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

One year patient reported outcomes after single-level lumbar fusion at orthopedic specialty hospital compared to tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar spinal fusion is an increasingly common operation to treat symptoms related to degenerative disorders of the spine including radiculopathy and pain. As the volume of spine surgeries grows, it is becoming increasingly common for procedures to take place in nontertiary care centers, including orthopaedic specialty hospitals (OSH). While previous research demonstrates that surgical outcomes at an OSH are noninferior to those at a tertiary referral center (TRC), the implications of this difference on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not been sufficiently assessed.

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were (1) to determine if changes in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elective lumbar spinal fusion surgery differ between patients who undergo surgery at an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) and those who undergo surgery at a tertiary referral center (TRC) and (2) to characterize differences in short-term outcomes between hospitals.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent primary, elective single-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion between January 2014 and December 2021 at a tertiary referral center or an orthopaedic specialty hospital.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMs: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-form 12 (SF12) Mental Component Summary (MCS); SF12 Physical Component Summary (PCS); Visual Analogue Back and Leg (VAS Back/Leg) METHODS: PROMs were collected preoperatively, 6 months after surgery, and 1 year after surgery. Six-month and 1-year delta PROM values were calculated by subtracting the preoperative PROM score from the 6-month or 1-year score, respectively. Multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the independent effect of hospital location on postoperative PROM scores.

RESULTS

A total of 288 patients were identified as part of the study cohort including 205 patients who underwent surgery at the tertiary hospital and 83 patients who underwent surgery at the OSH. OSH patients had shorter length of stay (1.57±0.72 vs. 3.28±1.32, p<.001), however there was no difference in discharge disposition or 90-day readmission rates between hospitals (p>.05). At 6 months, having surgery at the specialty hospital was associated with higher PCS (estimate=2.96, confidence interval: 0.21-5.71, p=.035). At 1-year postoperatively, the location of surgery no longer demonstrated significant associations with PROM scores. Preoperative PROM scores demonstrated significant associations with 6-month and 1-year scores for each PROM (p<.05) except VAS leg at 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies investigating PROMs at OSH versus TRCs for single-level lumbar fusions. We demonstrated that at 1-year follow-up, there is not a significant difference in PROM improvement between patients who undergo surgery at a TRC and patients who do so at an OSH.

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.

Influence of Prolonged Duration of Symptoms Before MIS-TLIF in a Workers' Compensation Population

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the potential effect of the preoperative symptom duration on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for workers' compensation (WC) patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

WC patients who had undergone primary, elective MIS-TLIF with recorded symptoms duration data available were included. Two cohorts were generated: those with a shorter (lesser) duration (LD; symptom duration <1 year) and those with a prolonged duration (PD; symptom duration >1 year). PROs were collected preoperatively and at several follow-up points for ≤1 year postoperatively. The PROs were compared within and between the 2 cohorts. The achievement rates of minimum clinically important differences were also compared between the 2 cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were included, with 76 in the PD cohort and 69 in the LD cohort. The LD cohort demonstrated improvement in the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system for physical function (PROMIS-PF) at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively, Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 12 weeks and 6 months postoperatively, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back pain at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively, and VAS score for leg pain at all postoperative points (P ≤ 0.015 for all). The PD cohort demonstrated improvement in the PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks and 6 months postoperatively, ODI at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively, and VAS score for back pain and leg pain at all postoperative periods (P ≤ 0.007 for all). All the preoperative PROs were superior for the LD cohort (P < 0.001 for all). The LD cohort reported better PROMIS-PF at 6 months and 1 year and ODI at 1 year postoperatively (P ≤ 0.037 for all). The PD cohort was more likely to achieve a minimum clinically important difference in ODI at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively, VAS score for back pain at 6 weeks postoperatively, and VAS score for leg pain at 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively and overall (P ≤ 0.036 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Independently of the preoperative symptom duration, WC patients demonstrated improvement in physical function and pain after MIS-TLIF. Patients with a longer symptom duration reported inferior function and pain preoperatively and were more likely to demonstrate clinically significant improvements in disability and pain postoperatively.

Establishing Minimum Clinically Important Difference Thresholds for Physical Function and Pain in Patients Undergoing Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To establish minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for the physical function patient-reported outcome measures, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) physical component score (PCS), Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) PCS, and pain patient-reported outcome measures visual analog scale (VAS) back and VAS leg through anchor- and distribution-based calculations.

METHODS

Patients undergoing ALIF with preoperative and 6-month Oswestry Disability Index were included. Using Oswestry Disability Index as the anchor, anchor-based calculation methods were the average change, minimum detectable change, and receiver operating characteristic curve methods. Distribution-based methods were the standard error of measurement, reliable change index, effect size, and half of the standard deviation (0.5ΔSD).

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were identified. Anchor-based methods ranged from 2.9 to 11.5 for PROMIS-PF, 8.2-13.6 for SF-12 PCS, 7.8-16.8 for VR-12 PCS, 0.5-3.9 for VAS back, and 1.0-3.4 for VAS leg. The area under curve ranged from 0.59 (VAS back) to 0.78 (VR-12 PCS). Distribution-based methods ranged from 1.0 to 4.2 for PROMIS-PF, 1.8-12.2 for SF-12 PCS, 1.9-6.2 for VR-12 PCS, 0.4-1.6 for VAS back, and 0.5-1.7 for VAS leg.

CONCLUSIONS

The MCID values greatly relied on the calculation method. The minimum detectable change method was selected as the most appropriate MCID calculation method. The MCID values that may be utilized for ALIF patients are 7.3 for PROMIS-PF, 8.2 for SF-12 PCS, 7.8 for VR-12 PCS, 3.2 for VAS back, and 2.2 for VAS leg.

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.