Bydon, Mohamad

OBJECTIVEFrom 1994 to 2006 outpatient spinal surgery increased 5-fold. The perceived cost savings with outcomes comparable to or better than those achieved with inpatient admission for the same procedures are desirable in an era where health expenditures are scrutinized. The increase in outpatient spine surgery is also driven by the proliferation of ambulatory surgery centers. In this study, the authors hypothesized that the total savings in outpatient spine surgery is largely driven by patient selection and biases toward healthier patients.METHODSA meta-analysis assessed patient selection factors and outcomes associated with outpatient spine procedures. Pooled odds ratios and mean differences were calculated using a Bayesian random-effects model. The authors extended this analysis in a novel way by using the results of the meta-analysis to examine cost data from an administrative database of academically affiliated hospitals. A Bayesian approach with priors informed by the meta-analysis was used to compare costs for inpatient and outpatient performance of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and lumbar laminectomy.RESULTSSixteen studies with a total of 370,195 patients met the inclusion criteria. Outpatient procedures were associated with younger patient age (mean difference [MD] −2.34, 95% credible interval [CrI] −4.39 to −0.34) and no diabetes diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% CrI 0.54–0.97). Outpatient procedures were associated with a lower likelihood of reoperation (OR 0.42, 95% CrI 0.16–0.80), 30-day readmission (OR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.16–0.74), and complications (OR 0.29, 95% CrI 0.15–0.50) and with lower overall costs (MD −$121,392.72, 95% CrI −$216,824.81 to −$23,632.92). Additional analysis of the national administrative data revealed more modest cost savings than those found in the meta-analysis for outpatient spine surgeries relative to inpatient spine surgeries. Estimated cost savings for both younger patients ($555 for those age 30–35 years [95% CrI −$733 to −$374]) and older patients ($7290 for those age 65–70 years [95% CrI −$7380 to −$7190]) were less than the overall cost savings found in the meta-analysis.CONCLUSIONSCompared to inpatient spine surgery, outpatient spine surgery was associated with better short-term outcomes and an initial reduction in direct costs. A selection bias for outpatient procedures toward younger, healthier patients may confound these results. The additional analysis of the national database suggests that cost savings in the outpatient setting may be less than previously reported and a result of outpatient procedures being offered more frequently to younger and healthier individuals.

Abstract BACKGROUND Emergency department (ED) overuse is a costly and often neglected source of postdischarge resource utilization after spine surgery. Failing to investigate drivers of ED visits represents a missed opportunity to improve the value of care in spine patients. OBJECTIVE To identify the prevalence, drivers, and timing of ED visits following elective spine surgery. METHODS Patients undergoing elective spine surgery for degenerative disease at a major medical center were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal registry. Patient and surgery characteristics, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and 3 mo after surgery, along with self-reported 90-d ED visits. A multivariable regression model was used to identify independent factors associated with 90-d ED visits. For a sample of patients presenting to our institution's ED, charts were reviewed to identify the reason and time to ED postdischarge. RESULTS Of 2762 patients, we found a 90-d ED visit rate of 9.4%. One-third of patients presented to our institution's ED and of these, 70% presented due to pain or medical concerns at 9 and 7 d postdischarge, respectively, with 60% presenting outside normal clinic hours. Independent risk factors for 90-d ED visits included younger age, preoperative opioid use, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and more vertebral levels involved. CONCLUSION Nearly 10% of elective spine patients had 90-d ED visits not requiring readmission. Pain and medical concerns accounted for 70% of visits at our center, occurring within 10 d of discharge. This study provides the clinical details and a timeline necessary to guide individualized interventions to prevent unnecessary, costly ED visits after spine surgery.

Abstract BACKGROUND Return to the operating room (ROR) has been put forth by the National Quality Forum and the American College of Surgeons as a surgical quality indicator. However, current quality metrics fail to consider the nature and etiology of the ROR. OBJECTIVE To provide a comprehensive description of all reoperations after neurosurgical procedures and assess the validity of ROR as a quality measure in neurosurgery. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed all neurosurgical procedures performed in a high-volume, tertiary care academic medical center between June 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016. Based on a system constructed and validated at our institution, we classified RORs into (a) unplanned related, (b) planned return due to complications, (c) planned-staged return, or (d) unrelated return. RESULTS A total of 9200 unique neurosurgical cases were identified, of which 788 had an ROR within 45 d (8.6%). Median time to ROR (interquartile range) was 9 d (4-15). Specifically, 4.2% were planned-staged returns, 3.4% were unplanned related, 0.3% were unrelated, and 0.6% were planned because of previous complications. Cranial procedures had the highest unplanned ROR rate (4.2%), followed by spinal (2.8%) and peripheral nerve (0.4%). The most common reason for an unplanned ROR was wound complication/surgical site infection (34.3%), followed by hematoma evacuation (13.9%) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak (11.3%). CONCLUSION Unplanned RORs were relatively rare and most commonly associated with wound complication, postoperative hematoma, and CSF leak. To better reflect surgical quality, ROR metrics should indicate whether the return was planned or unrelated.

Abstract BACKGROUND Reducing length of stay (LOS) in a safe manner has the potential to save significant costs for the care of patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery. Due to the relative absence on weekends of staff required for discharging patients to rehabilitation or nursing facilities, we hypothesize that patients undergoing lumbar surgery later in the week have a longer LOS than their counterparts. OBJECTIVE To analyze the effect of day of the week for lumbar surgery on LOS. METHODS Patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disease were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter quality and outcomes database registry. A multivariable proportional odds regression model was built with LOS as the outcome of interest and patient and surgical variables as covariates. RESULTS A total of 11 897 patients were analyzed. Among those discharged home, the regression analysis demonstrated significantly higher odds of longer LOS for patients undergoing surgery on Friday as compared to Monday ( P < .001). Among those discharged to a facility, there were significantly higher odds of longer LOS for patients undergoing surgery on Wednesday ( P < .001), Thursday ( P < .001), and Friday ( P = .002) as compared to Monday. CONCLUSION The findings of this study suggest that lumbar patients undergoing fusions and those discharged to a facility have longer LOS when surgery is later in the week. Scheduling these patients for surgery earlier in the week and ensuring adequate resources for patient disposition on weekends may lead to LOS reduction and cost savings for hospitals, payers, and patients alike.

Abstract BACKGROUND Surgical site infections (SSIs) after spine and brain surgery present a major burden to patients and hospitals by increasing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE To review available literature investigating the role of intrawound powdered vancomycin against SSIs after neurosurgical operations. METHODS All randomized and observational English language studies of intrawound powdered vancomycin use in spinal and cranial surgery were included and analyzed using random-effects modeling. RESULTS In spine surgery (25 studies with 16 369 patients), patients in the vancomycin group had a significantly lower risk for any SSI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-0.57; P < .001; I 2 = 47%). However, when separate analyses were conducted for superficial and deep SSIs, a significant difference was found only for deep (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.22-0.45; P < .001; I 2 = 29%). Subgroup analyses for different vancomycin powder dosages (1 g vs 2 g vs composite dose) did not point to any dose-related effect of vancomycin. In cranial surgery (6 studies with 1777 patients), use of vancomycin was associated with a significantly lower risk for SSIs (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.18-0.60; P = .0003; I 2 = 45%). In meta-regression analysis, trial-level variability of diabetes had no influence on the association of vancomycin powder use with SSIs. CONCLUSION Use of vancomycin powder in spinal and cranial surgery might be protective against SSIs, especially against deep SSIs. No dose-related effect of vancomycin powder was identified. However, caution is needed in the clinical interpretation of these results, owing to the observational design of the included studies in this meta-analysis.

AbstractIntroductionSince the introduction of wearable head‐up displays, there has been much interest in the surgical community adapting this technology into routine surgical practice.MethodsWe used the keywords augmented reality OR wearable device OR head‐up display AND surgery using PubMed, EBSCO, IEEE and SCOPUS databases. After exclusions, 74 published articles that evaluated the utility of wearable head‐up displays in surgical settings were included in our review.ResultsAcross all studies, the most common use of head‐up displays was in cases of live streaming from surgical microscopes, navigation, monitoring of vital signs, and display of preoperative images. The most commonly used head‐up display was Google Glass. Head‐up displays enhanced surgeons' operating experience; common disadvantages include limited battery life, display size and discomfort.ConclusionsDue to ergonomic issues with dual‐screen devices, augmented reality devices with the capacity to overlay images onto the surgical field will be key features of next‐generation surgical head‐up displays.

Abstract BACKGROUND The choice of anterior vs posterior approach for degenerative cervical myelopathy that spans multiple segments remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes following the 2 approaches using multicenter prospectively collected data. METHODS Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) for patients undergoing surgery for 3 to 5 level degenerative cervical myelopathy was analyzed. The anterior group (anterior cervical discectomy [ACDF] or corpectomy [ACCF] with fusion) was compared with posterior cervical fusion. Outcomes included: patient reported outcomes (PROs): neck disability index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS) of neck pain and arm pain, EQ-5D, modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score for myelopathy (mJOA), and NASS satisfaction questionnaire; hospital length of stay (LOS), 90-d readmission, and return to work (RTW). Multivariable regression models were fitted for outcomes. RESULTS Of total 245 patients analyzed, 163 patients underwent anterior surgery (ACDF-116, ACCF-47) and 82 underwent posterior surgery. Patients undergoing an anterior approach had lower odds of having higher LOS ( P < .001, odds ratio 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.30). The 12-mo NDI, EQ-5D, NRS, mJOA, and satisfaction scores as well as 90-d readmission and RTW did not differ significantly between anterior and posterior groups. CONCLUSION Patients undergoing anterior approaches for 3 to 5 level degenerative cervical myelopathy had shorter hospital LOS compared to those undergoing posterior decompression and fusion. Also, patients in both groups exhibited similar long-term PROs, readmission, and RTW rates. Further investigations are needed to compare the differences in longer term reoperation rates and functional outcomes before the clinical superiority of one approach over the other can be established.