RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to (1) compare the safety of spine surgery before and after the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and (2) determine whether patients with a history of COVID-19 were at increased risk of adverse events. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on several health care services. In spine surgery, elective cases were canceled and patients received delayed care due to the uncertainty of disease transmission and surgical outcomes. As new coronavirus variants arise, health care systems require guidance on how to provide optimal patient care to all those in need of our services. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing spine surgery between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021 was performed. Patients were split into pre-COVID or post-COVID cohorts based on local government guidelines. Inpatient complications, 90-day readmission, and 90-day mortality were compared between groups. Secondary analysis included multiple logistic regression to determine independent predictors of each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 2976 patients were included for analysis with 1701 patients designated as pre-COVID and 1275 as post-COVID. The pre-COVID cohort had fewer patients undergoing revision surgery (16.8% vs 21.9%, P < 0.001) and a lower home discharge rate (84.5% vs 88.2%, P = 0.008). Inpatient complication (9.9% vs 9.2%, P = 0.562), inpatient mortality (0.1% vs 0.2%, P = 0.193), 90-day readmission (3.4% vs 3.2%, P = 0.828), and 90-day mortality rates (0.8% vs 0.8%, P = 0.902) were similar between groups. Patients with positive COVID-19 tests before surgery had similar complication rates (7.7% vs 6.1%, P = 1.000) as those without a positive test documented. CONCLUSIONS: After the emergence of COVID-19, patients undergoing spine surgery had a greater number of medical comorbidities, but similar rates of inpatient complications, readmission, and mortality. Prior COVID-19 infection was not associated with an increased risk of postsurgical complications or mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Fusão Vertebral , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Pandemias , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/complicações , Fusão Vertebral/efeitos adversos , Descompressão/efeitos adversos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
Meta-analyses represent the best available medical evidence. Although a powerful tool, they are not without criticisms since any bias in the original studies are then compounded when they are pooled together for the meta-analysis. Funnel plots provide a useful graphical representation of the presence of bias, and forest plots represent the heterogeneity of findings within studies included in a meta-analysis. The purpose of this review is to help readers interpret these statistical tools to better understand the findings of a meta-analysis.
Assuntos
Viés de Publicação , Humanos , ViésRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of discontinuity in care by changing surgeons, health systems, or increased time to revision surgery on revision spine fusion surgical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience worse outcomes than those undergoing primary lumbar surgery. Those requiring complex revisions are often transferred to tertiary or quaternary referral centers under the assumption that those institutions may be more accustomed at performing those procedures. However, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the impact of discontinuity of care in revision spinal fusions. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion 2011-2021 were grouped based on (1) revision performed by the index surgeon versus a different surgeon, (2) revision performed within the same versus different hospital system as the index procedure, and (3) length of time from index procedure. Multivariate regression for outcomes controlled for confounding differences. RESULTS: A total of 776 revision surgeries were included. An increased time interval between the index procedure and the revision surgery was predictive of a lower risk for subsequent revision procedure (odds ratio: 0.57, P =0.022). Revision surgeries performed by the same surgeon predicted a reduced length of hospital stay (ß: -0.14, P =0.001). Neither time to revision nor undergoing by the same surgeon or same practice predicted 90-day readmission rates. Patients are less likely to report meaningful improvement in Mental Component Score-12 or Physical Component Score-12 if revision surgery was performed at a different hospital system. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have revision lumbar fusions have similar clinical outcomes regardless of whether their surgeon performed the index procedure. However, continuity of care with the same surgeon may reduce hospital length of stay and associated health care costs. The length of time between primary and revision surgery does not significantly impact patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Assuntos
Fusão Vertebral , Cirurgiões , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Coluna Vertebral/cirurgia , Fusão Vertebral/métodos , Hospitais , Resultado do Tratamento , Vértebras Lombares/cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologiaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) are two main surgical management options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Although ACDF is less invasive than PCF which should theoretically reduce postoperative pain, it is still unknown whether this leads to reduced opioid use. Our objective was to evaluate whether PCF increases postoperative opioid use compared with ACDF. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing 2-level to 4-level ACDF or PCF at a single center from 2017 to 2021. Our state's prescription drug-monitoring program was queried for filled opioid prescriptions using milligrams morphine equivalents (MMEs) up to 1 year postoperatively. In-hospital opioid use was collected from the electronic medical record. Bivariate statistics compared ACDF and PCF cohorts. Multivariate linear regression was done to assess independent predictors of in-hospital opioid use and short-term (0 to 30 days), subacute (30 to 90 days), and long-term (3 to 12 months) opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: We included 211 ACDF patients and 91 PCF patients. Patients undergoing PCF used more opioids during admission (126.7 vs. 51.0 MME, P < 0.001) and refilled more MMEs in the short-term (118.2 vs. 86.1, P = 0.001) but not subacute (33.6 vs. 19.7, P = 0.174) or long-term (85.6 vs. 47.8, P = 0.310) period. A similar percent of patients in both groups refilled at least one prescription after 90 days (39.6% vs. 33.2%, P = 0.287). PCF (ß = 56.7, P = 0.001) and 30-day preoperative MMEs (ß = 0.28, P = 0.041) were associated with greater in-hospital opioid requirements. PCF (ß = 26.7, P = 0.039), C5 nerve root irritation (ß = 51.4, P = 0.019), and a history of depression (ß = 40.9, P < 0.001) were independently associated with 30-day postoperative MMEs. CONCLUSIONS: PCF is initially more painful than ACDF but does not lead to persistent opioid use. Surgeons should optimize multimodal analgesia protocols to reduce long-term narcotic usage rather than change the surgical approach.Level of Evidence:III.
Assuntos
Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides , Fusão Vertebral , Humanos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Discotomia/efeitos adversos , Pescoço/cirurgia , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Pós-Operatória/etiologia , Vértebras Cervicais/cirurgia , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/prevenção & controle , Fusão Vertebral/efeitos adversos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes between approach techniques for the treatment of multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Both anterior and posterior approaches for the surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy are successful techniques in the treatment of myelopathy. However, the optimal treatment has yet to be determined, especially for multilevel disease, as the different approaches have separate complication profiles and potentially different impacts on HRQoL metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively managed single institution database of patient-reported outcome measures after 3 and 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for DCM. The electronic medical record was reviewed for patient baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes whereas preoperative radiographs were analyzed for baseline cervical lordosis and sagittal balance. Bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to compare the two groups. RESULTS: We identified 153 patients treated by ACDF and 43 patients treated by PCDF. Patients in the ACDF cohort were younger (60.1 ± 9.8 vs . 65.8 ± 6.9 yr; P < 0.001), had a lower overall comorbidity burden (Charlson Comorbidity Index: 2.25 ± 1.61 vs . 3.07 ± 1.64; P = 0.002), and were more likely to have a 3-level fusion (79.7% vs . 30.2%; P < 0.001), myeloradiculopathy (42.5% vs . 23.3%; P = 0.034), and cervical kyphosis (25.7% vs . 7.69%; P = 0.027). Patients undergoing an ACDF had significantly more improvement in their neck disability index after surgery (-14.28 vs . -3.02; P = 0.001), and this relationship was maintained on multivariate analysis with PCDF being independently associated with a worse neck disability index (+8.83; P = 0.025). Patients undergoing an ACDF also experienced more improvement in visual analog score neck pain after surgery (-2.94 vs . -1.47; P = 0.025) by bivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that patients undergoing an ACDF or PCDF for multilevel DCM have similar outcomes after surgery.
Assuntos
Doenças da Medula Espinal , Fusão Vertebral , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento , Estudos Retrospectivos , Qualidade de Vida , Vértebras Cervicais/diagnóstico por imagem , Vértebras Cervicais/cirurgia , Discotomia/métodos , Fusão Vertebral/métodos , Doenças da Medula Espinal/cirurgia , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo PacienteRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Demographic factors contribute markedly to orthopaedic surgery outcomes. However, women and minorities have been historically excluded from clinical trials. The United States passed the Safety and Innovation Act (Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act [FDA-SIA]) in 2012 to increase study diversity and mandate reporting of certain demographics. The purpose of this study was to investigate demographic reporting and analysis among high-risk orthopaedic medical device trials and evaluate the effectiveness of the FDA-SIA in increasing diversity of study enrollment. METHODS: The premarket approval database was queried for all original submissions approved by the Orthopedic Advisory Committee from January 1, 2003, to July 1, 2022. Study demographics were recorded. Weighted means of race, ethnicity, and sex were compared before and after FDA-SIA implementation with the US population. RESULTS: We identified 51 orthopaedic trials with unique study data. Most Food and Drug Administration device trials reported age (98.0%) and sex (96.1%), but only 49.0% and 37.3% reported race and ethnicity, respectively. Only 23 studies analyzed sex, six analyzed race, and two analyzed ethnicity. Compared with the US population, participants were overwhelmingly White (91.36% vs. 61.63%, P < 0.001) with a significant underrepresentation of Black (3.65% vs. 12.41%, P = 0.008), Asian (0.86% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.030), and Hispanic participants (3.02% vs. 18.73%, P < 0.001) before 2013. The FDA-SIA increased female patient enrollment (58.99% vs. 47.96%, P = 0.021) but did not increase the enrollment of racial or ethnic minorities. CONCLUSION: Despite efforts to increase the generalizability of studies within the FDA-SIA, orthopaedic medical devices still fail to enroll diverse populations and provide demographic subgroup analysis. The study populations within these trials do not represent the populations for whom these devices will be indicated in the community. The federal government must play a stronger role in mandating study diversity, enforcing appropriate statistical analysis of the demographic subgroups, and executing measures to ensure compliance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.