Kerezoudis, Panagiotis

Objective: To evaluate quality-of-life (QOL) in patients with sporadic vestibular schwannoma (VS) with particular focus on those recently diagnosed. Study Design: Cross-sectional survey, Penn Acoustic Neuroma Quality of Life (PANQOL) instrument. Setting: Acoustic Neuroma Association and a single tertiary referral center. Patients: Patients with sporadic VS. Main Outcome Measures: Domain-specific and total PANQOL scores comparing treatment modalities after adjusting for baseline covariates of interest. Results: Among all 1,288 respondents there were 229 (18%) who were recently diagnosed and had not yet selected a treatment modality, 303 (24%) who were observed, 185 (14%) who underwent radiosurgery alone, 507 (39%) who underwent microsurgery alone, and 64 (5%) who underwent radiosurgery and microsurgery. After adjusting for covariates of interest, total PANQOL scores were highest for the observation cohort (65; 95% CI 62–68), lowest for patients treated with multimodality therapy (56; 51–61) and those recently diagnosed (58; 55–62), and intermediate for those who received microsurgery alone (60; 58–62) and radiosurgery alone (61; 57–64) (global comparison, p = 0.001). When comparing groups that received single-modality therapy, there were no statistically significant differences in total PANQOL scores at short (0–5 yr), intermediate (6–10 yr), or long-term (≥11 yr) follow-up after adjusting for baseline covariates (all, p > 0.05). Conclusion: A new diagnosis of VS frequently imparts significant anxiety on the patient and leads to a temporary reduction in QOL. Notably, anxiety domain QOL scores among patients with newly diagnosed VS are poorer than patients who have observed their tumor for 6 months or longer. When feasible, an initial period of observation may afford patients valuable time to reconcile with the new diagnosis, to learn more about treatment options, and to discover whether there is tumor growth. In turn, this valuable information can be used to inform sound decision-making regarding tumor management.

Objective: To determine whether operating on “major” vertebral fractures leads to premature abortion of surgery and/or other acute cardiopulmonary complications. Design: Retrospective review. Clinical Setting: Level 1 trauma center. Patients/Participants and Intervention: We retrospectively queried our institutional Trauma Rregistry for all cases presenting with concomitant rib fractures and surgically managed vertebral fractures. Main Outcome Measurements: The main outcomes included the surgical outcome (aborted vs. successfully performed), total and Intensive Care Unit length of stay (LOS), adverse discharge, mortality, and functional outcomes. Results: We found 57 cases with concomitant segmental rib fractures and surgically managed vertebral fractures. Seven patients (12%) received a rib fixation, of which 1 received before vertebral fixation and 6 after. Importantly, 4 vertebral fixation cases (7.02%) had to be aborted intraoperatively because of the inability to tolerate prone positioning for surgery. For case–control analysis, we performed propensity score matching to obtain matched controls, that is, cases of vertebral fixation but no rib fractures. On matched case–control analysis, patients with concomitant segmental rib fractures and vertebral fractures were found to have higher Intensive Care Unit LOS [median = 3 days (Inter-Quartile Range = 0–9) versus. 8.4 days, P = 0.003], whereas total LOS, frequency of complete, incomplete or functional spinal cord injury, discharge to rehab, and discharge to nursing home were found to be similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that segmental rib fractures with concomitant vertebral fractures undergoing surgical treatment represent a subset of patients that may be at increased risk of intraoperative cardio-pulmonary complications and rib fixation before prone spine surgery for cases in which the neurological status is stable is reasonable. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 The diagnosis of vestibular schwannomas (VS) is associated with reduced patient quality of life (QOL). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was introduced as the lowest improvement in a patient-reported outcome (PRO) score discerned as significant by the patient. We formerly presented an MCID for the Penn Acoustic Neuroma QOL (PANQOL) battery based on cross-sectional data from 2 tertiary referral centers. OBJECTIVE To validate the PANQOL MCID values using prospective data. METHODS A prospective registry capturing QOL was queried, comprising patients treated at the authors’ institution and Acoustic Neuroma Association members. Anchor- and distribution-based techniques were utilized to determine the MCID for domain and total scores. We only included anchors with Spearman's correlation coefficient larger than 0.3 in the MCID threshold calculations. Most domains had multiple anchors with which to estimate the MCID. RESULTS A total of 1254 patients (mean age: 57.4 yr, 65% females) were analyzed. Anchor-based methods produced a span of MCID values (median, 25th-75th percentile) for each PANQOL domain and the total score: hearing (13.1, 13-16 points), balance (14, 14-19 points), pain (21, 20-28 points), face (25, 16-36 points), energy (16, 15-18 points), anxiety (16 [1 estimate]), general (13 [1 estimate]), and total (12.5, 10-15 points). CONCLUSION Current findings corroborate our formerly shared experience using multi-institutional, cross-sectional information. These MCID thresholds can serve as a pertinent outcome when deciphering the clinical magnitude of VS QOL endpoints in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.

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.