Cole, Tyler S.

Study Design: Retrospective database analysis. Objective: To examine the impact of training pathway, either neurosurgical or orthopedic, on complications, readmissions, and revisions in spine surgery. Summary of Background Data: Training pathway has been shown to have an impact on outcomes in various surgical subspecialties. Although training pathway has not been shown to have a significant impact on spine surgery outcomes in the perioperative period, long-term results are unknown. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 197,682 patients receiving 1 of 3 common spine surgeries [lumbar laminectomy, lumbar fusion, and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)] between 2006 and 2010 was conducted. Patient data were obtained from a large claims database. Postoperative adverse effects, all-cause readmission, revision surgery rates, and intermediary payments in these cohorts of patients were compared between spine surgeons with either neurosurgical or orthopedic backgrounds. Results: Patient demographics, hospital-stay characteristics, and medical comorbidities were similar between neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons. The risks of surgical complications, all-cause readmission, and revision surgery were also similar between neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons across all procedure types assessed, with several minor exceptions: neurosurgeons had marginally higher odds of any complication for lumbar fusions [odds ratio (OR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09–1.20] and ACDFs (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04–1.15). Neurosurgeons also had slightly higher rates of revision surgery for concurrent lumbar laminectomy with fusion (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08–1.22), and ACDFs (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14–1.28). No associations between surgeon type and any particular complication were consistently observed for all procedure groups. There were also no associations between surgeon type and 30-day all-cause readmission. Median total intermediary payments were somewhat higher for neurosurgery patients for all procedure groups assessed. Conclusions: Few significant associations between surgeon type and patient outcomes exist in the context of spine surgery. Those which do are small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Level of Evidence: Level 3.

OBJECTIVEThe subspecialization of neurosurgical practice is an ongoing trend in modern neurosurgery. However, it remains unclear whether the degree of surgeon specialization is associated with improved patient outcomes. The authors hypothesized that a trend toward increased neurosurgeon specialization was associated with improved patient morbidity and mortality rates.METHODSThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used (1998–2009). Patients were included in a spinal analysis cohort for instrumented spine surgery involving the cervical spine (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes 81.31–81.33, 81.01–81.03, 84.61–84.62, and 84.66) or lumbar spine (codes 81.04–81.08, 81.34–81.38, 84.64–84.65, and 84.68). A cranial analysis cohort consisted of patients receiving a parenchymal excision or lobectomy operation (codes 01.53 and 01.59). Surgeon specialization was measured using unique surgeon identifiers in the NIS and defined as the proportion of a surgeon’s total practice dedicated to cranial or spinal cases.RESULTSA total of 46,029 and 231,875 patients were identified in the cranial and spinal analysis cohorts, respectively. On multivariate analysis in the cranial analysis cohort (after controlling for overall surgeon volume, patient demographic data/comorbidities, hospital characteristics, and admitting source), each percentage-point increase in a surgeon’s cranial specialization (that is, the proportion of cranial cases) was associated with a 0.0060 reduction in the log odds of patient mortality (95% CI 0.0034–0.0086) and a 0.0042 reduction in the log odds of morbidity (95% CI 0.0032–0.0052). This resulted in a 15% difference in the predicted probability of mortality for neurosurgeons at the 75th versus the 25th percentile of cranial specialization. In the spinal analysis cohort, each percentage-point increase in a surgeon’s spinal specialization was associated with a 0.0122 reduction in the log odds of mortality (95% CI 0.0074–0.0170) and a 0.0058 reduction in the log odds of morbidity (95% CI 0.0049–0.0067). This resulted in a 26.8% difference in the predicted probability of mortality for neurosurgeons at the 75th versus the 25th percentile of spinal specialization.CONCLUSIONSFor both spinal and cranial surgery patient cohorts derived from the NIS database, increased surgeon specialization was significantly and independently associated with improved mortality and morbidity rates, even after controlling for overall case volume.