Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 72 items for

  • By Author: Bydon, Mohamad x
Clear All
Restricted access

Scott L. Zuckerman, Clinton J. Devin, Vincent Rossi, Silky Chotai, E. Hunter Dyer, John J. Knightly, Eric A. Potts, Kevin T. Foley, Erica F. Bisson, Steven D. Glassman, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Mohamad Bydon and Anthony L. Asher

OBJECTIVE

National databases collect large amounts of clinical information, yet application of these data can be challenging. The authors present the NeuroPoint Alliance and Institute for Healthcare Improvement (NPA-IHI) program as a novel attempt to create a quality improvement (QI) tool informed through registry data to improve the quality of care delivered. Reducing the length of stay (LOS) and readmission after elective lumbar fusion was chosen as the pilot module.

METHODS

The NPA-IHI program prospectively enrolled patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level lumbar fusions across 8 institutions. A three-pronged approach was taken that included the following phases: 1) Research Phase, 2) Development Phase, and 3) Implementation Phase. Primary outcomes were LOS and readmission. From January to June 2017, a learning system was created utilizing monthly conference calls, weekly data submission, and continuous refinement of the proposed QI tool. Nonparametric tests were used to assess the impact of the QI intervention.

RESULTS

The novel QI tool included the following three areas of intervention: 1) preoperative discharge assessment (location, date, and instructions), 2) inpatient changes (LOS rounding checklist, daily huddle, and pain assessments), and 3) postdischarge calls (pain, primary care follow-up, and satisfaction). A total of 209 patients were enrolled, and the most common procedure was a posterior laminectomy/fusion (60.2%). Seven patients (3.3%) were readmitted during the study period. Preoperative discharge planning was completed for 129 patients (61.7%). A shorter median LOS was seen in those with a known preoperative discharge date (67 vs 80 hours, p = 0.018) and clear discharge instructions (71 vs 81 hours, p = 0.030). Patients with a known preoperative discharge plan also reported significantly increased satisfaction (8.0 vs 7.0, p = 0.028), and patients with increased discharge readiness (scale 0–10) also reported higher satisfaction (r = 0.474, p < 0.001). Those receiving postdischarge calls (76%) had a significantly shorter LOS than those without postdischarge calls (75 vs 99 hours, p = 0.020), although no significant relationship was seen between postdischarge calls and readmission (p = 0.342).

CONCLUSIONS

The NPA-IHI program showed that preoperative discharge planning and postdischarge calls have the potential to reduce LOS and improve satisfaction after elective lumbar fusion. It is our hope that neurosurgical providers can recognize how registries can be used to both develop and implement a QI tool and appreciate the importance of QI implementation as a separate process from data collection/analysis.

Free access

Suyash Singh, Jayesh Sardhara, Anant Mehrotra and Sanjay Behari

Free access

Patrick M. Flanigan, Anthony L. Mikula, Pierce A. Peters, Soliman Oushy, Jeremy L. Fogelson, Mohamad Bydon, Brett A. Freedman, Arjun S. Sebastian, Bradford L. Currier, Ahmad Nassr, Kurt A. Kennel, Paul A. Anderson, David W. Polly and Benjamin D. Elder

OBJECTIVE

Opportunistic Hounsfield unit (HU) determination from CT imaging has been increasingly used to estimate bone mineral density (BMD) in conjunction with assessments from dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The authors sought to compare the effect of teriparatide on HUs across different regions in the pelvis, sacrum, and lumbar spine, as a surrogate measure for the effects of teriparatide on lumbosacropelvic instrumentation.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review of patients who had been treated with at least 6 months of teriparatide was performed. All patients had at least baseline DXA as well as pre- and post-teriparatide CT imaging. HUs were measured in the pedicle, lamina, and vertebral body of the lumbar spine, in the sciatic notch, and at the S1 and S2 levels at three different points (ilium, sacral body, and sacral ala).

RESULTS

Forty patients with an average age of 67 years underwent a mean of 20 months of teriparatide therapy. Mean HUs of the lumbar lamina, pedicles, and vertebral body were significantly different from each other before teriparatide treatment: 343 ± 114, 219 ± 89.2, and 111 ± 48.1, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean HUs at the S1 level for the ilium, sacral ala, and sacral body were also significantly different from each other: 124 ± 90.1, −10.7 ± 61.9, and 99.1 ± 72.1, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean HUs at the S2 level for the ilium and sacral body were not significantly different from each other, although the mean HU at the sacral ala (−11.9 ± 52.6) was significantly lower than those at the ilium and sacral body (p = 0.003 and 0.006, respectively). HU improvement occurred in most regions following teriparatide treatment. In the lumbar spine, the mean lamina HU increased from 343 to 400 (p < 0.001), the mean pedicle HU increased from 219 to 242 (p = 0.04), and the mean vertebral body HU increased from 111 to 134 (p < 0.001). There were also significant increases in the S1 sacral body (99.1 to 130, p < 0.05), S1 ilium (124 vs 165, p = 0.01), S1 sacral ala (−10.7 vs 3.68, p = 0.04), and S2 sacral body (168 vs 189, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There was significant regional variation in lumbar and sacropelvic HUs, with most regions significantly increasing following teriparatide treatment. The sacropelvic area had lower HU values than the lumbar spine, more regional variation, and a higher degree of correlation with BMD as measured on DXA. While teriparatide treatment resulted in HUs > 110 in the majority of the lumbosacral spine, the HUs in the sacral ala remained suggestive of severe osteoporosis, which may limit the effectiveness of fixation in this region.

Restricted access

Shyam J. Kurian, Yagiz Ugur Yolcu, Jad Zreik, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Brett A. Freedman and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and National Readmissions Database (NRD) are two widely used databases for research studies. However, they may not provide generalizable information in regard to individual institutions. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to evaluate 30-day readmissions following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) procedures by using these two national databases and an institutional cohort.

METHODS

The NSQIP and NRD were queried for patients undergoing elective ACDF and PLF, with the addition of an institutional cohort. The outcome of interest was 30-day readmissions following ACDF and PLF, which were unplanned and related to the index procedure. Subsequently, univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the predictors of 30-day readmissions by using both databases and the institutional cohort.

RESULTS

Among all identified risk factors, only hypertension was found to be a common risk factor between NRD and the institutional cohort following ACDF. NSQIP and the institutional cohort both showed length of hospital stay to be a significant predictor for 30-day related readmission following PLF. There were no overlapping variables among all 3 cohorts for either ACDF or PLF. Additionally, the national databases identified a greater number of risk factors for 30-day related readmissions than did the institutional cohort for both procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, significant differences were seen among all 3 cohorts with regard to top predictors of 30-day unplanned readmissions following ACDF and PLF. The higher quantity of significant predictors found in the national databases may suggest that looking at single-institution series for such analyses may result in underestimation of important variables affecting patient outcomes, and that big data may be helpful in addressing this concern.

Restricted access

Benjamin T. Himes, Arnoley S. Abcejo, Panagiotis Kerezoudis, Adip G. Bhargav, Katherine Trelstad-Andrist, Patrick R. Maloney, John L. D. Atkinson, Fredric B. Meyer, W. Richard Marsh and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

The sitting or semisitting position in neurosurgery allows for several technical advantages, including improved visualization of the surgical field. However, it has also been associated with an increased risk of venous air embolisms and positioning-related complications that limit its commonplace adoption. The authors report a large, single-center series of cervical spine procedures performed with patients in the sitting or prone position in order to assess the perceived risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications associated with the sitting position.

METHODS

Noninstrumented, single-level posterior cervical spine procedures performed with patients in the sitting/semisitting or prone position from 2000 to 2016 at a single institution were reviewed. Institutional abstraction tools (DataMart and Chart Plus) were used to collect data from the medical records. The two positions were compared with regard to preoperative factors, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for 30-day readmission, 30-day return to the operating room, and complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 750 patients (sitting, n = 480; prone, n = 270) were analyzed. The median age was 53 years for those who underwent surgery in the prone position and 50 years for those who underwent surgery in the sitting position (IQRs 45–62 years and 43–60 years, respectively), and 35% of the patients were female. Sitting cases were associated with significantly longer anesthetic times (221 minutes [range 199–252 minutes] vs 205 minutes [range 179–254 minutes]) and operative times (126 minutes [range 101–163 minutes] vs 149 minutes [120–181 minutes]). Cardiorespiratory events in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) were comparable between the two groups, with the exception of episodes of apnea (2.6% vs 0.6%, p = 0.041) and hypoventilation (4.4% vs 0.8%, p < 0.003), which were more frequent in the prone-position cohort. On multivariable analysis, the effect of the sitting versus the prone position was not significant for 30-day readmission (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.34–1.71, p = 0.52) or reoperation (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.31–1.60, p = 0.40). The sitting position was associated with lower odds of developing any complication (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.16–0.62, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the intraoperative and postoperative complications chosen in this study, the sitting position confers a similar safety profile to the prone position. This can be explained by a more anatomic positioning accounting for reduced temporary neurological deficits and reduced PACU-associated hypoventilation noted in this series. Nevertheless, the findings may also reflect institutional familiarity, experience, and mastery of this position type, and outcomes may not reflect practices in general.

Restricted access

Yagiz Ugur Yolcu, Waseem Wahood, Abdullah T. Eissa, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Brett A. Freedman, Benjamin D. Elder and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a biological agent obtained by centrifuging a sample of blood and retrieving a high concentration of platelets and plasma components. The concentrate is then stimulated for platelet secretion of various growth factors and cytokines. Although it is not widely used in clinical practice, its role in augmenting bony union among patients undergoing spinal fusion has been assessed in several clinical studies. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature to determine the efficacy of PRP use in spinal fusion procedures.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE for studies from all available dates. From eligible studies, data regarding the fusion rate and method of assessing fusion, estimated blood loss (EBL), and baseline and final visual analog scale (VAS) scores were collected as the primary outcomes of interest. Patients were grouped by those undergoing spinal fusion with PRP and bone graft (PRP group) and those only with bone graft (graft-only group).

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 207 articles. Forty-five full-text articles were screened, of which 11 studies were included, resulting in a meta-analysis including 741 patients. Patients without PRP were more likely to have a successful fusion at the last follow-up compared with those with PRP in their bone grafts (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34–0.84; p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference with regard to change in VAS scores (OR 0.00, 95% CI −2.84 to 2.84; p > 0.99) or change in EBL (OR 3.67, 95% CI −67.13–74.48; p = 0.92) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the additional use of PRP was not associated with any significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes and was actually found to be associated with lower fusion rates compared with standard grafting techniques. Thus, PRP may have a limited role in augmenting spinal fusion.

Restricted access

Erica F. Bisson, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Michael S. Virk, John Knightly, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Anshit Goyal, Andrew K. Chan, Jian Guan, Steven Glassman, Kevin Foley, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Regis W. Haid Jr., Kai-Ming Fu, Michael Y. Wang, Paul Park, Anthony L. Asher and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar decompression without arthrodesis remains a potential treatment option for cases of low-grade spondylolisthesis (i.e., Meyerding grade I). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have recently been increasingly used because of their touted benefits including lower operating time, blood loss, and length of stay. Herein, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics and postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing open versus MIS lumbar decompression.

METHODS

The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Among more than 200 participating sites, the 12 with the highest enrollment of patients into the lumbar spine module came together to initiate a focused project to assess the impact of fusion on PROs in patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. For the current study, only patients in this cohort from the 12 highest-enrolling sites who underwent a decompression alone were evaluated and classified as open or MIS (tubular decompression). Outcomes of interest included PROs at 2 years; perioperative outcomes such as blood loss and complications; and postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, discharge disposition, and reoperations.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients undergoing decompression were selected, of whom 71 (50.7%) underwent MIS and 69 (49.3%) underwent an open decompression. On univariate analysis, the authors observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of PROs at 2-year follow-up, including back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction. On multivariable analysis, compared to MIS, open decompression was associated with higher satisfaction (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.41–23.2, p = 0.0005). Patients undergoing MIS decompression had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to the open group (0.68 days [SD 1.18] vs 1.83 days [SD 1.618], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multiinstitutional prospective study, the authors found comparable PROs as well as clinical outcomes at 2 years between groups of patients undergoing open or MIS decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis.

Free access

Anthony M. DiGiorgio, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Paul Park, Andrew K. Chan, Erica F. Bisson, Mohamad Bydon, Kevin T. Foley, Steven D. Glassman, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Domagoj Coric, John J. Knightly, Michael Y. Wang, Kai-Ming Fu, Anthony L. Asher, Michael S. Virk, Panagiotis Kerezoudis, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Jian Guan, Regis W. Haid Jr. and Jonathan R. Slotkin

OBJECTIVE

Return to work (RTW) and satisfaction are important outcome measures after surgery for degenerative spine disease. The authors queried the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) to determine if RTW correlated with patient satisfaction.

METHODS

The QOD was queried for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The primary outcome of interest was correlation between RTW and patient satisfaction, as measured by the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index (NASS). Secondarily, data on satisfied patients were analyzed to see what patient factors correlated with RTW.

RESULTS

Of 608 total patients in the QOD spondylolisthesis data set, there were 292 patients for whom data were available on both satisfaction and RTW status. Of these, 249 (85.3%) were satisfied with surgery (NASS score 1–2), and 224 (76.7%) did RTW after surgery. Of the 68 patients who did not RTW after surgery, 49 (72.1%) were still satisfied with surgery. Of the 224 patients who did RTW, 24 (10.7%) were unsatisfied with surgery (NASS score 3–4). There were significantly more people who had an NASS score of 1 in the RTW group than in the non-RTW group (71.4% vs 42.6%, p < 0.05). Failure to RTW was associated with lower level of education, worse baseline back pain (measured with a numeric rating scale), and worse baseline disability (measured with the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]).

CONCLUSIONS

There are a substantial number of patients who are satisfied with surgery even though they did not RTW. Patients who were satisfied with surgery and did not RTW typically had worse preoperative back pain and ODI and typically did not have a college education. While RTW remains an important measure after surgery, physicians should be mindful that patients who do not RTW may still be satisfied with their outcome.

Free access

Anthony L. Asher, John Knightly, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Matthew J. McGirt, Yagiz U. Yolcu, Andrew K. Chan, Steven D. Glassman, Kevin T. Foley, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Regis W. Haid Jr., Kai-Ming Fu, Michael Y. Wang, Paul Park, Erica F. Bisson, Robert E. Harbaugh and Mohamad Bydon

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N2QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: “1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated ‘risk models’ to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies.” The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).