1
|
Mittal A, Rosinski A, Odeh K, Balcescu C, Ungurean V, Ungurean V, Kondrashov DG. Fusion Mass Screws in Revision Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Simple and Safe Alternative Fixation. Int J Spine Surg 2023; 17:17-24. [PMID: 35918142 PMCID: PMC10025832 DOI: 10.14444/8352] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Revision spinal deformity surgery has a high rate of complications. Fixation may be challenging due to altered anatomy. Screws through a fusion mass are an alternative to pedicle screw fixation. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this retrospective study was to further elucidate the safety and efficacy of fusion mass screws (FMSs) in revision spinal deformity surgery. DESIGN Retrospective case series. METHODS Fifteen freehand FMSs were placed in 6 patients with adult spinal deformity between 2016 and 2018 by the senior author. FMSs were combined with pedicle screws, at times at the same level. FMSs were used to save distal levels from fusion, assist in closing a 3-column osteotomy and provide additional fixation in cases of severe instability. Computed tomography (CT) was used to assess bone mineral density (BMD) and thickness of each fusion mass preoperatively along with accuracy of FMS placement postoperatively. RESULTS The mean BMD of the fusion mass was 397 Hounsfield units (HU; range: 156-628 HU). The mean AP thickness of the fusion mass was 15.5 ± 4.8 mm (range: 8.6-24.4 mm). The mean FMS length was 35.3 ± 5.5 mm (range: 25-40 mm). There was no evidence of FMS loosening, breakage, or pseudarthrosis at latest follow-up (mean: 2.2 years, range: 1.4-3.1 years). No neurologic deficits were observed. 1/15 screws had a low-grade breach into the canal (<2 mm). No patients required revision surgery. CONCLUSION FMSs may be used to augment fixation in revision spinal deformity cases when pedicle screw placement may be challenging. FMSs may also provide an additional anchor at levels with pedicular fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashish Mittal
- St. Mary's Medical Center, San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Alexander Rosinski
- St. Mary's Medical Center, San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Khalid Odeh
- St. Mary's Medical Center, San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Cristian Balcescu
- St. Mary's Medical Center, San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Dimitriy G Kondrashov
- St. Mary's Medical Center, San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Durand WM, Daniels AH, DiSilvestro K, Lafage R, Diebo BG, Passias PG, Kim HJ, Protopsaltis T, Lafage V, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Gupta MC, Klineberg EO, Schwab F, Gum JL, Mundis GM, Eastlack RK, Kebaish K, Soroceanu A, Hostin RA, Burton D, Bess S, Ames CP, Hart RA, Hamilton DK. Patient satisfaction after multiple revision surgeries for adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine 2023; 38:75-83. [PMID: 36029263 DOI: 10.3171/2022.6.spine2273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2022] [Accepted: 06/17/2022] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Revision surgery is often necessary for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. Satisfaction with management is an important component of health-related quality of life. The authors hypothesized that patients who underwent multiple revision surgeries following ASD correction would exhibit lower self-reported satisfaction scores. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of 668 patients who underwent ASD surgery and were eligible for a minimum 2-year follow-up. Visits were stratified by occurrence prior to the index surgery (period 0), after the index surgery only (period 1), after the first revision only (period 2), and after the second revision only (period 3). Patients were further stratified by prior spine surgery before their index surgery. Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22r) health-related quality-of-life satisfaction subscore and total satisfaction scores were evaluated at all periods using multiple linear regression and adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS In total, 46.6% of the study patients had undergone prior spine surgery before their index surgery. The overall revision rate was 21.3%. Among patients with no spine surgery prior to the index surgery, SRS-22r satisfaction scores increased from period 0 to 1 (from 2.8 to 4.3, p < 0.0001), decreased after one revision from period 1 to 2 (4.3 to 3.9, p = 0.0004), and decreased further after a second revision from period 2 to 3 (3.9 to 3.3, p = 0.0437). Among patients with spine surgery prior to the index procedure, SRS-22r satisfaction increased from period 0 to 1 (2.8 to 4.2, p < 0.0001) and decreased from period 1 to 2 (4.2 to 3.8, p = 0.0011). No differences in follow-up time from last surgery were observed (all p > 0.3). Among patients with multiple revisions, 40% experienced rod fracture, 40% proximal junctional kyphosis, and 33% pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSIONS Among patients undergoing ASD surgery, revision surgery is associated with decreased satisfaction, and multiple revisions are associated with additive detriment to satisfaction among patients initially undergoing primary surgery. These findings have direct implications for preoperative patient counseling and establishment of postoperative expectations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wesley M Durand
- 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Alan H Daniels
- 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brown University, Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Kevin DiSilvestro
- 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brown University, Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Renaud Lafage
- 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York
| | - Bassel G Diebo
- 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brown University, Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Peter G Passias
- 4Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University, Langone Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Han Jo Kim
- 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York
| | | | - Virginie Lafage
- 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York
| | - Justin S Smith
- 5Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | | | - Munish C Gupta
- 7Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Eric O Klineberg
- 8Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California
| | - Frank Schwab
- 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York
| | - Jeffrey L Gum
- 9Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, Kentucky
| | - Gregory M Mundis
- 10Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, San Diego Spine, La Jolla, California
| | - Robert K Eastlack
- 10Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, San Diego Spine, La Jolla, California
| | - Khaled Kebaish
- 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Alex Soroceanu
- 11Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Richard A Hostin
- 12Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Southwest Scoliosis Institute, Plano, Texas
| | - Douglas Burton
- 13Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Shay Bess
- 14Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Denver International Spine Center, Denver, Colorado
| | - Christopher P Ames
- 15Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Robert A Hart
- 16Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington; and
| | - D Kojo Hamilton
- 17Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Varshneya K, Stienen MN, Medress ZA, Fatemi P, Pendharkar AV, Ratliff JK, Veeravagu A. Risk Factors for Revision Surgery After Primary Adult Thoracolumbar Deformity Surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2022; 35:E94-E98. [PMID: 33443943 DOI: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000001124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2020] [Accepted: 11/07/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN This is a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE The aim was to identify the risk factors for revision surgery within 2 years of patients undergoing primary adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Previous literature reports estimate 20% of patients undergoing thoracolumbar ASD correction undergo reoperation within 2 years. There is limited published data regarding specific risk factors for reoperation in ASD surgery in the short term and long term. METHODS The authors queried the MarketScan database in order to identify patients who were diagnosed with a spinal deformity and underwent ASD surgery from 2007 to 2015. Patient-level factors and revision risk were investigated during 2 years after primary ASD surgery. Patients under the age of 18 years and those with any prior history of trauma or tumor were excluded from this study. RESULTS A total 7422 patients underwent ASD surgery during 2007-2015 in the data set. Revision rates were 13.1% at 90 days, 14.5% at 6 months, 16.7% at 1 year, and 19.3% at 2 years. In multivariate multiple logistic regression analysis, obesity [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.58, P<0.001] and tobacco use (adjusted OR: 1.38, P=0.0011) were associated with increased odds of reoperation within 2 years. Patients with a combined anterior-posterior approach had lower odds of reoperation compared with those with posterior only approach (adjusted OR: 0.66, P=0.0117). CONCLUSIONS Obesity and tobacco are associated with increased odds of revision surgery within 2 years of index ASD surgery. Male sex and combined surgical approach are associated with decreased odds of revision surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kunal Varshneya
- Neurosurgery AI Laboratory and Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Martin N Stienen
- Neurosurgery AI Laboratory and Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich and Clinical Neuroscience Center, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Zachary A Medress
- Neurosurgery AI Laboratory and Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Parastou Fatemi
- Neurosurgery AI Laboratory and Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Arjun V Pendharkar
- Neurosurgery AI Laboratory and Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - John K Ratliff
- Neurosurgery AI Laboratory and Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Anand Veeravagu
- Neurosurgery AI Laboratory and Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Montenegro TS, Singh A, Elia C, Matias CM, Gonzalez GA, Saiegh FA, Philipp L, Hattar E, Hines K, Fatema U, Thalheimer S, Wu C, Prasad SK, Jallo J, Heller JE, Sharan A, Harrop J. Independent Predictors of Revision Lumbar Fusion Outcomes and the Impact of Spine Surgeon Variability: Does It Matter Whether the Primary Surgeon Revises? Neurosurgery 2021; 89:836-843. [PMID: 34392365 DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyab300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a paucity of information regarding treatment strategies and variables affecting outcomes of revision lumbar fusions. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the influence of primary vs different surgeon on functional outcomes of revisions. METHODS All elective lumbar fusion revisions, March 2018 to August 2019, were retrospectively categorized as performed by the same or different surgeon who performed the primary surgery. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and clinical variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression identified multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) of independent variables analyzed. RESULTS Of the 130 cases, 117 (90%) had complete data. There was a slight difference in age in the same (median: 59; interquartile range [IQR], 54-66) and different surgeon (median: 67; IQR, 56-72) groups (P = .02); all other demographic variables were not significantly different (P > .05). Revision surgery with a different surgeon had an ODI improvement (median: 8; IQR, 2-14) greater than revisions performed by the same surgeon (median: 1.5; IQR, -3 to 10) (P < .01). Revisions who achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) performed by different surgeon (59.7%) were also significantly greater than the ones performed by the same surgeon (40%) (P = .042). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a different surgeon revising (OR, 2.37; [CI]: 1.007-5.575, P = .04) was an independent predictor of MCID achievement, each additional 2 years beyond the last surgery conferred a 2.38 ([CI]: 1.36-4.14, P < .01) times greater odds of MCID achievement, and the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach decreased the chance of achieving MCID (OR, 0.19; [CI]: 0.04-0.861, P = .03). CONCLUSION All revision lumbar spinal fusion approaches may not achieve the same outcomes. This analysis suggests that revision surgeries may have better outcomes when performed by a different surgeon.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thiago Scharth Montenegro
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Akash Singh
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Christopher Elia
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Caio M Matias
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Glenn A Gonzalez
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Fadi Al Saiegh
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Lucas Philipp
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Ellina Hattar
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Kevin Hines
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Umma Fatema
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Sara Thalheimer
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Chengyuan Wu
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Srinivas K Prasad
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jack Jallo
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Joshua E Heller
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Ashwini Sharan
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - James Harrop
- Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cook CE, Garcia AN, Park C, Gottfried O. True Differences in Poor Outcome Risks Between Revision and Primary Lumbar Spine Surgeries. HSS J 2021; 17:192-199. [PMID: 34421430 PMCID: PMC8361594 DOI: 10.1177/1556331621995136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2020] [Accepted: 10/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have shown that the rates of complications associated with revision spine surgery are higher than those of primary spine surgery. However, there is a lack of research exploring the difference in magnitude of risk of poor outcomes between primary and revision lumbar spine surgeries. Purposes: We sought to compare the risks of poor outcomes for primary and revision lumbar spine surgeries and to analyze different measures of risk to better understand the true differences between the 2 forms of surgery. Methods: This retrospective observational study used data from the Quality Outcomes Database Lumbar Spine Surgical Registry from 2012 to 2018. We included individuals who received primary or revision surgery due to degenerative lumbar disorders. Outcome variables collected were complications within 30 days of surgery and 3 destination variables, specifically, (1) 30-day hospital readmission, (2) 30-day return to operating room, and (3) revision surgery within 3 months. Measures of risk considered were odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), relative risk increase (RRI), and absolute risk increase (ARI). Results: There were 31,843 individuals who received primary surgery and 7889 who received revision surgery. After controlling for baseline descriptive variables and comorbidities, revision surgery increased the odds of 4 complications and all 3 destination variables. Risk ratios reflected smaller magnitudes but similar findings as the statistically significant ORs. Conclusion: Revision surgery is related to higher overall risks than primary surgery, but the true magnitudes of these risks are very small. RRI and ARI should be included when reporting ORs to better clarify the significance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chad E. Cook
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Physical Therapy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Alessandra N. Garcia
- College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences, Division of Physical Therapy, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Campbell University, Lillington, NC, USA
| | - Christine Park
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA,Christine Park, BA, Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
| | - Oren Gottfried
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Varshneya K, Jokhai RT, Fatemi P, Stienen MN, Medress ZA, Ho AL, Ratliff JK, Veeravagu A. Predictors of 2-year reoperation in Medicare patients undergoing primary thoracolumbar deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2020; 33:572-576. [PMID: 32707541 DOI: 10.3171/2020.5.spine191425] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2019] [Accepted: 05/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This was a retrospective cohort study in which the authors used a nationally representative administrative database. Their goal was to identify the risk factors for reoperation in Medicare patients undergoing primary thoracolumbar adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Previous literature reports estimate that 20% of patients undergoing thoracolumbar ASD correction undergo revision surgery within 2 years. Most published data discuss risk factors for revision surgery in the general population, but these have not been explored specifically in the Medicare population. METHODS Using the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database, the authors identified patients who were diagnosed with a spinal deformity and underwent ASD surgery between 2007 and 2015. The interactions of patient demographics, surgical factors, and medical factors with revision surgery were investigated during the 2 years following primary ASD surgery. The authors excluded patients without Medicare insurance and those with any prior history of trauma or tumor. RESULTS Included in the data set were 2564 patients enrolled in Medicare who underwent ASD surgery between 2007 and 2015. The mean age at diagnosis with spinal deformity was 71.5 years. A majority of patients (68.5%) were female. Within 2 years of follow-up, 661 (25.8%) patients underwent reoperation. Preoperative osteoporosis (OR 1.58, p < 0.0001), congestive heart failure (OR 1.35, p = 0.0161), and paraplegia (OR 2.41, p < 0.0001) independently increased odds of revision surgery. The use of intraoperative bone morphogenetic protein was protective against reoperation (OR 0.71, p = 0.0371). Among 90-day postoperative complications, a wound complication was the strongest predictor of undergoing repeat surgery (OR 2.85, p = 0.0061). The development of a pulmonary embolism also increased the odds of repeat surgery (OR 1.84, p = 0.0435). CONCLUSIONS Approximately one-quarter of Medicare patients with ASD who underwent surgery required an additional spinal surgery within 2 years. Baseline comorbidities such as osteoporosis, congestive heart failure, and paraplegia, as well as short-term complications such as pulmonary embolism and wound complications significantly increased the odds of repeat surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kunal Varshneya
- 1Neurosurgery AI Lab & Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
| | - Rayyan T Jokhai
- 1Neurosurgery AI Lab & Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
| | - Parastou Fatemi
- 1Neurosurgery AI Lab & Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
| | - Martin N Stienen
- 1Neurosurgery AI Lab & Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
- 2Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich and Clinical Neuroscience Center, University of Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Zachary A Medress
- 1Neurosurgery AI Lab & Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
| | - Allen L Ho
- 1Neurosurgery AI Lab & Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
| | - John K Ratliff
- 1Neurosurgery AI Lab & Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
| | - Anand Veeravagu
- 1Neurosurgery AI Lab & Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Black Race as a Social Determinant of Health and Outcomes After Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Multistate Analysis, 2007 to 2014. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2020; 45:701-711. [PMID: 31939767 DOI: 10.1097/brs.0000000000003367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN A retrospective analysis of patient hospitalization and discharge records. OBJECTIVE To examine the association between race and inpatient postoperative complications following lumbar spinal fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Racial disparities in healthcare have been demonstrated across a range of surgical procedures. Previous research has identified race as a social determinant of health that impacts outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. However, these studies are limited in that they are outdated, contain data from a single institution, analyze small limited samples, and report limited outcomes. Our study aims to expand and update the literature examining the association between race and inpatient postoperative complications following lumbar spine surgery. METHODS We analyzed 267,976 patient discharge records for inpatient lumbar spine surgery using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases for California, Florida, New York, Maryland, and Kentucky from 2007 through 2014. We used unadjusted bivariate analysis, adjusted multivariable, and stratified analysis to compare patient demographics, present-on-admission comorbidities, hospital characteristics, and complications by categories of race/ethnicity. RESULTS Black patients were 8% and 14% more likely than white patients to experience spine surgery specific complications (adjusted odds ratios [aOR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.13) and general postoperative complications (aOR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07-1.20), respectively. Black patients, compared with white patients, also had increased adjusted odds of 30-day readmissions (aOR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.07-1.20), 90-day readmissions (aOR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), longer length of stay (LOS) (adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.14-1.16), and higher total charges (adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.07-1.09). CONCLUSION Our findings demonstrate that black patients, as compared with white patients, are more likely to have postoperative complications, longer postoperative lengths of stay, higher total hospital charges, and increased odds of 30- and 90-day readmissions following lumbar spinal fusion surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4.
Collapse
|