Are Guidelines Important? Results of a Prospective Quality Improvement Lumbar Fusion Project

What Is the Value Proposition of Evidence-Based Guidelines? An Application of the Operative Value Index for Lumbar Fusions

BACKGROUND

Elective lumbar fusions have received criticism for inappropriate utilization. Here, we use a novel Operative Value Index (OVI) to assess whether "indicated," evidence-based lumbar fusions are associated with increased value (outcomes per dollar spent).

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of 294 patients undergoing elective lumbar fusions at a single large academic institution. All patients were preoperatively evaluated by a panel of neurosurgeons for concordance with evidence-based medicine (EBM), determined through guidelines from the North American Spine Society. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected for all patients both preoperatively and at 6-months postoperatively. Time-driven activity-based costing was employed to determine both direct and indirect intraoperative costs. The OVI was defined as the percent improvement in ODI per $1000 spent intraoperatively. Generalized linear mixed model regression, adjusting for confounders, was performed to assess whether EBM-concordant surgeries were associated with higher OVI.

RESULTS

Of 294 elective lumbar fusions, 92.9% (n = 273) were EBM-concordant. The average total cost of an EBM-concordant lumbar fusion was $17,932 (supplies: $13,020; personnel: $4314), compared to $20,616 (supplies: $15,467; personnel: $4758) for an EBM-discordant fusion. Average OVI was 2.27 for a concordant fusion, compared to 0.11 for a discordant fusion. Generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed that EBM-concordant cases were associated with significantly higher OVI (β-coefficient 2.0, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EBM-concordant fusions were associated with 2% greater improvement in ODI scores from baseline for every $1000 spent intraoperatively. Systematic methods for increasing guideline adherence for lumbar fusions could therefore improve value at scale.

Clinical Outcomes with and without Adherence to Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Fusion Patients

INTRODUCTION

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) patients are treated with instrumented fusion, following EBM guidelines, and typically have excellent clinical outcomes. However, not all lumbar fusion procedures adhere to EBM guidelines, typically due to a lack of prospective data.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study compared outcomes of DS lumbar fusion patients treated according to EBM guidelines (EBM concordant) to lumbar fused patients with procedures that did not have clear EBM literature that supported this treatment, the goal being to examine the value of present EBM to guide clinical care.

METHODS

A total of 125 DS patients were considered EBM concordant, while 21 patients were EBM discordant. Pre- and postsurgical ODI scores were collected. Clinical outcomes were stratified into substantial clinical benefit (SCB ΔODI >10 points), minimal clinical importance benefit (MCID ΔODI ≥ 5 points), no MCID (ΔODI < 5 points), and a group that showed no change or worsening ODI. Fisher's exact and χ2 tests for categorical variables, Student's t-test for continuous variables, and descriptive statistics were used. Statistical tests were computed at the 95% level of confidence.

RESULTS

Analysis of 125 degenerative spondylolisthesis patients was performed comparing preoperative and postoperative (6 months) ODI scores. ODI improved by 8 points in the EBM concordant group vs. 2.1 points in the EBM discordant group (p = 0.002). Compliance with EBM guidelines was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.93 for achieving MCID ([CI]: 1.12-7.58, p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients whose lumbar fusions met EBM criteria had better self-reported outcomes at six months than those who did not meet the requirements. A greater knowledge set is needed to help further support EBM-guided patient care.

Development of a decision-making pathway for utilizing standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

To develop a decision-making pathway for primary SA-LLIF. Furthermore, we analyzed the agreement of this pathway and compared outcomes of patients undergoing either SA-LLIF or 360-LLIF.

METHOD

A decision-making pathway for SA-LLIF was created based on the results of interviews/surveys of senior spine surgeons with over 10 years of experience. Internal validity was retrospectively evaluated using consecutive patients undergoing either SA-LLIF or 360-LLIF between 01/2018 and 07/2020 with 3D-printed Titanium cages. An outcome assessment looking primarily at revision surgery and secondary at cage subsidence, changes in disk and foraminal height, global and segmental lumbar lordosis, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, and length of stay was carried out.

RESULTS

78 patients with 124 treated levels (37 SA-LLIF, 41 360-LLIF) were retrospectively analyzed. The pathway showed a direct agreement (SA-LLIF) of 100.0% and an indirect agreement (360-LLIF) of 95.1%. Clinical follow-up averaged 13.5 ± 6.5 months including 4 revision surgeries in the 360-LLIF group and none in the SA-LLIF group (p = 0.117). Radiographic follow-up averaged 9.5 ± 4.3 months, with no statistically significant difference in cage subsidence rate between the groups (p = 0.440). Compared to preoperative images, patients in both groups showed statistically significant changes in disk height (p < 0.001), foraminal height (p < 0.001), as well as restoration of segmental lordosis (p < 0.001 and p = 0.018). The SA-LLIF group showed shorter duration of surgery, less estimated blood loss and shorter LOS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The proposed decision-making pathway provides a guide to adequately select patients for SA-LLIF. Further studies are needed to assess the external applicability and validity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

The Impact of Incorporating Evidence-Based Guidelines for Lumbar Fusion Surgery in Neurosurgical Resident Education

BACKGROUND

Instrumented fusion procedures are essential in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease to alleviate pain and improve neurological function, but they are being performed with increasing incidence and variability. We implemented a training module for neurosurgery residents that is based on evidence-based criteria for lumbar fusion surgery and measured its effectiveness in residents' decision making regarding whether patients should or should not undergo instrumented fusion.

METHODS

The study design was a pretest versus posttest experiment conducted from September 2019 until July 2020 to measure improvement after formalized instruction on evidence-based guidelines. Neurosurgery residents of all training levels at our institution participated. A test was administered at the beginning of each academic year. The highest possible score was 18 points in each pretest and posttest.

RESULTS

There was a general trend of test score improvement across all levels of training with a greater degree of change for participants with lower compared with higher pretest scores, indicating a possible ceiling effect. Paired t test demonstrated an overall mean score increase of 2 points (P < 0.0001), equivalent to an 11.11% increase (P < 0.0001). Stratified by training group, mean absolute change in test score was 2 (P = 0.0217), 1.67 (P = 0.0108), and 2.25 (P = 0.0173) points for junior, midlevel, and senior training groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating a targeted evidence-based learning module for lumbar spine fusion surgery can improve neurosurgery residents' clinical decision making toward a more uniform practice supported by published data.

Are Lumbar Fusion Guidelines Followed? A Survey of North American Spine Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of guidelines for lumbar spine fusions among spine surgeons in North America.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was electronically sent to all AO Spine North America members. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their opinion surrounding the suitability of instrumented fusion in a variety of clinical scenarios. Fusion indications in accordance with North America Spine Society (NASS) guidelines for lumbar fusion were considered NASS-concordant answers. Respondents were considered to have a NASS-concordant approach if ≥ 70% (13 of 18) of their answers were NASS-concordant answers. Comparisons were performed using bivariable statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 105 responses were entered with complete data available on 70. Sixty percent of the respondents (n = 42) were considered compliant with NASS guidelines. NASS-discordant responses did not differ between surgeons who stated that they include the NASS guidelines in their decision-making algorithm (5.10 ± 1.96) and those that did not (4.68 ± 2.09) (p = 0.395). The greatest number of NASS-discordant answers in the United States. was in the South (5.75 ± 2.09), with the lowest number in the Northeast (3.84 ± 1.70) (p < 0.01). For 5 survey items, rates of NASS-discordant answers were ≥ 40%, with the greatest number of NASS-discordant responses observed in relation to indications for fusion in spinal deformity (80%). Spine surgeons utilizing a NASS-concordant approach had a significant lower number of NASS-discordant answers for synovial cysts (p = 0.03), axial low back pain (p < 0.01), adjacent level disease (p < 0.01), recurrent stenosis (p < 0.01), recurrent disc herniation (p = 0.01), and foraminal stenosis (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study serves an important role in clarifying the rates of uptake of clinical practice guidelines in spine surgery as well as to identify barriers to their implementation.