Comparative evaluation of postoperative outcomes and expenditure between robotic and conventional single-level lumbar fusion surgery: a comprehensive analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we investigate the evolution of lumbar fusion surgery with robotic assistance, specifically focusing on the impact of robotic technology on pedicle screw placement and fixation. Utilizing data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) covering 2016 to 2019, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of postoperative outcomes and costs for single-level lumbar fusion surgery. Traditionally, freehand techniques for pedicle screw placement posed risks, leading to the development of robotic-assisted techniques with advantages such as reduced misplacement, increased precision, smaller incisions, and decreased surgeon fatigue. However, conflicting study results regarding the efficacy of robotic assistance in comparison to conventional techniques have prompted the need for a thorough evaluation. With a dataset of 461,965 patients, our aim is to provide insights into the impact of robotic assistance on patient care and healthcare resource utilization. Our primary goal is to contribute to the ongoing discourse on the efficacy of robotic technology in lumbar fusion procedures, offering meaningful insights for optimizing patient-centered care and healthcare resource allocation. METHODS: This study employed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) spanning the years 2016 to 2019 from USA, 461,965 patients underwent one-level lumbar fusion surgery, with 5770 of them having the surgery with the assistance of robotic technology. The study focused primarily on one-level lumbar fusion surgery and excluded non-elective cases and those with prior surgeries. The analysis encompassed the identification of comorbidities, surgical etiologies, and complications using specific ICD-10 codes. Throughout the study, a constant comparison was made between robotic and non-robotic lumbar fusion procedures. Various statistical methods were applied, with a p value threshold of < 0.05, to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion surgeries demonstrated a significant increase from 2016 to 2019, comprising 1.25% of cases. Both groups exhibited similar patient demographics, with minor differences in payment methods, favoring Medicare in non-robotic surgery and more private payer usage in robotic surgery. A comparison of comorbid conditions revealed differences in the prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and sleep apnea diagnoses-In terms of hospitalization outcomes and costs, there was a slight shorter hospital stay of 3.06 days, compared to 3.13 days in non-robotic surgery, showcasing a statistically significant difference (p = 0.042). Robotic surgery has higher charges, with a mean charge of $154,673, whereas non-robotic surgery had a mean charge of $125,467 (p < 0.0001). Robotic surgery demonstrated lower rates of heart failure, acute coronary artery disease, pulmonary edema, venous thromboembolism, and traumatic spinal injury compared to non-robotic surgery, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Conversely, robotic surgery demonstrated increased post-surgery anemia and blood transfusion requirements compared to non-robotic patients (p < 0.0001). Renal disease prevalence was similar before surgery, but acute kidney injury was slightly higher in the robotic group post-surgery (p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: This is the first big data study on this matter, our study showed that Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion surgery has fewer post-operative complications such as heart failure, acute coronary artery disease, pulmonary edema, venous thromboembolism, and traumatic spinal injury in comparison to conventional methods. Conversely, robotic surgery demonstrated increased post-surgery anemia, blood transfusion and acute kidney injury. Robotic surgery has higher charges compared to non-robotic surgery.

Mortality, Survival, and Readmissions During a 12-Month Follow-Up After Hip Fracture: Inpatient Rehabilitation Versus Home Rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: This study compared readmissions, survival, and mortality during a 12-month follow-up period of inpatient rehabilitation and home rehabilitation for older persons who had experienced a hip fracture. METHODS: This work was retrospective cohort research. Between January 1 and December 30, 2019, the medical records of 280 elderly patients who were admitted to a hospital with a hip fracture were analyzed. Of these patients, 74.3% received inpatient rehabilitation, whereas 25.7% received home rehabilitation. RESULTS: In terms of readmissions and death, there were no appreciable differences between the inpatient rehabilitation and home rehabilitation groups. The patients in the inpatient rehabilitation group were older; more likely to need assistance with activities of daily living; and were taking, on average, more prescription drugs on a daily basis than those in the home rehabilitation group. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In conclusion, as better outcomes were expected for the home rehabilitation group, which on average included less complicated patients, our findings suggest that the home rehabilitation pathway may not be a good alternative to the inpatient rehabilitation pathway.

Factors Associated With Referral of Children With a Femur Fracture to a Social Worker by an Orthopedist for Suspected Child Abuse.

OBJECTIVES: This article explores factors associated with referral of children with a femur fracture to a social worker by an orthopedist for suspected child abuse. METHODS: This retrospective chart review study included 131 children younger than 5 years who sustained a femur fracture and were hospitalized in a major 495-bed hospital located in the northern-central Israel from 2009 to 2021. Data on children who were referred to a social worker by the treating orthopedist and those who were not were compared. RESULTS: More than half the children studied (58.8%, n = 77) were referred to a social worker by an orthopedist for suspected child abuse. However, only a fifth of these cases were eventually reported to the authorities. Male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.44), younger age of the child (OR, 0.95), and spiral femur fracture type (OR, 5.30) increased the likelihood of referral. In addition, treatment of the child by an orthopedic specialist (as compared with an orthopedic resident; OR, 3.12) and lengthier professional experience of the treating orthopedist (OR, 1.08) increased the likelihood of referral. CONCLUSIONS: Younger male children presenting with a spiral femur fracture have a higher likelihood to be referred to a social worker because of suspected child abuse by treating orthopedic specialists with lengthier professional experience. The findings point to the need to improve the capacity of orthopedic residents to report child abuse.