De, Ayushmita

Study Design. Retrospective observational study. Objective. To evaluate whether the combined American Spine Registry and Medicare (ASR/CMS) data yield substantially different findings versus ASR data alone with regard to key parameters such as risk stratification, complication rates, and readmission rates in lumbar surgery investigated through an analysis of 8755 spondylolisthesis cases. Summary of Background Data. Medicare data correlation has been effective for determining revision rates for other procedures, such as total hip replacement. Our aim is to determine whether these findings are translatable in the realm of lumbar spinal surgery investigated through an analysis of 8755 spondylolisthesis cases. Materials and Methods. The American Spine Registry (ASR) was queried for Medicare-eligible patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. This cohort was analyzed based on ASR data alone in comparison to the same patients in the combined ASR/Medicare (ASR/CMS) data set. The primary outcome of interest was readmission at 30 and 90 days postoperatively. Results. There were 8755 Medicare-eligible cases with a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis within the ASR. The mean age was 72.7 years and 60.8% were female. Medical comorbidities were more frequently detected in the combined ASR/CMS data set, reflected by a higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score (3.49 vs. 3.27, P<0.001). Hospital readmission rates were significantly higher in the combined ASR/CMS data set at both 30 days (4.89% vs. 1.83%, P<0.001) and 90 days (7.68% vs. 2.66%, P<0.001), with notable increases in readmissions for infections and medical complications. Discharge disposition remained comparable across data sets, with most patients discharged to home or home health care. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that integrating patient-identified Medicare data with the ASR provides a more comprehensive assessment of outcomes for lumbar spinal fusion surgery as demonstrated through an analysis of 8755 spondylolisthesis cases. These findings, establish the importance of multisource data linkage to overcome the limitations of single-source registries, thereby enhancing data quality for clinical decision-making and quality improvement in spinal surgery.

Background Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is used to manage acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Given the uncertain success of single or multiple DAIR attempts and possible long-term deleterious effects this treatment can create when trying to treat persistent infection, it is important to understand the frequency with which surgeons in the United States are attempting multiple debridements for PJI and whether those procedures are achieving the desired goal. Question/purposes In the context of the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR), we asked: (1) What proportion of patients who undergo DAIR have only one DAIR, and what percentage of those patients have more than one? (2) Of the patients who undergo one or more DAIR procedures, what is the proportion who progress to additional surgical procedures? (3) What is the cumulative incidence of medical or surgical endpoints related to infection on the affected leg (other than additional DAIR procedures)? Methods DAIR procedures to treat PJI, defined by ICD-9/10 and CPT (Current Procedural Technology) codes, reported to the AJRR from 2012 to 2020 were merged with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data from 2012 to 2020 to determine the incidence of patients aged 65 and older who underwent additional PJI-related procedures on the same joint. Linking to CMS ensures no loss to follow-up or patient migration to a non-AJRR site. As of 2021, the AJRR captures roughly 35% of all arthroplasty procedures performed in the United States. Of the total 2.2 million procedures in the AJRR, only 0.2% of the procedures were eligible based on our inclusion criteria. Additionally, 61% of the total population is Medicare eligible, and thus, these patients are linked to CMS. Of the 5029 DAIR attempts after a TKA, 46% (2318) were performed in female patients. Similarly, there were a total of 798 DAIR attempts after a THA, and 50% (398) were performed in female patients. For the purposes of decreasing confounding factors, bilateral THAs and TKAs were excluded from the study population. When querying for eligible procedures from 2012 to 2020, the patient population was limited to those 65 years and older, and a subsequent reoperation for infection had to be reported after a primary TJA. This limited the patient population as most infections reported to AJRR resulted in a revision, and we were searching for DAIRs. Although 5827 TJAs were identified as a primary TJA with a subsequent infectious event, more than 65% (3788) of that population did not have a reported event. The following conditions were queried as secondary outcomes after the first DAIR: sepsis, cellulitis, postoperative infection, endocarditis, amputation, knee fusion, resection, drainage, arthrotomy, and debridement. To answer our first and second study questions, we used frequency testing from the available AJRR data. Because of competing risks and issues with incomplete data, we used the cumulative incidence function to evaluate the outcomes specific to study question 3. Results Of the patients who underwent DAIR, 93% (5406 of 5827) had one DAIR and 8% (421 of 5827) had more than one. Among the DAIR population, at least 35% of TKAs and 38% of THAs were identified as having experienced an additional PJI-related event (an additional surgical procedure on the same joint, sustained an infectious endpoint in the linked CMS-AJRR dataset, or they had died). The cumulative incidence of developing a further medical or surgical condition related to the joint that had the initial DAIR were as follows: 48% (95% CI 42% to 54%) at 8 years after a DAIR following a TKA and 42% (95% CI 37% to 46%) at 4 years after a DAIR following a THA. The timepoints for TKA and THA are different because there are more longitudinal procedure data available for TKAs regarding DAIR procedures than for THAs. Conclusion In this study, we used data from the AJRR to assess the incidences of single and multiple DAIR attempts and additional surgical- and infection-related sequalae. Continued investigation is required to determine the fate of infected joints that undergo DAIR with regard to ultimate patient outcome. Future cross-sectional studies using large datasets are necessary to assess functional outcomes and determine the risk of persistent infection after DAIR more precisely. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

OBJECTIVE Clear diagnostic delineation is necessary for the development of a strong evidence base in lumbar spinal surgery. Experience with existing national databases suggests that International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) coding is insufficient to support that need. The purpose of this study was to assess agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS Data collection for the American Spine Registry (ASR) includes an option to denote the surgeon’s specific diagnostic indication for each procedure. For cases treated between January 2020 and March 2022, surgeon-delineated diagnosis was compared with the ICD-10 diagnosis generated by standard ASR electronic medical record data extraction. For decompression-only cases, the primary analysis focused on the etiology of neural compression as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the related ICD-10 codes extracted from the ASR database. For lumbar fusion cases, the primary analysis compared structural pathology, which may have required fusion, as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the extracted ICD-10 codes. This allowed for identification of agreement between surgeon delineation and extracted ICD-10 codes. RESULTS In 5926 decompression-only cases, agreement between the surgeon and ASR ICD-10 codes was 89% for spinal stenosis and 78% for lumbar disc herniation and/or radiculopathy. Both the surgeon and database indicated no structural pathology (i.e., none) suggesting the need for fusion in 88% of cases. In 5663 lumbar fusion cases, agreement was 76% for spondylolisthesis but poor for other diagnostic indications. CONCLUSIONS Agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes was best for patients who underwent decompression only. In the fusion cases, agreement with ICD-10 codes was best in the spondylolisthesis group (76%). In cases other than spondylolisthesis, agreement was poor due to multiple diagnoses or lack of an ICD-10 code that reflected the pathology. This study suggested that standard ICD-10 codes may be inadequate to clearly define the indications for decompression or fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative disease.

OBJECTIVE The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017–2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen’s d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large. RESULTS A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.