors. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed data queried from the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) registry from July 2020 to November 2021. MSSIC is a multicenter (28-hospital) registry of patients undergoing cervical and lumbar degenerative spinal surgery. Adult patients treated for elective cervical and/or lumbar spine surgery for degenerative pathology (spondylosis, intervertebral disc disease, low-grade spondylolisthesis) were included. Emergency department visits within 90 days of surgery (outcome measure) were analyzed utilizing univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 16,224 patients, 2024 (12.5%) presented to the emergency department during the study period, most commonly for pain related to spinal surgery (31.5%), abdominal problems (15.8%), and pain unrelated to the spinal surgery (12.8%). On multivariate analysis, age (per 5-year increase) (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.92-0.95), college education (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.96), private insurance (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.89), and preoperative ambulation status (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.97) were associated with decreased emergency visits. Conversely, Black race (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13-1.51), current diabetes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26), history of deep venous thromboembolism (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.16-1.43), history of depression (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), history of anxiety (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.19-1.46), history of osteoporosis (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.34), history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.34), American Society of Anesthesiologists class > II (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08-1.29), and length of stay > 3 days (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16-1.44) were associated with increased emergency visits. CONCLUSIONS: The most common reasons for emergency department visits were surgical pain, abdominal dysfunction, and pain unrelated to index spinal surgery. Increased focus on postoperative pain management and bowel regimen can potentially reduce emergency visits. The risks of diabetes, history of osteoporosis, depression, and anxiety are areas for additional preoperative screening.

Does Tighter Glycemic Control Beyond Hemoglobin A1c of 8% Improve Outcome for Lumbar Spine Surgery? A MSSIC Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risk of postoperative adverse outcomes. Previous studies have emphasized the role of glycemic control in postoperative complications. This study aims to ascertain whether controlling hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) lower than 8% preoperatively results in meaningful risk reduction or improved outcomes. METHODS: We used patient-level data from the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry, focusing on patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery between 2018 and 2021. The primary outcomes were length of stay and the occurrence of postoperative adverse events. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, achievement of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function, the EuroQol-5D and NRS of leg and back pain, and return to work. RESULTS: A total of 11 348 patients were included in this analysis. Patients with HbA1c above the thresholds before surgery had significantly higher risks of urinary retention for all 3 possible threshold values (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.30, P = .015; IRR = 1.35, P = .001; IRR = 1.25, P = .011 for the HbA1c cutoffs of 8%, 7.5%, and 7%, respectively). They also had longer hospital stay (IRR = 1.04, P = .002; IRR = 1.03, P = .001; IRR = 1.03, P < .001 for the HbA1c cutoffs of 8%, 7.5%, and 7%, respectively) and had higher risks of developing any complication with HbA1c cutoff of 7.5% (IRR = 1.09, P = .010) and 7% (IRR = 1.12, P = .001). Diabetics with preoperative HbA1c above all 3 thresholds were less likely to achieve Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System MCID at the 90-day follow-up (IRR = .81, P < .001; IRR = .86, P < .001; IRR = .90, P = .007 for the HbA1c cutoffs of 8%, 7.5%, and 7%, respectively) and less likely to achieve EuroQol-5D MCID at the 2-year follow-up (IRR = .87, P = .027; IRR = .84, P = .005 for the HbA1c cutoffs of 7.5% and 7%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that reducing HbA1c below 8% may have diminishing returns regarding reducing complications after spine surgery.

Risk factors for not reaching minimal clinically important difference at 90 days and 1 year after elective lumbar spine surgery: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-perceived functional improvement is a core metric in lumbar surgery for degenerative disease. It is important to identify both modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors that can be evaluated and possibly optimized prior to elective surgery. This case-control study was designed to study risk factors for not achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Function 4-item Short Form (PROMIS PF) score. METHODS: The authors queried the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database to identify patients who underwent elective lumbar surgical procedures with PROMIS PF scores. Cases were divided into two cohorts based on whether patients achieved MCID at 90 days and 1 year after surgery. Patient characteristics and operative details were analyzed as potential risk factors. RESULTS: The authors captured 10,922 patients for 90-day follow-up and 4453 patients (40.8%) did not reach MCID. At the 1-year follow-up period, 7780 patients were identified and 2941 patients (37.8%) did not achieve MCID. The significant demographic characteristic-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for both groups (RR 90 day, RR 1 year) included the following: symptom duration > 1 year (1.34, 1.41); previous spine surgery (1.25, 1.30); African American descent (1.25, 1.20); chronic opiate use (1.23, 1.25); and less than high school education (1.20, 1.34). Independent ambulatory status (0.83, 0.88) and private insurance (0.91, 0.85) were associated with higher likelihood of reaching MCID at 90 days and 1 year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Several key unique demographic risk factors were identified in this cohort study that precluded optimal postoperative functional outcomes after elective lumbar spine surgery. With this information, appropriate preoperative counseling can be administered to assist in shaping patient expectations.

Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: an analysis of the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative Database.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are established surgical options for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy, and cervical degenerative disc disease. However, current literature does not demonstrate a clear superiority between ACDF and CDA. PURPOSE: To investigate procedural and patient-reported outcomes of ACDF and CDA among patients included in the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) database. DESIGN: Retrospective study of prospectively collected outcomes registry data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Individuals within the MSSIC database presenting with radiculopathy, myelopathy, or cervical spondylosis refractory to typical conservative care undergoing primary ACDF or CDA from January 4, 2016, to November 5, 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative measures (including surgery length, length of stay, return to OR, any complications), patient-reported functional outcomes at 2-year follow-up (including return to work, patient satisfaction, PROMIS, EQ-5D, mJOA). METHODS: Patients undergoing ACDF were matched 4:1 with those undergoing CDA; propensity analysis performed on operative levels (1- and 2- level procedures), presenting condition, demographics, and comorbidities. Initial comparisons performed with univariate testing and multivariate analysis performed with Poisson generalized estimating equation models clustering on hospital. RESULTS: A total of 2,208 patients with ACDF and 552 patients with CDA were included. Baseline demographics were similar, with younger patients undergoing CDA (45.6 vs 48.6 years; p<.001). Myelopathy was more frequent in ACDF patients (30% vs 25%; p=.015). CDA was more frequently planned as an outpatient procedure. Length of stay was increased in ACDF (1.3 vs 1.0 days; p<.001). Functional outcomes were similar, with comparable proportions of patients meeting minimal clinically important difference thresholds in neck pain, arm pain, PROMIS, EQ-5D, and mJOA score. After multivariate regression, no significant differences were seen in surgical or functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates similar outcomes for those undergoing ACDF and CDA at 2 years. Previous meta-analyses of CDA clinical trial data adhere to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria required by clinical studies; this registry data provides "real world" clinical outcomes reflecting current practices for ACDF and CDA patient selection.

The Duration of Symptoms Influences Outcomes After Lumbar Microdiscectomies: A Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: We investigate whether duration of symptoms a patient experiences prior to lumbar microdiscectomy affects pain, lifestyle, and return to work metrics after surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with a diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy undergoing microdiscectomy was conducted using a statewide registry. Patients were grouped based on self-reported duration of symptoms prior to surgical intervention (Group 1: symptoms less than 3 months; Group 2: symptoms between 3 months and 1 year; and Group 3: symptoms greater than 1 year). Radicular pain scores, PROMIS PF Physical Function measure (PROMIS PF), EQ-5D scores, and return to work rates at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: There were 2408 patients who underwent microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation for radiculopathy with 532, 910, and 955 in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Postoperative leg pain was lower for Group 1 at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years compared to Groups 2 and 3 (P < .05). Postoperative PROMIS PF and EQ-5D scores were higher for Group 1 at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years compared to Groups 2 and 3 (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Patients with prolonged symptoms prior to surgical intervention experience smaller improvements in postoperative leg pain, PROMIS PF, and EQ-5D than those who undergo surgery earlier. Patients undergoing surgery within 3 months of symptom onset have the highest rates of return to work at 1 year after surgery.

Association of prolonged symptom duration with poor outcomes in lumbar spine surgery: a Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: There is a scarcity of large multicenter data on how preoperative lumbar symptom duration relates to postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The objective of this study was to determine the effect of preoperative and baseline symptom duration on PROs at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years after lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry was queried for all lumbar spine operations between January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021, with a follow-up of 2 years. Patients were stratified into three subgroups based on symptom duration: < 3 months, 3 months to < 1 year, and ≥ 1 year. The primary outcomes were reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the PROs (i.e., leg pain, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF), EQ-5D, North American Spine Society satisfaction, and return to work). The EQ-5D score was also analyzed as a continuous variable to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Multivariable Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to report adjusted risk ratios, with the < 3-month cohort used as the reference. RESULTS: There were 37,223 patients (4670 with < 3-month duration, 9356 with 3-month to < 1-year duration, and 23,197 with ≥ 1-year duration) available for analysis. Compared with patients with a symptom duration of < 1 year, patients with a symptom duration of ≥ 1 year were significantly less likely to achieve an MCID in PROMIS PF, EQ-5D, back pain relief, and leg pain relief at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Similar trends were observed for patient satisfaction and return to work. With the EQ-5D score as a continuous variable, a symptom duration of ≥ 1 year was associated with 0.04, 0.05, and 0.03 (p < 0.001) decreases in EQ-5D score at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A symptom duration of ≥ 1 year was associated with poorer outcomes on several outcome metrics. This suggests that timely referral and surgery for degenerative lumbar pathology may optimize patient outcome.

The Potential Negative Effects of Smoking on Cervical and Lumbar Surgery Beyond Pseudarthrosis: A Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To review the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry to investigate the long-term associations between current smoking status and outcomes after elective cervical and lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Using the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative, we captured all cases from January 1, 2017, to November 21, 2020, with outcomes data available; 19,251 lumbar cases and 7936 cervical cases were included. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship of smoking with the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Current smoking status was associated with lower urinary retention and satisfaction for patients after lumbar surgery and was associated with less likelihood of achieving minimal clinically important difference in primary outcome measures including Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, back pain, leg pain, and EuroQol-5D at 90 days and 1 year after surgery. Current smokers were also less likely to return to work at 90 days and 1 year after surgery. Among patients who underwent cervical surgery, current smokers were less likely to have urinary retention and dysphagia postoperatively. They were less likely to be satisfied with the surgery outcome at 1 year. Current smoking was associated with lower likelihood of achieving minimal clinically important difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, neck pain, arm pain, and EuroQol-5D at various time points. There was no difference in return-to-work status. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that smoking is negatively associated with functional improvement, patient satisfaction, and return-to-work after elective spine surgery.

Correlation of mJOA, PROMIS physical function, and patient satisfaction in patients with cervical myelopathy: an analysis of the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) database.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly utilized to evaluate the efficacy and value of spinal procedures. Among patients with cervical myelopathy, the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) remains the standard instrument, with Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) and patient satisfaction also frequently assessed. These outcomes have not all been directly compared using a large spine registry at 2 years follow-up for cervical myelopathic patients undergoing surgery. PURPOSE: To determine the correlation and association of PROMIS PF, mJOA, and patient satisfaction outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for cervical myelopathy. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a multicenter spine registry database. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with cervical myelopathy who underwent cervical spine surgery between 2/26/2018 and 4/17/2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMIS PF, mJOA, and North American Spine Society (NASS) patient satisfaction index. METHODS: The MSSIC database was accessed to gather pre- and postoperative outcome data on patients with cervical myelopathy. Spearman's correlation coefficients relating mJOA and PROMIS PF were quantified up to 2 years postoperatively. The correlations between patient satisfaction with mJOA and PROMIS were determined. Kappa statistics were used to evaluate for agreement between those reaching the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for mJOA and PROMIS PF. Odds ratios were calculated to determine the association between patient satisfaction and those reaching MCID for mJOA and PROMIS PF. Support for MSSIC is provided by BCBSM and Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships program. RESULTS: Data from 2,023 patients were included. Moderate to strong correlations were found between mJOA and PROMIS PF at all time points (p<.001). These outcomes had fair agreement at all postoperative time points when comparing those who reached MCID. Satisfaction was strongly related to changes from baseline for both mJOA and PROMIS PF at all time points (p<.001). Odds ratios associating satisfaction with PROMIS PF MCID were higher at all time points compared with mJOA, although the differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS PF has a strong positive correlation with mJOA up to 2 years postoperatively in patients undergoing surgery for cervical myelopathy, with similar odds of achieving MCID with both instruments. Patient satisfaction is predicted similarly by these outcome measures by 2 years postoperatively. These results affirm the validity of PROMIS PF in the cervical myelopathic population. Given its generalizability and ease of use, PROMIS PF may be a more practical outcome measure for clinical use compared with mJOA.

Postoperative opioid prescription and patient-reported outcomes after elective spine surgery: a Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess how postoperative opioid prescription dosage could affect patient-reported outcomes after elective spine surgery. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) from January 2020 to September 2021 were included in this study. Opioid prescriptions at discharge were converted to total morphine milligram equivalents (MME). A reference value of 225 MME per week was used as a cutoff. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on prescribed total MME: ≤ 225 MME and > 225 MME. Primary outcomes included patient satisfaction, return to work status after surgery, and whether improvement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 4-question short form for physical function (PROMIS PF) and EQ-5D was met. Generalized estimated equations were used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Regression analysis revealed that patients who had postoperative opioids prescribed with > 225 MME were less likely to be satisfied with surgery (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.81) and achieve PROMIS PF MCID (aOR 0.88). They were also more likely to be opioid dependent at 90 days after elective spine surgery (aOR 1.56). CONCLUSIONS: The opioid epidemic is a serious threat to national public health, and spine surgeons must practice conscientious postoperative opioid prescribing to achieve adequate pain control. The authors' analysis illustrates that a postoperative opioid prescription of 225 MME or less is associated with improved patient satisfaction, greater improvement in physical function, and decreased opioid dependence compared with those who had > 225 MME prescribed.

Race and outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Current studies show similar in-hospital outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between Black and White patients. Long-term outcomes and the role of individual and community-level socioeconomic factors in differential risk are less understood. METHODS: We linked clinical registry data from PCIs performed between January, 2013 and March, 2018 at 48 Michigan hospitals to Medicare Fee-for-service claims. We analyzed patients of Black and White race. We used propensity score matching and logistic regression models to estimate the odds of 90-day readmission and Cox regression to evaluate the risk of postdischarge mortality. We used mediation analysis to evaluate the proportion of association mediated by socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: Of the 29,317 patients included in this study, 10.28% were Black and 89.72% were White. There were minimal differences between groups regarding post-PCI in-hospital outcomes. Compared with White patients, Black patients were more likely to be readmitted within 90-days of discharge (adjusted OR 1.62, 95% CI [1.32-2.00]) and had significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.30-1.61) when adjusting for age and gender. These associations were significantly mediated by dual eligibility (proportion mediated [PM] for readmission: 11.0%; mortality: 21.1%); dual eligibility and economic well-being of the patient's community (PM for readmission: 22.3%; mortality: 43.0%); and dual eligibility, economic well-being of the community, and baseline clinical characteristics (PM for readmission: 45.0%; mortality: 87.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Black patients had a higher risk of 90-day readmission and cumulative mortality following PCI compared with White patients. Associations were mediated by dual eligibility, community economic well-being, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Our study highlights the need for improved upstream care and streamlined postdischarge care pathways as potential strategies to improve health care disparities in cardiovascular disease.

Rates and reasons for reoperation within 30 and 90 days following cervical spine surgery: a retrospective cohort analysis of the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) registry.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Reoperation following cervical spinal surgery negatively impacts patient outcomes and increases health care system burden. To date, most studies have evaluated reoperations within 30 days after spine surgery and have been limited in scope and focus. Evaluation within the 90-day period, however, allows a more comprehensive assessment of factors associated with reoperation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the rates and reasons for reoperations after cervical spine surgery within 30 and 90 days. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective analysis of a state-wide prospective, multi-center, spine-specific database of patients surgically treated for degenerative disease. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients 18 years of age or older who underwent cervical spine surgery for degenerative pathologies from February 2014 to May 2019. Operative criteria included all degenerative cervical spine procedures, including those with cervical fusions with contiguous extension down to T3. OUTCOME MEASURES: We determined causes for reoperation and independent surgical and demographic risk factors impacting reoperation. METHODS: Patient-specific and surgery-specific data was extracted from the registry using ICD-10-DM codes. Reoperations data was obtained through abstraction of medical records through 90 days. Univariate analysis was done using chi-square tests for categorical variables, t-tests for normally distributed variables, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for variables with skewed distributions. Odds ratios for return to the operating room (OR) were evaluated in multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 13,435 and 13,440 patients underwent cervical spine surgery and were included in the 30 and 90-day analysis, respectively. The overall reoperation rate was 1.24% and 3.30% within 30 and 90 days, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed within 30 days, procedures involving four or more levels, posterior only approach, and longer length of stay had increased odds of returning to the OR (p<.05), whereas private insurance had a decreased odds of return to OR (p<.05). Within 90 days, male sex, coronary artery disease (CAD), previous spine surgery, procedures with 4 or more levels, and longer length of stay had significantly increased odds of returning to the OR (p<.05). Non-white race, independent ambulatory status pre-operatively, and having private insurance had decreased odds of return to the OR (p<.05). The most common specified reasons for return to the OR within 30 days was hematoma (19%), infection (17%), and wound dehiscence (11%). Within 90 days, reoperation reasons were pain (10%), infection (9%), and hematoma (8%). CONCLUSION: Reoperation rates after elective cervical spine surgery are 1.24% and 3.30% within 30 and 90 days, respectively. Within 30 days, four or more levels, posterior approach, and longer length of stay were risk factors for reoperation. Within 90 days, male sex, CAD, four or more levels, and longer length of hospital stay were risk factors for reoperation. Non-white demographic and independent preoperative ambulatory status were associated with decreased reoperation rates.

Validation of the Benefits of Ambulation Within 8 Hours of Elective Cervical and Lumbar Surgery: A Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: Early ambulation is considered a key element to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol after spine surgery. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether ambulation less than 8 hours after elective spine surgery is associated with improved outcome. METHODS: The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database was queried to track all elective cervical and lumbar spine surgery between July 2018 and April 2021. In total, 7647 cervical and 17 616 lumbar cases were divided into 3 cohorts based on time to ambulate after surgery: (1) <8 hours, (2) 8 to 24 hours, and (3) >24 hours. RESULTS: For cervical cases, patients who ambulated 8 to 24 hours (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.38; 95% CI 1.11-1.70; P = .003) and >24 hours (aOR 2.20; 95% CI 1.20-4.03; P = .011) after surgery had higher complication rate than those who ambulated within 8 hours of surgery. Similar findings were noted for lumbar cases with patients who ambulated 8 to 24 hours (aOR 1.31; 95% CI 1.12-1.54; P < .001) and >24 hours (aOR 1.96; 95% CI 1.50-2.56; P < .001) after surgery having significantly higher complication rate than those ambulated <8 hours after surgery. Analysis of secondary outcomes for cervical cases demonstrated that <8-hour ambulation was associated with home discharge, shorter hospital stay, lower 90-day readmission, and lower urinary retention rate. For lumbar cases, <8-hour ambulation was associated with shorter hospital stay, satisfaction with surgery, lower 30-day readmission, home discharge, and lower urinary retention rate. CONCLUSION: Ambulation within 8 hours after surgery is associated with significant improved outcome after elective cervical and lumbar spine surgery.

Expected Costs of Primary Dental Treatments and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Odontogenic Sinusitis.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) due to apical periodontitis (AP) is highly successful when both dental treatment and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) are performed. Variation exists in the literature with regard to types and timing of dental treatments and ESS when managing ODS. This study modeled expected costs of different primary dental and sinus surgical treatment pathways for ODS due to AP. STUDY DESIGN: Decision-tree economic model. METHODS: Decision-tree models were created based on cost and treatment success probabilities. Using Medicare and consumer online databases, cost data were obtained for the following dental and sinus surgical treatments across the United States: root canal therapy (RCTx), revision RCTx, apicoectomy, extraction, dental implant, bone graft, and ESS (maxillary, ± anterior ethmoid, ± frontal). A literature review was performed to determine probabilities of dental and sinus disease resolution after different dental treatments. Expected costs were determined for primary dental extraction, RCTx, and ESS pathways, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Expected costs for the three different primary treatment pathways when dental care was in-network and all diseased sinuses opened during ESS were as follows: dental extraction ($4,753.83), RCTx ($4,677.34), and ESS ($7,319.85). CONCLUSIONS: ODS due to AP can be successfully treated with primary dental treatments, but ESS is still frequently required. Expected costs of primary dental extraction and RCTx were roughly equal. Primary ESS had a higher expected cost, but may still be preferred in patients with prominent sinonasal symptoms. Patients' insurance coverage may also impact decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 132:1346-1355, 2022.

A Matched Cohort Analysis of Drain Usage in Elective Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) Study.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, cohort analysis of multi-institutional database. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to analyze the impact of drain use following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: After ACDF, a drain is often placed to prevent postoperative hematoma. However, there has been no high quality evidence to support its use with ACDF despite the theoretical benefits and risks of drain placement. METHODS: The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database was queried to identify all patients undergoing elective ACDF between February 2014 and October 2019. Cases were divided into two cohorts based on drain use. Propensity-score matching was utilized to adjust for inherent differences between the two cohorts. Measured outcomes included surgical site hematoma, length of stay, surgical site infection, dysphagia, home discharge, readmission within 30 days, and unplanned reoperation. RESULTS: We identified 7943 patients during the study period. Propensity-score matching yielded 3206 pairs. On univariate analysis of matched cohorts, there were no differences in rate of postoperative hematoma requiring either return to OR or readmission. We noted patients with drains had a higher rate of dysphagia (4.6% vs. 6.3%; P = 0.003) and had longer hospital stay (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, drain use was associated with significantly increased length of stay (relative risk 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.34; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in other outcomes measured. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated that drain use is associated with significant longer hospital stay.Level of Evidence: 3.

Analysis of Factors Associated with Return-to-Work After Lumbar Surgery up to 2-Years Follow-up: A Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) prospectively collects data on all patients undergoing operations for degenerative and/or deformity indications. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify which factors are significantly associated with return-to-work after lumbar surgery at long-term follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior publications have created a clinically relevant predictive model for return-to-work, wherein education, gender, race, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms increased likelihood of return-to-work at 3 months after lumbar surgery. We sought to determine if these trends 1) persisted at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively; or 2) differed among preoperatively employed versus unemployed patients. METHODS: MSSIC was queried for all patients undergoing lumbar operations (2014-2019). All patients intended to return-to-work postoperatively. Patients were followed for up to 2 years postoperatively. Measures of association were calculated with multivariable generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Return-to-work increased from 63% (3542/5591) at 90 days postoperatively to 75% (3143/4147) at 1 year and 74% (2133/2866) at 2 years postoperatively. Following generalized estimating equations, neither clinical nor surgical variables predicted return-to-work at all three time intervals: 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Only socioeconomic factors reached statistical significance at all follow-up points. Preoperative employment followed by insurance status had the greatest associations with return-to-work. In a subanalysis of patients who were preoperatively employed, insurance was the only factor with significant associations with return-to-work at all three follow-up intervals. The return-to-work rates among unemployed patients at baseline increased from 29% (455/1100) at 90 days, 44% (495/608) at 1 year, and 46% (366/426) at 2 years postoperatively. The only two significant factors associated with return-to-work at all three follow-up intervals were Medicaid, as compared with private insurance, and male gender. CONCLUSION: In patients inquiring about long-term return-to-work after lumbar surgery, insurance status represents the important determinant of employment status.Level of Evidence: 2.

Development of an algorithm to assess unmeasured symptom severity in gynecologic care.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare disparities research is often limited by incomplete accounting for differences in health status by populations. In the United States, hysterectomy shows marked variation by race and geography, but it is difficult to understand what factors cause these variations without accounting for differences in the severity of gynecologic symptoms that drive the decision-making for hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate a method for using electronic health record-derived data to create composite symptom severity indices to more fully capture relevant markers that influence the decision for hysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of 1993 women who underwent hysterectomy between April 4, 2014, and December 31, 2017, from 10 hospitals and >100 outpatient clinics in North Carolina. Electronic health record data, including billing, pharmacy, laboratory data, and free-text notes, were used to identify markers of 3 common indications for hysterectomy: bulk symptoms (pressure from uterine enlargement), vaginal bleeding, and pelvic pain. To develop weighted symptom indices, we finalized a scoring algorithm based on the relationship of each marker to an objective measure, in combination with clinical expertise, with the goal of composite symptom severity indices that had sufficient variation to be useful in comparing different patient groups and allow discrimination among severe symptoms of bulk, bleeding, or pain. RESULTS: The ranges of symptom severity scores varied across the 3 indices, including composite bulk score (0-14), vaginal bleeding score (0-44), and pain score (0-30). The mean values of each composite symptom severity index were greater for those who had diagnostic codes for vaginal bleeding, bulk symptoms, or pelvic pain, respectively. However, each index demonstrated a variation across the entire group of hysterectomy cases and identified symptoms that ranged in severity among those with and without the target diagnostic codes. CONCLUSION: Leveraging multisource data to create composite symptom severity indices provided greater discriminatory power to assess common gynecologic indications for hysterectomy. These methods can improve the understanding in healthcare use in the setting of long-standing inequities and be applied across populations to account for previously unexplained variations across race, geography, and other social indicators.

The association of patient education level with outcomes after elective lumbar surgery: a Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic factors have been shown to impact a host of healthcare-related outcomes. Level of education is a marker of socioeconomic status. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between patient education level and outcomes after elective lumbar surgery and to characterize any education-related disparities. METHODS: The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry was queried for all lumbar spine operations. Primary outcomes included patient satisfaction determined by the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index, and reaching the minimum clinically important difference of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function score and return to work up to 2 years after surgery. Multivariate Poisson generalized estimating equation models reported adjusted risk ratios. RESULTS: A total of 26,229 lumbar spine patients had data available for inclusion in this study. On multivariate generalized estimating equation analysis all comparisons were done versus the high school (HS)/general equivalency development (GED)-level cohort. For North American Spine Society satisfaction scores after surgery the authors observed the following: at 90 days the likelihood of satisfaction significantly decreased by 11% (p < 0.001) among < HS, but increased by 1% (p = 0.52) among college-educated and 3% (p = 0.011) among postcollege-educated cohorts compared to the HS/GED cohort; at 1 year there was a decrease of 9% (p = 0.02) among < HS and increases of 3% (p = 0.02) among college-educated and 9% (p < 0.001) among postcollege-educated patients; and at 2 years, there was an increase of 5% (p = 0.001) among postcollege-educated patients compared to the < HS group. The likelihood of reaching a minimum clinically important difference of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function score at 90 days increased by 5% (p = 0.005) among college-educated and 9% (p < 0.001) among postcollege-educated cohorts; at 1 year, all comparison cohorts demonstrated significance, with a decrease of 12% (p = 0.007) among < HS, but an increase by 6% (p < 0.001) among college-educated patients and 14% (p < 0.001) among postcollege-educated compared to the HS/GED cohort; at 2 years, there was a significant decrease by 19% (p = 0.003) among the < HS cohort, an increase by 8% (p = 0.001) among the college-educated group, and an increase by 16% (p < 0.001) among the postcollege-educated group. For return to work, a significant increase was demonstrated at 90 days and 1 year when comparing the HS or less group with college or postcollege cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated negative associations on all primary outcomes with lower levels of education. This finding suggests a potential disparity linked to education in elective spine surgery.

Reproducibility of Hospital Rankings Based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare Measures as a Function of Measure Reliability.

Importance: Unreliable performance measures can mask poor-quality care and distort financial incentives in value-based purchasing. Objective: To examine the association between test-retest reliability and the reproducibility of hospital rankings. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cross-sectional design, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare data were analyzed for the 2017 (based on 2014-2017 data) and 2018 (based on 2015-2018 data) reporting periods. The study was conducted from December 13, 2020, to September 30, 2021. This analysis was based on 28 measures, including mortality (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and coronary artery bypass grafting), readmissions (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and coronary artery bypass grafting), and surgical complications (postoperative acute kidney failure, postoperative respiratory failure, postoperative sepsis, and failure to rescue). Exposures: Measure reliability based on test-retest reliability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The reproducibility of hospital rankings was quantified by calculating the reclassification rate across the 2017 and 2018 reporting periods after categorizing the hospitals into terciles, quartiles, deciles, and statistical outliers. Linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the reclassification rate and the intraclass correlation coefficient for each of the classification systems. Results: The analytic cohort consisted of 28 measures from 4452 hospitals with a median of 2927 (IQR, 2378-3160) hospitals contributing data for each measure. The hospitals participating in the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (n = 3195) had a median bed size of 141 (IQR, 69-261), average daily census of 70 (IQR, 24-155) patients, and a median disproportionate share hospital percentage of 38.2% (IQR, 18.7%-36.6%). The median intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.78 (IQR, 0.72-0.81), ranging between 0.50 and 0.85. The median reclassification rate was 70% (IQR, 62%-71%) when hospitals were ranked by deciles, 43% (IQR, 39%-45%) when ranked by quartiles, 34% (IQR, 31%-36%) when ranked by terciles, and 3.8% (IQR, 2.0%-6.2%) when ranked by outlier status. Increases in measure reliability were not associated with decreases in the reclassification rate. Each 0.1-point increase in the intraclass correlation coefficient was associated with a 6.80 (95% CI, 2.28-11.30; P = .005) percentage-point increase in the reclassification rate when hospitals were ranked into performance deciles, 4.15 (95% CI, 1.16-7.14; P = .008) when ranked into performance quartiles, 1.47 (95% CI, 1.84, 4.77; P = .37) when ranked into performance terciles, and 3.70 (95% CI, 1.30-6.09; P = .004) when ranked by outlier status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, more reliable measures were not associated with lower rates of reclassifying hospitals using test-retest reliability testing. These findings suggest that measure reliability should not be assessed with test-retest reliability testing.