Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION: Orthopaedic care is shifting to alternative payment models. We examined whether New York University Langone Medical Center achieved savings under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative. METHODS: This study was a difference-in-differences study of Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized from April 2011 to June 2012 and October 2013 to December 2014 for lower extremity joint arthroplasty, cardiac valve procedures, or spine surgery (intervention groups), or for congestive heart failure, major bowel procedures, medical peripheral vascular disorders, medical noninfectious orthopaedic care, or stroke (control group). We examined total episode costs and costs by service category. RESULTS: We included 2,940 intervention episodes and 1,474 control episodes. Relative to the trend in the control group, lower extremity joint arthroplasty episodes achieved the greatest savings: adjusted average episode cost during the intervention period decreased by $3,017 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$6,066 to $31). For cardiac procedures, the adjusted average episode cost decreased by $2,999 (95% CI, -$8,103 to $2,105), and for spinal fusion, it increased by $8,291 (95% CI, $2,879 to $13,703). Savings were driven predominantly by shifting postdischarge care from inpatient rehabilitation facilities to home. Spinal fusion index admission costs increased because of changes in surgical technique. DISCUSSION: Under bundled payment, New York University Langone Medical Center decreased total episode costs in patients undergoing lower extremity joint arthroplasty. For patients undergoing cardiac valve procedures, evidence of savings was not as strong, and for patients undergoing spinal fusion, total episode costs increased. For all three conditions, the proportion of patients referred to inpatient rehabilitation facilities upon discharge decreased. These changes were not associated with an increase in index hospital length of stay or readmission rate. CONCLUSION: Opportunities for savings under bundled payment may be greater for lower extremity joint arthroplasty than for other conditions.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most common operations utilized to address pathology of the cervical spine. Few reports have attempted to compare complications associated with inpatient versus outpatient ACDF. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2001-2012 and the State Ambulatory Services Database (SASD) for New Jersey (NJ) from 2003-2012 were used for analysis. Patients receiving ACDF (defined as anterior cervical fusion (ICD-0 code=81.02) + excision of intervertebral disc (80.51)) were segmented into an inpatient group derived from the NIS, and an outpatient group derived from the NJ SASD. Patients receiving > 2 levels fused (ICD-9 codes 81.63-81.64), or surgery for cancer (ICD-9 codes 140-239), or trauma (ICD-9 codes=805.0-806.9) were excluded. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the analysis for patient age, race, sex, primary payer for care, and number of medical diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the 94,492,438 inpatients comprising the NIS from 2001-2012, 257,398 received ACDF. Of the 4,194,207 outpatients comprising the NJ SASD, 2,016 received ACDF. PSM of 10,080 patients (all 2,016 SASD and 8,064 from NIS) was performed, and subsequent analysis revealed that durotomy (P=0.001;OR=0.81), paraplegia, postoperative infection, hematoma/seroma (OR=0.14), respiratory complications, acute posthemorrhagic anemia and red blood cell transfusion (all P<0.001) were less frequent in outpatient versus inpatient ACDF (p<0.05). These results were similar to an unmatched analysis involving all of the NIS patients. CONCLUSION: Accepting the limitations of the NIS and SASD (inability to distinguish between one and two-level fusions, no long-term follow-up, potential selection bias, disparities between inpatient and outpatient ACDF populations), these findings indicate that for 1-2 level ACDF, perioperative complications, including durotomy, paraplegia, hematoma, and acute posthemorrhagic anemia were more commonly reported following inpatient ACDF. Future studies involving outpatient analysis of several states will be necessary to determine whether these results of outpatient ACDF are applicable nationwide.

STUDY DESIGN: An electronic survey administered to Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) membership. OBJECTIVE: To characterize surgeon practices and views regarding the use of two attending surgeons for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of two experienced attending surgeons can decrease the operative time, estimated blood loss, and perioperative complication rates. However, the current practice patterns for the use of two attending surgeons remains unknown. METHODS: An electronic, 27-question survey regarding single/dual attending surgeons was administered to the SRS membership. Determinants included: surgeon/practice demographics, assistant type/level of training, and questions regarding use of two attending surgeons. Overall reporting and comparisons between groups were made: US versus international, academic versus private practice, and experience <15 years versus >15 years. RESULTS: A total of 199 surgeons responded from 27 different countries. Overall and between the groups, the respondents significantly reported believing that two attending spine surgeons improves safety, decreases complications, and improves outcomes (P < 0.01). Approximately, 67.3% reported using a second attending /=51% of the time (similar between groups); 51.1% that have a second attending feel it's limited by reimbursement and access concerns and 71.9% have difficulty getting the second attending reimbursed. 72.3% use a second attending for ALL of the following reasons (no difference between groups): "it's safer/reduces complications," "it decreases operative time," "it decreases blood loss," "it results in improved outcomes," "it's less work and stress for me." If reimbursement was equal/assured for a second attending, 67.5% would use one "more often" or "always." CONCLUSION: The respondents feel that having a second attending surgeon improves patient care, however most do not use one often. Reasons include reimbursement/access concerns and the majority would use one if reimbursement was equal and assured. Based on the current literature and these results, there is a need for working with third party payers to improve dual surgeon reimbursement rates in complex cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospective data from the degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) arm of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for DS and compare outcomes between patients who underwent reoperation with non-reoperative patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies have examined outcomes following surgery for DS, but few have identified risk factors for reoperation. METHOD: Analysis included patients with neurogenic claudication (>12 weeks), clinical neurological signs, spinal stenosis, and DS on standing lateral x-rays. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate patient characteristics and risk factors. Treatment effects (TE) were calculated and compared between study groups. RESULTS: Of 406 patients, 72% underwent instrumented fusion, 21% non-instrumented fusion, and 7% decompression alone. At 8 years, the reoperation rate was 22%, of which 28% occurred within one year, 54% within 2 years, 70% within 4 years, and 86% within 6 years. The reasons for reoperation included recurrent stenosis or progressive spondylolisthesis (45%), complications such as hematoma, dehiscence, or infection (36%), or new condition (14%). Re-operative patients were younger (62.2 vs 65.3, p = 0.008). Significant risk factors were use of antidepressants (p = 0.008, HR 2.08) or having no neurogenic claudication upon enrollment (p = 0.02, HR 1.82). Patients who were smokers, diabetics, obese, or on workman's compensation were not at greater risk for reoperation. At eight year follow-up, scores for SF-36 bodily pain (BP), ODI, and stenosis frequency index were better in non-re-operative patients. TE favored non-re-operative patients for SF-36 BP, physical function, ODI, stenosis bothersomeness index and satisfaction with symptoms (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The incidence of reoperation for patients with DS was 22% eight years following surgery. Patients with a history of no neurogenic claudication and patients taking antidepressants were more likely to undergo reoperation. Outcomes scores and TE were more favorable in non-re-operative patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) performed as an outpatient has become increasingly common for treating cervical spine pathology. Few reports have attempted to assess readmissions following outpatient ACDF. This study was performed to address this issue using population-based databases. METHODS: The State Ambulatory Services Database (SASD) for New Jersey (NJ) from 2003-2012 was used for analysis. Patients receiving ACDF (defined as anterior cervical fusion (ICD-0 code=81.02) + excision of intervertebral disc (80.51)) were extracted; those with three or more levels fused (ICD-9 codes 81.63-81.64), cancer (ICD-9 codes 140-239), or trauma (ICD-9 codes=805.0-806.9) were excluded. A series of perioperative complications including durotomy, red blood cell transfusion, acute posthemorrhagic anemia, paraplegia (weakness), and mortality were examined. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the analysis for patient age, race, sex, primary payer for care, and number of diagnoses. The NJ SASD defined readmission as admission to the same facility within seven days of initial discharge. RESULTS: Two thousand sixteen (2,016) patients were found, 1,528 of whom had readmission data. Of these 1,528 patients, 83 (5.4%) required readmission. PSM was performed prior to comparing readmission versus non-readmission. While there was no difference in perioperative complications between the two groups, the small sample size of the readmission cohort prevented this analysis from having sufficient power. No patient requiring readmission had an initial length of stay greater than one day. CONCLUSION: Based on a 10-year outpatient analysis, fewer than 6% of outpatient 1-2 level ACDFs require readmission. Future studies involving outpatients from several states will be necessary to determine whether these results of outpatient ACDF are applicable nationwide.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) represents a constellation of complex mal-alignments affecting the spinal column. Corrective surgical procedures aimed at improving ASD can be equally challenging, and commonly require multiple index procedures and potential revisions prior to definitive management. There is a paucity of data comparing the outcomes of same-day (simultaneous) and two-day (staged) procedures for long spinal-fusions for ASD. Utilizing a large patient cohort with surgeon and patient-reported outcomes will be particularly useful in determining the utility and effect of staging long spine fusions for ASD. PURPOSE: Compare intra-operative, peri-operative, and two-year outcomes of staged and simultaneous procedures correcting ASD. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of a prospective multi-center database. PATIENT SAMPLE: 142 patients (71 Staged, 71 Simultaneous). OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: intra- and peri-op (6 wk) complication rates. Secondary: 2 year thoracolumbar and spino-pelvic radiographic parameters, 2 year Health Related Quality of Life changes (Oswestry Disability Index and SF-36), and 2 year complication rates METHODS: Inclusion criteria included ASD patients >/=18yrs with 6-wk and 2 year follow-up. Propensity score matching identified similar patients undergoing staged (STA) or simultaneous (SIM) long spine fusions based on Surgical Invasiveness, Pelvic Tilt, and SVA. Complications, HRQLs (SRS22r, SF-36, ODI), and patient characteristics were compared across and within treatment groups at follow-up with ANOVA and paired t-tests at 3 surgical stages: intra-op, peri-op (6wk), and post-op (>6wk). RESULTS: 142 patients were included (71 STA, 71 SIM). Matching staged and simultaneous groups based on degree of deformity and surgical invasiveness created two groups similar in overall correction of the surgery. STA patients underwent more ALIF and LLIF interbody procedures while SIM patients had longer fusions. Charlson Comorbidity Index and revision status were similar between groups (p>0.05). There were significantly more complications causing reoperation in STA procedures (STA: 47% SIM: 8%, p=0.021). STA had a greater number of peri-op complications requiring a return to the OR (STA: 9.9% SIM: 1.4% p=0.029). There was no difference in intra-op complications, mortality, or peri-op infection or wound complications (p>0.05). At 2 year follow-up, incidence of revision surgery was higher in STA (STA: 21.1% SIM: 8.5%, p=0.033). CONCLUSION: Staged spinal fusions which add ALIFs and LLIFs to the procedure, compared to similar-correction simultaneous procedures, result in similar intra-operative complication incidence, but significantly higher rates of peri- and post-op complications leading to revision. Functional outcomes, radiographic parameters, and mortality were similar. This will aid surgeons in their determination of optimal treatment for such complex procedures.