Alvi, Mohammed Ali

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 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 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.

OBJECTIVEPatient-reported outcomes have been increasingly mandated by regulators and payers to evaluate hospital and physician performance. The purpose of this study is to delineate the differences in patient-reported experience of hospital care for cranial and spinal operations.METHODSThe authors selected all patients who underwent inpatient, elective cranial or spinal procedures and completed the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey at a single, high-volume, tertiary care institution between October 2012 and September 2015. The association of the surgical procedure and diagnosis with various HCAHPS composite measures, calculated across 9 domains using standard top-box methodology, was investigated. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for outcomes that were significant with procedure type and diagnosis group on univariate analysis, adjusting for age, sex, case complexity, overall health rating, and education level.RESULTSA total of 1484 patients met criteria and returned an HCAHPS survey. Overall, patients undergoing a cranial procedure gave top-box (most favorable) scores more often in pain management measure (66.3% vs 59.6%, p = 0.01) compared with those undergoing spine surgery. Furthermore, despite better discharge scores (93.1% vs 87.1%, p < 0.001), spinal patients were less likely to report excellent health (7.4% vs 12.7%). Lastly, patients with a primary diagnosis of brain or spinal tumor compared with those with degenerative spinal disease and those with other neurosurgical diagnoses provided top-box scores more often regarding communication with doctors (82.7% vs 76.4% vs 75.2%, p = 0.04), pain management (71.8% vs 60.9% vs 59.1%, p = 0.002), and global rating (90.4% vs 84.0% vs 87.3%, p = 0.02). On multivariable analysis, spinal patients had significantly lower odds of reporting top-box scores in pain management (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52–0.85; p = 0.001), staff responsiveness (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53–0.87; p = 0.002), and global rating (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42–0.82; p = 0.002), and significantly higher odds of top-box scoring in discharge information (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.45–3.18; p < 0.001) than cranial patients. Similarly, brain tumor cases were associated with significantly higher odds of top-box scoring in communication with doctors (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01–2.12; p = 0.04), pain management (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.29–2.55; p < 0.001), staff responsiveness (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.33–2.66; p < 0.001), and global rating (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.26–3.17; p = 0.003) compared with degenerative spine cases.CONCLUSIONSSignificant differences in patient-reported experience with hospital care exist across different cranial and spine surgery patient populations. Overall, spinal patients, particularly those with degenerative spine disease, rated their health and their hospital experience lower relative to cranial patients. Identifying weaker areas of hospital performance in target populations can stimulate quality initiatives that aim to increase the overall hospital score.

Study Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective. To compare postoperative surgical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with and without plate fixation. Summary of Background Data. ACDF has evolved significantly over the years, including the placement of an anterior plate construct. Although promoting bony osseo-integration at the fusion site, there are a number of plate-related complications that can arise. The non-plating approach is less invasive, however, greater rates of cage subsidence have been associated with this model. Methods. We performed an electronic literature search for human studies that directly compared ACDF with and without anterior plate fixation. Outcomes of interest comprised of postoperative dysphagia, fusion success, and cage subsidence as well as patient reported outcomes, including the Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for both neck and arm pain. Results. A total of 15 studies (12 observational and 3 randomized controlled trials) and 893 patients (57% males) were included. Overall, ACDF with plate fixation was associated with significantly higher vertebral fusion rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–3.37), lower subsidence rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% CI 0.18–0.52), and more favorable VAS-neck pain scores at last follow-up (mean difference [MD] 0.59, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.41). Conversely, ACDF procedures without plate fixation had marginally better long-term VAS-arm pain scores (mean difference [MD] 0.2, 95% CI 0.04–0.36). No difference was found with regards to dysphagia (OR 1.21, 95% CI, 0.57–2.56) and NDI (MD 0.06, 95% C.I −0.54 to 0.42). Conclusion. Available evidence, although limited, suggests superior surgical outcomes in ACDF procedures with anterior plate fixation (increased fusion, decreased subsidence) and slightly better VAS-neck pain scores at last follow-up. Future longitudinal, multicenter randomized controlled trials should be completed to validate any associations found in this study. Level of Evidence: 3