Safety of early discharge after elective lumbar spine surgery with subfascial drains and association with significant reduction in length of stay.

OBJECTIVE: After lumbar spine surgery, postoperative drain removal often delays discharge. Whether inpatient drain removal reduces the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) or hematoma remains controversial. Therefore, in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery, the authors sought to determine the impact of inpatient versus outpatient drain removal on the following variables: 1) length of hospital stay (LOS), and 2) postoperative complications. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study in which the authors used prospectively collected data of patients undergoing primary, elective, 1- or 2-level lumbar spine decompression and/or fusion was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. Patients with intraoperative or postoperative CSF leaks were excluded. The primary exposure variable was inpatient versus outpatient drain removal. The primary outcome was LOS, and secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, including 90-day postoperative SSI or hematoma. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed, controlling for age, body mass index, instrumentation, number of levels, antibiotics at discharge, and surgeons involved. RESULTS: Of 483 patients included, 325 (67.3%) had inpatient drain removal and 158 (32.7%) had outpatient drain removal. Patients with outpatient drain removal were significantly younger (58.6 ± 12.4 vs 61.2 ± 13.2 years, p = 0.040); more likely to have 1-level surgery (75.9% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001); and less likely to receive instrumentation (50.6% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, patients with outpatient drain removal had a shorter LOS (0.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 1.6 days, p < 0.001); were more likely to be discharged home (98.1% vs 92.3%, p = 0.015); were more likely to be discharged on antibiotics (76.6% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001); were less likely to be on opioids (32.3% vs 88.3%, p < 0.001); and were more likely to have Jackson-Pratt compared to Hemovac drains (96.2% vs 34.5%, p < 0.001). No difference was found in SSI (3.7% vs 3.8%, p > 0.999) or hematoma (0.9% vs 0.6%, p > 0.999), as well as reoperation or readmission due to SSI or hematoma. On multivariable regression, outpatient drain removal was significantly associated with shorter LOS (ß = -1.15, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.73, p < 0.001). No association was found with SSI/hematoma (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient drain removal after elective lumbar spine surgery was associated with a significantly decreased LOS without a significant increase in postoperative SSI or hematoma. Although the choice of drain removal and the LOS may be subject to surgeons' preference, these results may support the feasibility and safety of outpatient drain removal, and the potential cost savings resulting from shortened hospital stays. Drawbacks may exist regarding added burden to the patient and the surgeon's team to accommodate 1-week follow-up appointments for drain removal.

Earlier Radiation Is Associated with Improved 1-Year Survival After Metastatic Spine Tumor Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery, we sought to 1) report time to postoperative radiation therapy (RT), 2) describe the predictive factors of time to postoperative RT, and 3) determine if earlier postoperative RT is associated with improved local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was undertaken of all patients undergoing spine surgery for extradural metastatic disease and receiving RT within 3 months postoperatively between January 2010 and January 2021. Time to postoperative RT was dichotomized at <1 month versus 1-3 months. The primary outcomes were LR, OS, and 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes were wound complication, Karnofsky Performance Status, and modified McCormick Scale (MMS) score. Regression analyses controlled for age, body mass index, tumor size, preoperative RT, preoperative/postoperative chemotherapy, and type of RT. RESULTS: Of 76 patients undergoing spinal metastasis surgery and receiving postoperative RT within 3 months, 34 (44.7%) received RT within 1 month and 42 (55.2%) within 1-3 months. Patients with larger tumor size (ß = -3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.59 to -0.57; P = 0.021) or new neurologic deficits (ß = -16.21; 95% CI, -32.21 to -0.210; P = 0.047) had a shorter time to RT. No significant association was found between time to RT and LR or OS on multivariable logistic/Cox regression. However, patients who received RT between 1 and 3 months had a lower odds of 1-year survival compared with those receiving RT within 1 month (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.74; P = 0.022). Receiving RT within 1 month versus 1-3 months was not associated with wound complications (7.1% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.556) (odds ratio, 4.40; 95% CI, 0.40-118.0; P = 0.266) or Karnofsky Performance Status/modified McCormick Scale score. CONCLUSIONS: Spine surgeons, oncologists, and radiation oncologists should make every effort to start RT within 1 month to improve 1-year survival after metastatic spine tumor surgery.

Impact of Unplanned Readmission on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Cervical Spine Surgery: A National Study of 13 355 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although risk factors for unplanned readmission after cervical spine surgery have been widely reported, less is known about how readmission itself affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Using the Quality Outcomes Database registry of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the impact of unplanned readmission on PROMs and (2) compare the effect of specific readmission reasons on PROMs. METHODS: An observational study was performed using a multi-institution, retrospective registry for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. The occurrence of 90-day unplanned readmission classified into medical, surgical, pain only, and no readmissions was the exposure variable. Outcome variables included 12-month PROMs of Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-neck/arm pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and patient dissatisfaction. Multivariable models predicting each PROM were built using readmission reasons controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and preoperative PROMs. RESULTS: Data from 13 355 patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery (82% anterior approach and 18% posterior approach) were analyzed. Unplanned readmission within 90 days of surgery occurred in 3.8% patients, including medical (1.6%), surgical (1.8%), and pain (0.3%). Besides medical reasons, wound infection/dehiscence was the most common reason for unplanned readmission for the total cohort (0.5%), dysphagia in the anterior approach (0.6%), and wound infection/dehiscence in the posterior approach (1.5%). Based on multivariable regression, surgical readmission was significantly associated with worse 12-month NDI, NRS-neck pain, NRS-arm pain, EQ-5D, and higher odds of dissatisfaction. Pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month NDI and NRS-neck pain scores, and worse dissatisfaction. For specific readmission reasons, pain, surgical site infection/wound dehiscence, hematoma/seroma, revision surgery, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were significantly associated with worsened 12-month PROMs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, 90-day unplanned surgical and pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month PROMs compared with patients with medical readmissions and no readmissions.

Perioperative Modifications to the Open TLIF Provide Comparable Short-term Outcomes to the MIS-TLIF.

STUDY DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review of patients' charts and data from longitudinally collected clinical outcomes and opioid use. OBJECTIVE: In the current study, we aim to compare short-term outcomes data for 139 Open transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) patients to recently published data for tubular and endoscopic MIS-TLIF. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In response to the downsides associated with Open TLIF, such as large incision, blood loss, delayed ambulation, prolonged hospitalization, and opioid-reliance, spine surgeons developed tubular retractor based "minimally-invasive" TLIF. However, the traditional Open TLIF retains its significance in terms of providing successful fusion and improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: We adapted several techniques with an aim to improve short-term outcomes for our Open TLIF patients that combined extensive perioperative counselling, an emphasis on early mobilization, avoidance of overuse of opioid analgesics, early discharge with home care arrangements, use of a posthospitalization drainage tube with intraoperative surgical modifications using small incisions (4-5 cm), a narrow 20 mm retractor, minimal muscle injury, and use of a cell saver to minimize net blood loss. The demographics and perioperative results were compared with data from recent MIS-TLIF studies using Student t test for continuous and χ2/exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: Among the total 139 patients, 115 underwent a single-level procedure, 90% of whom were discharged on the first postoperative day (length of stay=1.13±0.47 d) with an average net estimated blood loss of 176.17±87.88 mL. There were 24 two-level procedures with an average length of stay of 1.57±0.84 days, average net estimated blood loss was 216.96±85.70 mL. The patients had statistically significant improvements in PROs at 3 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study identify that patients who underwent modified Open TLIF demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes, as compared with the tubular MIS-TLIF, by virtue of avoidance of blood transfusions, shorter hospital stays, and significantly less opioid usage while experiencing satisfactory PROs.

Opioid-free spine surgery: a prospective study of 244 consecutive cases by a single surgeon.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There have been no reported efforts to eliminate opioid use for elective spine surgery, despite its well-known drawbacks. PURPOSE: We sought to test the hypothesis that opioid-free elective spine surgery, including lumbar fusions, can be performed with satisfactory pain control. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: This study analyzes prospectively collected data from a single surgeon's patients who were enrolled into an institutional spine registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: We enrolled every consecutive surgical patient of author RAB between January 1, 2018 and July 13, 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: The postsurgical opioid use, pain scores, emergency room visits, and readmissions were tracked. METHODS: We developed a comprehensive program for opioid-free pain control after elective spine surgery. In the initial stage, opioids were given "PRN" only, while in the second stage, they were avoided altogether. Student's t tests were performed to compare pain scores, and regression analyses were performed to understand drivers of opioid use and pain. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four patients were studied, a third of whom underwent lumbar fusions. In the initial stage, 47% of patients took no opioids from recovery room departure until 1-month follow-up. During the second stage, 88% of patients took no opioids during that period. Pain scores were satisfactory, and there was no association between postoperative opioid use and either procedural invasiveness or pain scores. However, preoperative opioid use was associated with a nearly fivefold increased risk of postoperative use. Ninety-three percent of lumbar fusion patients who were opioid-free before surgery did not take a single opioid in the postoperative period. CONCLUSION: Opioid-free elective spine surgery, including lumbar fusions, is feasible and effective. We suggest that opioid-free spine surgery be offered to patients who are opioid-naïve or who can be weaned off before the operation.