Comparison of Value per Operative Time between Primary and Revision Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To compare the relative value units (RVUs) per minute of operative time between primary and revision surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Surgery for ASD is technically demanding and has high risks of complications and revision rates. This common need for additional surgery can increase the overall cost of care for ASD. RVU is used to calculate reimbursement from Medicare and to determine physician payments nationally. In calculating RVUs, the physician's work, the expenses of the physician's practice, and professional liability insurance. Cost effectiveness of surgeries for ASD have been evaluated, except for RVUs per minute compared between primary and revision surgery. METHODS: Data were obtained from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent surgery for spinal deformity between 2011 and 2019 were identified and included. To ensure a homogenous patient cohort, those who underwent anterior-only and concurrent anterior-posterior fusions were excluded. Propensity score matching analysis was performed, and Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson chi-square test, or Fisher's exact test were used to compare matched cohorts as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients who underwent revision surgery were matched with 206 primary surgery patients via propensity score matching. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, preoperative laboratory values, and readmission and reoperation rates were not significantly different between groups. The revision surgery group had significantly higher mean RVUs per minute than that of the primary surgery group (0.331 vs. 0.249, p <0.001), as well as rates of morbidity and blood transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to primary surgery, revision surgery for ASD is associated with significantly higher RVUs per minute and total RVUs and higher rates of 30-day morbidity and blood transfusions. Readmission and reoperation rates are similar between surgeries.

Comparative Analysis of 30-Day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity between Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion Performed in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To compare 30-day readmission, reoperation, and morbidity for patients undergoing posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) in inpatient vs. outpatient settings. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: PCDF has recently been increasingly performed in outpatient settings, often utilizing minimally invasive techniques. However, literature evaluating short-term outcomes for PCDF is scarce. Moreover, no currently large-scale database studies have compared short-term outcomes between PCDF performed in the inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS: Patients who underwent PCDF from 2005 to 2018 were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Regression analysis was utilized to compare primary outcomes between surgical settings and evaluate for predictors thereof. RESULTS: We identified 8,912 patients. Unadjusted analysis revealed that outpatients had lower readmission (4.7% vs. 8.8%, p =0.020), reoperation (1.7% vs. 3.8%, p =0.038), and morbidity (4.5% vs. 11.2%, p <0.001) rates. After adjusting for baseline differences, readmission, reoperation, and morbidity no longer statistically differed between surgical settings. Outpatients had lower operative time (126 minutes vs. 179 minutes) and levels fused (1.8 vs. 2.2) (p <0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that age (p =0.008; odds ratio [OR], 1.012), weight loss (p =0.045; OR, 2.444), and increased creatinine (p <0.001; OR, 2.233) independently predicted readmission. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of ≥3 predicted reoperation (p =0.028; OR, 1.406). Rehabilitation discharge (p <0.001; OR, 1.412), ASA-class of ≥3 (p =0.008; OR, 1.296), decreased hematocrit (p <0.001; OR, 1.700), and operative time (p <0.001; OR, 1.005) predicted morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day outcomes were statistically similar between surgical settings, indicating that PCDF can be safely performed as an outpatient procedure. Surrogates for poor health predicted negative outcomes. These results are particularly important as we continue to shift spinal surgery to outpatient centers. This importance has been highlighted by the need to unburden inpatient sites, particularly during public health emergencies, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

What is a better value for your time? Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty.

Introduction: Compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), the motion preservation of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) provides an attractive alternative with similar short-term results. However, there is a paucity of the economics of performing CDA over ACDF. Study Design: This was retrospective study. Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate relative-value-units (RVUs), operative time, and RVUs-per-minute between single-level ACDF and CDA. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission, reoperation, and morbidity. Methods: Adults who underwent ACDF or CDA in 2011-2019 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database datasets. Multivariate quantile regression was utilized. Results: There were 26,595 patients (2024 CDA). ACDF patients were older, more likely to be female, discharged to inpatient rehabilitation, and have a history of obesity, smoking, diabetes, steroid use, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists-class ≥3. ACDF had greater median RVUs-per-case (41.2 vs. 24.1) and RVUs-per-minute (0.36 vs. 0.27), despite greater operative-time (109 min vs. 92 min) (P < 0.001). ACDF predicted a 16.9 unit increase in median RVUs per case (P < 0.001, confidence interval [CI]95: 16.3-17.5), an 8.81 min increase in median operative time per case (P < 0.001, CI95: 5.69-11.9), and 0.119 unit increase in median RVUs-per-minute (P < 0.001, CI95: 0.108-0.130). ACDF was associated with greater unadjusted rates of readmission (3.2% vs. 1.4%) morbidity (2.3% vs. 1.1%) (P < 0.001), but similar rates of reoperation (1.3% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.080). After adjusting for significant patient-related and procedural factors, readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.695, P = 0.130, CI95: 0.434-1.113) and morbidity (OR = 1.102, P = 0.688, CI95: 0.685-1.773) was similar between ACDF and CDA. Conclusions: Median RVUs-per-minute increased by 0.119 points for ACDF over CDA, or $257.7/h for each additional-hour of surgery. Adjusted 30-day outcomes were similar between procedures. Reimbursement for CDA does not appear to be in line with ACDF and may be a barrier to widespread usage.

Comparative Analysis of 30-Day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity Between Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty Performed in the Inpatient and Outpatient Settings Utilizing the ACS-NSQIP Dataset.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Spine surgery has been increasingly performed in the outpatient setting, providing greater control over cost, efficiency, and resource utilization. However, research evaluating the safety of this trend is limited. The objective of this study is to compare 30-day readmission, reoperation, and morbidity for patients undergoing lumbar disc arthroplasty (LDA) in the inpatient versus outpatient settings. METHODS: Patients who underwent LDA from 2005 to 2018 were identified using the ACS-NSQIP (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) database. Regression was utilized to compare readmission, reoperation, and morbidity between surgical settings, and to evaluate for predictors thereof. RESULTS: We identified 751 patients. There were no significant differences between inpatient and outpatient LDA in rates of readmission, reoperation, or morbidity on univariate or multivariate analyses. There were also no significant differences in rates of specific complications. Inpatient operative time (138 ± 75 minutes) was significantly (P < .001) longer than outpatient operative time (106 ± 43 minutes). In multivariate analysis, diabetes (P < .001, OR = 7.365), baseline dyspnea (P = .039, OR = 6.447), and increased platelet count (P = .048, OR = 1.007) predicted readmission. Diabetes (P = .016, OR = 6.533) and baseline dyspnea (P = .046, OR = 13.814) predicted reoperation. Baseline dyspnea (P = .021, OR = 8.188) and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class ≥3 (P = .014, OR = 3.515) predicted morbidity. Decreased hematocrit (P = .008) and increased operative time (P = .003) were associated with morbidity in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission, reoperation, and morbidity were statistically similar between surgical setting, indicating that LDA can be safely performed in the outpatient setting. Higher ASA class and specific comorbidities predicted poorer 30-day outcomes. These findings can guide choice of surgical setting given specific patient factors.

Comparative and Predictor Analysis of 30-day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Multilevel ACDF Versus Single and Multilevel ACCF Using the ACS-NSQIP Dataset.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the differences in 30-day readmission, reoperation, and morbidity for patients undergoing multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or single and multilevel anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite increasing rates of surgical treatment of cervical spine disease, few studies have compared outcomes by surgical technique. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only large-scale administrative database study that directly evaluates early outcomes between multilevel ACDF and single and multilevel ACCF. METHODS: Patients who underwent ACDF and ACCF were identified using the NSQIP database. Multivariate regression was utilized to compare rates of readmission, reoperation, morbidity, and specific complications between surgical techniques, and to evaluate for predictors of primary outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 15,600 patients. ACCF independently predicted (P < 0.001) greater reoperation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.876) and morbidity (OR = 1.700), but not readmission, on multivariate analysis. ACCF was also associated with greater rates of transfusion (OR = 3.273, P < 0.001) and DVT/thrombophlebitis (OR = 2.852, P = 0.001). ACCF had significantly (P < 0.001) greater operative time and length of stay. In the cohort, increasing age (P < 0.001), diabetes (P = 0.025), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.027), disseminated cancer (P = 0.009), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3 (P < 0.001) predicted readmission. Age (P = 0.011), female sex (P = 0.001), heart failure (P = 0.002), ASA class ≥3 (P < 0.001), and increased creatinine (P = 0.044), white cell count (P = 0.033), and length of stay (P < 0.001) predicted reoperation. Age (P < 0.001), female sex (P = 0.002), disseminated cancer (P = 0.010), ASA class ≥3 (P < 0.001), increased white cell count (P = 0.036) and length of stay (P < 0.001), and decreased hematocrit (P < 0.001) predicted morbidity. Within ACDF, three or more levels treated compared to two levels did not predict poorer 30-day outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared to multilevel ACDF, ACCF was associated with an 88% increased odds of reoperation and 70% increased odds of morbidity; readmission was similar between techniques. Older age, higher ASA class, and specific comorbidities predicted poorer 30-day outcomes. These findings can guide surgical solution given specific factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Approach-based Comparative and Predictor Analysis of 30-day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the ACS-NSQIP Dataset.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the difference in 30-day readmission, reoperation, and morbidity for patients undergoing either posterior or anterior lumbar interbody fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite increasing utilization of lumbar interbody fusion to treat spinal pathology, few studies compare outcomes by surgical approach, particularly using large nationally represented cohorts. METHODS: Patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion were identified using the NSQIP database. Rates of readmission, reoperation, morbidity, and associated predictors were compared between posterior/transforaminal (PLIF/TLIF) and anterior/lateral (ALIF/LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion using multivariate regression. Bonferroni-adjusted alpha-levels were utilized whereby variables were significant if their P values were less than the alpha-level or trending if their P values were between 0.05 and the alpha-level. RESULTS: We identified 26,336 patients. PLIF/TLIF had greater operative time (P = 0.015), transfusion (P < 0.001), UTI (P = 0.008), and stroke/CVA (P = 0.026), but lower prolonged ventilation (P < 0.001) and DVT (P = 0.002) rates than ALIF/LLIF. PLIF/TLIF independently predicted greater morbidity on multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 1.155, P = 0.0019).In both groups, experiencing a complication and, in PLIF/TLIF, ASA-class ≥3 predicted readmission (P < 0.001). Increased age trended toward readmission in ALIF/LLIF (P = 0.003); increased white cell count (P = 0.003), dyspnea (P = 0.030), and COPD (P = 0.005) trended in PLIF/TLIF. In both groups, increased hospital stay and wound/site-related complication predicted reoperation (P < 0.001). Adjunctive posterolateral fusion predicted reduced reoperation in ALIF/LLIF (P = 0.0018). ASA-class ≥3 (P = 0.016) and age (P = 0.021) trended toward reoperation in PLIF/TLIF and ALIF/LLIF, respectively. In both groups, age, hospital stay, reduced hematocrit, dyspnea, ASA-class ≥3, posterolateral fusion, and revision surgery and, in PLIF/TLIF, bleeding disorder predicted morbidity (P < 0.001). Female sex (P = 0.010), diabetes (P = 0.042), COPD (P = 0.011), and disseminated cancer (P = 0.032) trended toward morbidity in PLIF/TLIF; obesity trended in PLIF/TLIF (P = 0.0022) and ALIF/LLIF (P = 0.020). CONCLUSION: PLIF/TLIF was associated with a 15.5% increased odds of morbidity; readmission and reoperation were similar between approaches. Older age, higher ASA-class, and specific comorbidities predicted poorer 30-day outcomes, while procedural-related factors predicted only morbidity. These findings can guide surgical approach given specific factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.