Improving discharge data fidelity for use in large administrative databases.

OBJECT: Large administrative databases have assumed a major role in population-based studies examining health care delivery. Lumbar fusion surgeries specifically have been scrutinized for rising rates coupled with ill-defined indications for fusion such as stenosis and spondylosis. Administrative databases classify cases with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). The ICD-9-CM discharge codes are not designated by surgeons, but rather are assigned by trained hospital medical coders. It is unclear how accurately they capture the surgeon's indication for fusion. The authors first sought to compare the ICD-9-CM code(s) assigned by the medical coder according to the surgeon's indication based on a review of the medical chart, and then to elucidate barriers to data fidelity. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of all lumbar fusions performed in the Department of Neurosurgery at the authors' institution between August 1, 2011, and August 31, 2013. Based on this review, the indication for fusion in each case was categorized as follows: spondylolisthesis, deformity, tumor, infection, nonpathological fracture, pseudarthrosis, adjacent-level degeneration, stenosis, degenerative disc disease, or disc herniation. These surgeon diagnoses were compared with the primary ICD-9-CM codes that were generated by the medical coders and submitted to administrative databases. A follow-up interview with the hospital's coders and coding manager was undertaken to review causes of error and suggestions for future improvement in data fidelity. RESULTS: There were 178 lumbar fusion operations performed in the course of 170 hospital admissions. There were 44 hospitalizations in which fusion was performed for tumor, infection, or nonpathological fracture. Of these, the primary diagnosis matched the surgical indication for fusion in 98% of cases. The remaining 126 hospitalizations were for degenerative diseases, and of these, the primary ICD-9-CM diagnosis matched the surgeon's diagnosis in only 61 (48%) of 126 cases of degenerative disease. When both the primary and all secondary ICD-9-CM diagnoses were considered, the indication for fusion was identified in 100 (79%) of 126 cases. Still, in 21% of hospitalizations, the coder did not identify the surgical diagnosis, which was in fact present in the chart. There are many different causes of coding inaccuracy and data corruption. They include factors related to the quality of documentation by the physicians, coder training and experience, and ICD code ambiguity. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers, policymakers, payers, and physicians should note these limitations when reviewing studies in which hospital claims data are used. Advanced domain-specific coder training, increased attention to detail and utilization of ICD-9-CM diagnoses by the surgeon, and improved direction from the surgeon to the coder may augment data fidelity and minimize coding errors. By understanding sources of error, users of these large databases can evaluate their limitations and make more useful decisions based on them.

The impact of interbody approach and lumbar level on segmental, adjacent, and sagittal alignment in degenerative lumbar pathology: a radiographic analysis six months following surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Interbody fusion, including: transforaminal (TLIF), posterior (PLIF), anterior (ALIF), and lateral (LLIF); effectively treat lumbar degenerative pathology and provide spinopelvic balance. Although the decision on surgical approach and technique are multifactorial and patient specific, the impact of the interbody approach on segmental and adjacent level lordosis could be an important factor to consider during pre-operative planning to achieve pre-specified alignment goals. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the 6-month postoperative radiographic outcomes in the lumbar spine following 1 to 2 level transforaminal (TLIF), posterior (PLIF), anterior (ALIF), and lateral (LLIF) interbody fusions at the L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 levels. As our primary outcome, we evaluated the change in segmental lordosis at the level of fusion in ALIF/LLIF approaches compared to TLIF/PLIF. Secondarily, we evaluated the pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and examined the compensatory lordotic changes at the adjacent levels 6 months following surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: This retrospective study included 18 centers of various practice settings across the United States. Patients were included in the study if they underwent a one- or two-level primary lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Measurements of the pre-operative and 6-month post-operative lumbar AP and lateral lumbar plain radiographs included: pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis from L1-S1 (LL), as well as segmental lordosis (SL) of each segment between L1-S1. METHODS: Due to there being 2 evaluated time points, patients were then grouped based on alignment into categories of preserved, restored, not corrected, and worsened. RESULTS: 474 patients underwent 608 levels of fusion. ALIF/LLIF resulted in significantly more segmental lordosis compared to TLIF/PLIF procedures at both L4-5 and L5-S1 (p<.001). Overall, ALIF/LLIF resulted in significantly more global lumbar lordotic alignment change compared to TLIF/PLIF (p=.01). Whether patients' alignment was preserved versus worsened was not significantly predicted by type of procedure. Similarly, whether patients' alignment was restored versus not corrected was not significantly predicted by type of procedure. Finally, anterior approaches resulted in decreased lordosis at adjacent levels, thus resulting in a more neutral position. CONCLUSION: In this large multicenter retrospective study of 1 to 2 level interbody fusion surgeries, we identified that A/LLIF procedures at L4-L5 and L5-S1 resulted in greater segmental lordosis restoration and PI-LL mismatch improvement compared to T/PLIF procedures. A/LLIF may also significantly reduce lordosis (compared to T/PLIF) at the adjacent levels in a fashion that serves to reduce the lumbar lordosis that may have been increased at the fused level.

Subtle segmental angle changes of single-level lumbar fusions and adjacent-level biomechanics: cadaveric study of optically measured disc strain.

OBJECTIVE: Changes to segmental lordosis at a single level may affect adjacent-level biomechanics and overall spinal alignment with an iatrogenic domino effect commonly seen in adult spinal deformity. This study investigated the effects of different segmental angles of single-level lumbar fixation on stability and principal strain across the surface of the adjacent-level disc. METHODS: Seven human cadaveric L3-S1 specimens were instrumented at L4-5 and tested in 3 conditions: 1) neutral native angle ("neutral"), 2) increasing angle by 5° of lordosis ("lordosis"), and 3) decreasing angle by 5° of kyphosis ("kyphosis"). Pure moment loads (7.5 Nm) were applied in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, followed by 400 N of axial compression alone and together with pure moments. Range of motion (ROM), principal maximum strain (E1), and principal minimum strain (E2) across different surface subregions of the upper adjacent-level disc (L3-4) were optically assessed. Larger magnitudes of either E1 or E2 indicate larger tissue deformations and represent indirect measures of increased stress. RESULTS: At the superior adjacent level, a significant increase in ROM was observed in kyphosis and lordosis versus neutral in flexion (p ≤ 0.001) and extension (p ≤ 0.02). ROM was increased in lordosis versus neutral (p = 0.03) and kyphosis (p = 0.004) during compression. ROM increased in kyphosis versus neutral and lordosis (both p = 0.03) in compression plus extension. Lordosis resulted in increased E1 across the midposterior subregion of the disc (Q3) versus neutral during right lateral bending (p = 0.04); lordosis and kyphosis resulted in decreased E1 in Q3 versus neutral with compression (p ≤ 0.03). Lordosis decreased E1 in Q3 versus neutral during compression plus flexion (p = 0.01), whereas kyphosis increased E1 in all quartiles and increased E2 in the midanterior subregion versus lordosis in compression plus flexion (p ≤ 0.047). Kyphosis decreased E1 in Q3 (p = 0.02) and E2 in the anterior-most subregion of the disc (Q1) (p = 0.006) versus neutral, whereas lordosis decreased E1 in Q3 (p = 0.008) versus neutral in compression plus extension. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar spine monosegmental fixation with 5° offset from the neutral individual segmental angle altered the motion and principal strain magnitudes at the upper adjacent disc, with induced kyphosis resulting in larger principal strains compared with lordosis. Segmental alignment of single-level fusion influences adjacent-segment biomechanics, and suboptimal alignment may play a role in the clinical development of adjacent-segment disease.

Influence of Spinal Deformity Construct Design on Adjacent-Segment Biomechanics.

BACKGROUND: Adjacent level degeneration is a precursor to construct failure in adult spinal deformity surgery, but whether construct design affects adjacent level degeneration risk remains unclear. Here we present a biomechanical profile of common deformity correction constructs and assess adjacent level biomechanics. METHODS: Standard nondestructive flexibility tests (7.5 Nm) were performed on 21 cadaveric specimens: 14 pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSOs) and 7 anterior column realignment (ACR) constructs. The ranges of motion (ROM) at the adjacent free level in flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending were measured and analyzed. RESULTS: ACR constructs had a lower ROM change on flexion at the proximal adjacent free level than constructs with PSO (1.02 vs. 1.32, normalized to the intact specimen, P < 0.01). Lateral lumbar interbody fusion adjacent to PSO and 4 rods limits ROM at the free level more effectively than transforaminal interbody fusion and 2 rods in correction constructs with PSO. Use of 2 screws to anchor the ACR interbody further decreased ROM at the proximal adjacent free level on flexion, but adding 4 rods in this setting added no further limitation to adjacent segment motion. CONCLUSIONS: ACR constructs have less ROM change at the adjacent level compared to PSO constructs. Among constructs with ACR, anchoring the ACR interbody with 2 screws reduces motion at the proximal adjacent free level. When PSOs are used, lateral lumbar interbody fusion adjacent to the PSO level has a greater reduction in adjacent-segment motion than transforaminal interbody fusion, suggesting that deformity construct configuration influences proximal adjacent-segment biomechanics.

Does index level sagittal alignment determine adjacent level disc height loss?

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to compare the effect of index level sagittal alignment on cephalad radiographic adjacent segment pathology (RASP) in patients undergoing cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected radiographic data from 79 patients who underwent TDA or ACDF and were enrolled and followed prospectively at two centers in a multicenter FDA investigational device exemption trial of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis used for arthroplasty. Neutral lateral radiographs were obtained pre- and postoperatively and at 1, 2, 4, and up to 7 years following surgery. The index level Cobb angle was measured both pre- and postoperatively. Cephalad disc degeneration was determined by a previously described measurement of the disc height/anteroposterior (AP) distance ratio. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (n = 33 ACDF; n = 35 TDA) had complete radiographs and were included for analysis. Preoperatively, there was no difference in the index level Cobb angle between the ACDF and TDA patients. Postoperatively, the ACDF patients had a larger segment lordosis compared to the TDA patients (p = 0.002). Patients who had a postoperative kyphotic Cobb angle were more likely to have undergone TDA (p = 0.01). A significant decrease in the disc height/AP distance ratio occurred over time (p = 0.035), by an average of 0.01818 at 84 months. However, this decrease was not influenced by preoperative alignment, postoperative alignment, or type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients undergoing TDA and ACDF, the authors found that preoperative and postoperative sagittal alignment have no effect on RASP at follow-up of at least 7 years. They identified time as the only significant factor affecting RASP.

Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult degenerative scoliosis with 1 or 2 dislocated levels.

OBJECT: Frequent complications of posterolateral instrumented fusion have been reported after treatment of degenerative scoliosis in elderly patients. Considering that in some cases, most of the symptomatology of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) is a consequence of the segmental instability at the dislocated level, the use of minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to manage symptoms can be advocated to reduce surgical morbidity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm outcomes of 1- or 2-level minimally invasive ALIFs in ADS patients with 1- or 2-level dislocations. METHODS: A total of 47 patients (average age 64 years; range 43-80 years) with 1- or 2-level ALIF performed for ADS (64 levels) in a single institution were included in the study. An independent spine surgeon retrospectively reviewed all the patients' medical records and radiographs to assess operative data and surgery-related complications. Clinical outcome was reported using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analog scale (VAS) for lumbar and leg pain. Intraoperative data and complications were collected. Fusion and risk for adjacent-level degeneration were assessed. RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration was 3 years (range 1-10 years). ODI, and back and leg pain VAS scores were significantly improved at last follow-up. A majority of patients (74%) had a statistically significant improvement in their ODI score of more than 20 points at latest follow-up and 1 had a worsening of his disability. The mean operating time was 166 minutes (range 70-355 minutes). The mean estimated blood loss was 410 ml (range 50-1700 ml). Six (5 major and 1 minor) surgical complications (12.7% of patients) and 13 (2 major and 11 minor) medical complications (27.7% of patients) occurred without death or wound infection. Fusion was achieved in 46 of 47 patients. Surgery resulted in a slight but significant decrease of the Cobb angle, and improved the pelvic parameters and lumbar lordosis, but had no effect on the global sagittal balance. At latest follow-up, 9 patients (19.1%) developed adjacent-segment disease at a mean of 2 years' delay from the index surgery; 4 were symptomatic but treated medically, and none required iterative surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Single- or 2-level minimally invasive fusion through a minimally invasive anterior approach in some selected cases of ADS produced a good functional outcome with a high fusion rate. They were associated with a significantly lower rate of complications in this study than the historical control.

Comparison of fusion with cage alone and plate instrumentation in two-level cervical degenerative disease.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with cage alone compared with ACDF with plate instrumentation for radiologic and clinical outcomes in two-level cervical degenerative disease. METHODS: Patients with cervical degenerative disc disease from September 2004 to December 2009 were assessed retrospectively. A total of 42 patients received all ACDF at two-level cervical lesion. Twenty-two patients who underwent ACDF with cage alone were compared with 20 patients who underwent ACDF with plate fixation in consideration of radiologic and clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Robinson's criteria and posterior neck pain, arm pain described by a 10 point-visual analog scale. Fusion rate, subsidence, kyphotic angle, instrument failure and the degenerative changes in adjacent segments were examined during each follow-up examination. RESULTS: VAS was checked during each follow-up and Robinson's criteria were compared in both groups. Both groups showed no significant difference. Fusion rates were 90.9% (20/22) in ACDF with the cage alone group, 95% (19/20) in ACDF with the plate fixation group (p = 0.966). Subsidence rates of ACDF with cage alone were 31.81% (7/22) and ACDF with plate fixation were 30% (6/20) (p = 0.928). Local and regional kyphotic angle difference showed no significant difference. At the final follow-up, adjacent level disease developed in 4.54% (1/22) of ACDF with cage alone and 10% (2/20) of ACDF with plate fixation (p = 0.654). CONCLUSION: In two-level ACDF, ACDF with cage alone would be comparable with ACDF with plate fixation with regard to clinical outcome and radiologic result with no significant difference. We suggest that the routine use of plate and screw in 2-level surgery may not be beneficial.