Impact of Ambulatory Setting for Workers' Compensation Patients Undergoing One-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Review of the Literature

Comparison of the Safety of Inpatient Versus Outpatient Lumbar Fusion : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to synthesize the early data regarding and analyze the safety profile of outpatient lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Performing lumbar fusion in an outpatient or ambulatory setting is becoming an increasingly employed strategy to provide effective value-based care. As this is an emerging option for surgeons to employ in their practices, the data is still in its infancy.

METHODS

This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that described outcomes of inpatient and outpatient lumbar fusion cohorts were searched from PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, and Embase. Rates of individual medical and surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation were collected when applicable. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were additionally collected if reported. Individual pooled comparative meta-analysis was performed for outcomes of medical complications, surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation. PROMs were reviewed and qualitatively reported.

RESULTS

The search yielded 14 publications that compared outpatient and inpatient cohorts with a total of 75,627 patients. Odds of readmission demonstrated no significant difference between outpatient and inpatient cohorts [OR=0.94 (0.81-1.11)]. Revision surgery similarly was no different between the cohorts [OR=0.81 (0.57-1.15)]. Pooled medical and surgical complications demonstrated significantly decreased odds for outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts [OR=0.58 (0.34-0.50), OR=0.41 (0.50-0.68), respectively]. PROM measures were largely the same between the cohorts when reported, with few studies showing better ODI and VAS Leg outcomes among outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary data regarding the safety of outpatient lumbar fusion demonstrates a favorable safety profile in appropriately selected patients, with PROMs remaining comparable in this setting. There is no data in the form of prospective and randomized trials which is necessary to definitively change practice.

Recovery ratios and minimum clinically important difference for clinical outcomes in workers' compensation recipients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus ALIF

BACKGROUND

There is a scarcity of literature that examines clinical outcomes through patient-reported outcomes (PROs), minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and recovery ratios (RR) for workers' compensation (WC) recipients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).

METHODS

WC claimants undergoing MIS-TLIF versus ALIF were propensity score matched to account for demographic differences. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and PROs were collected. PROs of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short Form Physical Composite Score (SF-12 PCS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and postoperative time points. MCID achievement was determined through comparison to values in literature. RR was calculated as the difference between postoperative and preoperative PROs over potential improvement. Comparison between surgical techniques was through non-parametric inferential statistics.

RESULTS

Eighty-four WC claimants, with 50 patients undergoing MIS-TLIF, were identified after propensity score matching. ALIF patients had higher estimated blood loss. MIS-TLIF patients had higher postoperative day (POD) 0 VAS pain and POD 0 + 1 narcotic consumption. Patients undergoing either MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported significant improvement in pain and disability. ALIF patients reported significant improvement in physical function. ALIF patients reported superior 1-year PROMIS-PF, 6-week SF-12 PCS, 6-month VAS back, and 12-week VAS leg. No significant differences in MCID achievement rates were noted between cohorts. ALIF patients had higher RR in 6-week and 1-year PROMIS-PF and 6-week SF-12 PCS.

CONCLUSION

Workers' compensation claimants undergoing either MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported significant improvement in pain and disability. ALIF patients reported superior postoperative physical function and pain. ALIF patients had higher recovery ratios in physical function. Workers' compensation claimants undergoing ALIF may experience greater physical function recovery and superior clinical outcomes in physical function and pain.