Study Design This is a retrospective, cohort analysis of multi-institutional database. Objective This study was designed to analyze the impact of drain use following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgeries. Summary of Background Data After ACDF, a drain is often placed to prevent postoperative hematoma. However, there has been no high quality evidence to support its use with ACDF despite the theoretical benefits and risks of drain placement. Methods The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database was queried to identify all patients undergoing elective ACDF between February 2014 and October 2019. Cases were divided into two cohorts based on drain use. Propensity-score matching was utilized to adjust for inherent differences between the two cohorts. Measured outcomes included surgical site hematoma, length of stay, surgical site infection, dysphagia, home discharge, readmission within 30 days, and unplanned reoperation. Results We identified 7,943 patients during the study period. Propensity-score matching yielded 3,206 pairs. On univariate analysis of matched cohorts, there were no differences in rate of post-operative hematoma requiring either return to OR or readmission. We noted patients with drains had a higher rate of dysphagia (4.6% vs 6.3%; p = 0.003) and had longer hospital stay (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, drain use was associated with significantly increased length of stay (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13-1.34; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in other outcomes measured. Conclusion Our analysis demonstrated that drain use is associated with significant longer hospital stay.
Chang, Victor W MD; Bazydlo, Michael MS; Yeh, Hsueh-Han; Schultz, Lonni PhD; Nerenz, David PhD; Schwalb, Jason M MD; Abdulhak, Muwaffak MD; Khalil, Jad; Easton, Richard MD; Park, Paul MD; Aleem, Ilyas MD; Macki, Mohamed MD; Hamilton, Travis M MD Author Information
The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is one of the most commonly used patient-reported outcome instruments, but completion of this 10-question survey can be cumbersome. Tools from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) are an alternative, and potentially more efficient, means of assessing physical, mental, and social outcomes in spine surgery. Authors of this retrospective study assessed whether scores on the 4-item surveys of function and pain from the PROMIS initiative correlate with those on the ODI in lumbar spine surgery.
OBJECTIVE In 2017, Michigan passed new legislation designed to reduce opioid abuse. This study evaluated the impact of these new restrictive laws on preoperative narcotic use, short-term outcomes, and readmission rates after spinal surgery. METHODS Patient data from 1 year before and 1 year after initiation of the new opioid laws (beginning July 1, 2018) were queried from the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database. Before and after implementation of the major elements of the new laws, 12,325 and 11,988 patients, respectively, were treated. RESULTS Patients before and after passage of the opioid laws had generally similar demographic and surgical characteristics. Notably, after passage of the opioid laws, the number of patients taking daily narcotics preoperatively decreased from 3783 (48.7%) to 2698 (39.7%; p < 0.0001). Three months postoperatively, there were no differences in minimum clinically important difference (56.0% vs 58.0%, p = 0.1068), numeric rating scale (NRS) score of back pain (3.5 vs 3.4, p = 0.1156), NRS score of leg pain (2.7 vs 2.7, p = 0.3595), satisfaction (84.4% vs 84.7%, p = 0.6852), or 90-day readmission rate (5.8% vs 6.2%, p = 0.3202) between groups. Although there was no difference in readmission rates, pain as a reason for readmission was marginally more common (0.86% vs 1.22%, p = 0.0323). CONCLUSIONS There was a meaningful decrease in preoperative narcotic use, but notably there was no apparent negative impact on postoperative recovery, patient satisfaction, or short-term outcomes after spinal surgery despite more restrictive opioid prescribing. Although the readmission rate did not significantly increase, pain as a reason for readmission was marginally more frequently observed.
INTRODUCTION: The number of outpatient surgeries have quadrupled over the past several decades. Although studies have shown increased efficacy and cost-effectiveness of surgery done in an outpatient setting, few studies have compared outpatient surgeries performed at a hospital versus an ambulatory surgery facility (ASF) METHODS: The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative was queried for patients undergoing cervical and/or lumbar spine surgery between 1/1/2021 to 12/31/2021 performed at an ASF or hospital with same day discharge. A 4-to-1 propensity score matching using BMI, location (lumbar, cervical), ASA > 2, fusion procedure and number of levels as the matching variables for lumbar and cervical surgeries. Primary outcomes included: achieving MCID for PROMIS physical function, EQ-5D, Return-to-Work and NASS patient satisfaction. Complications were a secondary outcome and included: Surgical site Infection (SSI), urinary retention, hospital readmission/ED visit, return-to-OR, Axial pain, new radicular findings, weakness, Ileus (lumbar only), and Dysphagia (cervical only). RESULTS: A total of 2,763 patients were identified prior to matching. Of the 1,665 patients that were matched, 1,332 had surgery at a hospital and 333 in an ASF. There were no statistically significant differences for patient satisfaction, PROMIS-PF MCID, or Return-to-Work at 90-days. Patients who had surgery at an ASF had higher rates of axial pain (10% vs 5%, p = 0.002) and new radicular findings(19% vs 12%, p < .001) compared to surgery at a hospital. Dysphagia was also higher in the ASF group (5% vs 0%, p = .006). There were no differences in SSI, readmission, urinary retention, return-to-OR or ED visits between sites CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient spine surgery at an ASF demonstrated no significantly increased surgical morbidity compared to hospitals. Although ASFs had a higher rate of new radicular findings and axial pain, there were no differences in patient satisfaction and PROs after surgery.
Lawless, Michael H BS, DO; Claus, Chad F DO; Tong, Doris; Bahoura, Matthew BA; Garmo, Lucas; Li, Chenxi; Houseman, Clifford M DO; Bono, Peter L DO; Richards, Boyd F DO; Kelkar, Prashant S; Park, Paul MD; Abdulhak, Muwaffak MD; Chang, Victor W MD; Soo, Teck M Author Information
OBJECTIVE Despite a general consensus regarding the administration of preoperative antibiotics, poorly defined comparison groups and underpowered studies prevent clear guidelines for postoperative antibiotics. Utilizing a data set tailored specifically to spine surgery outcomes, in this clinical study the authors aimed to determine whether there is a role for postoperative antibiotics in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI). METHODS The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry was queried for all lumbar operations performed for degenerative spinal pathologies over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2019. Preoperative prophylactic antibiotics were administered for all surgical procedures. The study population was divided into three cohorts: no postoperative antibiotics, postoperative antibiotics ≤ 24 hours, and postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours. This categorization was intended to determine 1) whether postoperative antibiotics are helpful and 2) the appropriate duration of postoperative antibiotics. First, multivariable analysis with generalized estimating equations (GEEs) was used to determine the association between antibiotic duration and all-type SSI with adjusted odds ratios; second, a three-tiered outcome—no SSI, superficial SSI, and deep SSI—was calculated with multivariable multinomial logistical GEE analysis. RESULTS Among 37,161 patients, the postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours cohort had more men with older average age, greater body mass index, and greater comorbidity burden. The postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours cohort had a 3% rate of SSI, which was significantly higher than the 2% rate of SSI of the other two cohorts (p = 0.004). On multivariable GEE analysis, neither postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours nor postoperative antibiotics ≤ 24 hours, as compared with no postoperative antibiotics, was associated with a lower rate of all-type postoperative SSIs. On multivariable multinomial logistical GEE analysis, neither postoperative antibiotics ≤ 24 hours nor postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours was associated with rate of superficial SSI, as compared with no antibiotic use at all. The odds of deep SSI decreased by 45% with postoperative antibiotics ≤ 24 hours (p = 0.002) and by 40% with postoperative antibiotics > 24 hours (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS Although the incidence of all-type SSI was highest in the antibiotics > 24 hours cohort, which also had the highest proportions of risk factors, duration of antibiotics failed to predict all-type SSI. On multinomial subanalysis, administration of postoperative antibiotics for both ≤ 24 hours and > 24 hours was associated with decreased risk of only deep SSI but not superficial SSI. Spine surgeons can safely consider antibiotics for 24 hours, which is equally as effective as long-term administration for prophylaxis against deep SSI.
Chang, Victor W MD; Yeh, Hsueh-Han; Bazydlo, Michael MS; Nerenz, David PhD; Schultz, Lonni PhD; Schwalb, Jason M MD; Abdulhak, Muwaffak MD; Park, Paul MD; Aleem, Ilyas MD, MS; Easton, Richard MD; Khalil, Jad; Macki, Mohamed MD; Hamilton, Travis M MD Author Information
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)