Postoperative bracing practices after elective lumbar spine surgery: A questionnaire study of U.S. spine surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data available on the use of orthoses across varying elective spine surgeries. When previously studied in 2009, inconsistent lumbar postoperative bracing practices were reported. The present study aimed to provide a ten-year update regarding postoperative bracing practices after elective lumbar surgery among United States (U.S.) spine surgeons. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to attendees of the Lumbar Spine Research Society Annual Meeting (April 2019). The questionnaire collected demographic information, and asked surgeons to identify if they used orthoses postoperatively after ten elective lumbar surgeries. Information regarding type of brace, duration of use, and reason for bracing was also collected. Chi-square tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Seventy-three of 88 U.S. attending surgeons completed the questionnaire (response rate: 83%). The majority of respondents were orthopaedic surgery-trained (78%), fellowship-trained (84%), and academic surgeons (73%). The majority of respondents (60%) did not use orthoses after any lumbar surgery. Among the surgeons who braced, the overall bracing frequency was 26%. This rate was significantly lower than that reported in the literature ten years earlier (p<0.0001). Respondents tended to use orthoses most often after stand-alone lateral interbody fusions (43%) (p<0.0001). The average bracing frequency after lumbar fusions (34%) was higher than the average bracing frequency after non-fusion surgeries (16%) (p<0.0001). The most frequently utilized brace was an off the shelf lumbar sacral orthosis (66%), and most surgeons braced patients to improve pain (42%). Of surgeons who braced, most commonly did so for 2-4 months (57%). CONCLUSION: Most surgeon respondents did not prescribe orthoses after varying elective lumbar surgeries, and the frequency overall was lower than a similar study conducted in 2009. There continues to be inconsistencies in postoperative bracing practices. In an era striving for evidence-based practices, this is an area needing more attention.

Patients' and Physicians' Knowledge of Radiation Exposure Related to Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: Examine patients' and physicians' estimates of radiation exposure related to spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients are commonly exposed to radiation when undergoing spine surgery. Previous studies suggest that patients and physicians have limited knowledge about radiation exposure in the outpatient setting. This has not been assessed for intraoperative imaging. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to assess awareness/knowledge of radiation exposure in outpatient and intraoperative spine care settings. Patients and surgeons estimated chest radiograph (CXR) equivalent radiation from: cervical and lumbar radiographs (anterior-posterior [AP] and lateral), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), intraoperative fluoroscopy, and intraoperative CT (O-arm). Results were compared to literature-reported radiation doses. RESULTS: Overall, 100 patients and 26 providers completed the survey. Only 31% of patients were informed about outpatient radiation exposure, and only 23% of those who had undergone spine surgery had been informed about intraoperative radiation exposure. For lumbar radiographs, patients and surgeons underestimated CXR-equivalent radiation exposures: AP by five-fold (P < 0.0001) and seven-fold (P < 0.0001), respectively, and lateral by three-fold (P < 0.0001) and four-fold (P = 0.0002), respectively. For cervical CT imaging, patients and surgeons underestimated radiation exposure by 18-fold (P < 0.0001) and two-fold (P = 0.0339), respectively. For lumbar CT imaging, patients and surgeons underestimated radiation exposure by 31-fold (P < 0.0001) and three-fold (P = 0.0001), respectively. For intraoperative specific cervical and lumbar imaging, patients underestimated radiation exposure for O-arm by 11-fold (P < 0.0001) and 22-fold (P = 0.0002), respectively. Surgeons underestimated radiation exposure of lumbar O-arm by three-fold (P = 0.0227). CONCLUSION: This study evaluated patient and physician knowledge of radiation exposure related to spine procedures. Underestimation of radiation exposure in the outpatient setting was consistent with prior study findings. The significant underestimation of intraoperative cross-sectional imaging (O-arm) is notable and needs attention in the era of increased use of such technology for imaging, navigation, and robotic spine surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Patient-related Factors and Perioperative Outcomes Are Associated with Self-Reported Hospital Rating after Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has tied a portion of hospitals' annual reimbursement to patients' responses to the Hospital Consumer Assessment and Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, which is given to a random sample of inpatients after discharge. The most general question in the HCAHPS survey asks patients to rate their overall hospital experience on a scale of 0 to 10, with a score of 9 or 10 considered high, or "top-box." Previous work has suggested that HCAHPS responses, which are meant to be an objective measure of the quality of care delivered, may vary based on numerous patient factors. However, few studies to date have identified factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients undergoing spine surgery, and those that have are largely restricted to surgery of the lumbar spine. Consequently, patient and perioperative factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients receiving surgery across the spine have not been well elucidated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients undergoing spine surgery, we asked if a "top-box" rating on the overall hospital experience question on the HCAHPS survey was associated with (1) patient-related factors present before admission; (2) surgical variables related to the procedure; and/or (3) 30-day perioperative outcomes. METHODS: Among 5517 patients undergoing spine surgery at a single academic institution from 2013 to 2017 and who were sent an HCAHPS survey, 27% (1480) returned the survey and answered the question related to overall hospital experience. A retrospective, comparative analysis was performed comparing patients who rated their overall hospital experience as "top-box" with those who did not. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical variables, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical variables associated with a top-box hospital rating. Additional multivariate logistic regression analyses controlling for these variables were performed to determine the association of any adverse event, major adverse events (such as myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism), and minor adverse events (such as urinary tract infection, pneumonia); reoperation; readmission; and prolonged hospitalization with a top-box hospital rating. RESULTS: After controlling for potential confounding variables (including patient demographics), comorbidities that differed in incidence between patients who rated the hospital top-box and those who did not, and variables related to surgery, the patient factors associated with a top-box hospital rating were older age (compared with age ≤ 40 years; odds ratio 2.2, [95% confidence interval 1.4 to 3.4]; p = 0.001 for 41 to 60 years; OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.9]; p < 0.001 for 61 to 80 years; OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.1 to 4.1]; p = 0.036 for > 80 years), and being a man (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.7]; p = 0.028). Further, a non-top-box hospital rating was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists Class II (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.024), Class III (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.020), or Class IV (OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.5]; p = 0.003). The only surgical factor positively associated with a top-box hospital rating was cervical surgery (compared with lumbar surgery; OR 1.4 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.9]; p = 0.016), while nonelective surgery (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.8]; p = 0.004) was associated with a non-top-box hospital rating. Controlling for the same set of variables, a non-top-box rating was associated with the occurrence of any adverse event (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.7]; p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.023), and prolonged hospital stay (OR, 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Identifying patient factors present before surgery that are independently associated with HCAHPS scores underscores the survey's limited utility in accurately measuring the quality of care delivered to patients undergoing spine surgery. HCAHPS responses in the spine surgery population should be interpreted with caution and should consider the factors identified here. Given differing findings in the literature regarding the effect of adverse events on HCAHPS scores, future work should aim to further characterize this relationship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.