Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 11 items for

  • By Author: Foley, Kevin x
Clear All
Free access

Anthony L. Asher, Clinton J. Devin, Brandon McCutcheon, Silky Chotai, Kristin R. Archer, Hui Nian, Frank E. Harrell Jr., Matthew McGirt, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Kevin Foley, Steven D. Glassman and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

In this analysis the authors compare the characteristics of smokers to nonsmokers using demographic, socioeconomic, and comorbidity variables. They also investigate which of these characteristics are most strongly associated with smoking status. Finally, the authors investigate whether the association between known patient risk factors and disability outcome is differentially modified by patient smoking status for those who have undergone surgery for lumbar degeneration.

METHODS

A total of 7547 patients undergoing degenerative lumbar surgery were entered into a prospective multicenter registry (Quality Outcomes Database [QOD]). A retrospective analysis of the prospectively collected data was conducted. Patients were dichotomized as smokers (current smokers) and nonsmokers. Multivariable logistic regression analysis fitted for patient smoking status and subsequent measurement of variable importance was performed to identify the strongest patient characteristics associated with smoking status. Multivariable linear regression models fitted for 12-month Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in subsets of smokers and nonsmokers was performed to investigate whether differential effects of risk factors by smoking status might be present.

RESULTS

In total, 18% (n = 1365) of patients were smokers and 82% (n = 6182) were nonsmokers. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, the factors significantly associated with patients’ smoking status were sex (p < 0.0001), age (p < 0.0001), body mass index (p < 0.0001), educational status (p < 0.0001), insurance status (p < 0.001), and employment/occupation (p = 0.0024). Patients with diabetes had lowers odds of being a smoker (p = 0.0008), while patients with coronary artery disease had greater odds of being a smoker (p = 0.044). Patients’ propensity for smoking was also significantly associated with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (p < 0.0001), anterior-alone surgical approach (p = 0.018), greater number of levels (p = 0.0246), decompression only (p = 0.0001), and higher baseline ODI score (p < 0.0001). In a multivariable proportional odds logistic regression model, the adjusted odds ratio of risk factors and direction of improvement in 12-month ODI scores remained similar between the subsets of smokers and nonsmokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a large, national, multiinstitutional registry, the authors described the profile of patients who undergo lumbar spine surgery and its association with their smoking status. Compared with nonsmokers, smokers were younger, male, nondiabetic, nonobese patients presenting with leg pain more so than back pain, with higher ASA classes, higher disability, less education, more likely to be unemployed, and with Medicaid/uninsured insurance status. Smoking status did not affect the association between these risk factors and 12-month ODI outcome, suggesting that interventions for modifiable risk factors are equally efficacious between smokers and nonsmokers.

Full access

Matthew J. McGirt, Scott L. Parker, Silky Chotai, Deborah Pfortmiller, Jeffrey M. Sorenson, Kevin Foley and Anthony L. Asher

OBJECTIVE

Extended hospital length of stay (LOS), unplanned hospital readmission, and need for inpatient rehabilitation after elective spine surgery contribute significantly to the variation in surgical health care costs. As novel payment models shift the risk of cost overruns from payers to providers, understanding patient-level risk of LOS, readmission, and inpatient rehabilitation is critical. The authors set out to develop a grading scale that effectively stratifies risk of these costly events after elective surgery for degenerative lumbar pathologies.

METHODS

The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) registry prospectively enrolls patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease. This registry was queried for patients who had undergone elective 1- to 3-level lumbar surgery for degenerative spine pathology. The association between preoperative patient variables and extended postoperative hospital LOS (LOS ≥ 7 days), discharge status (inpatient facility vs home), and 90-day hospital readmission was assessed using stepwise multivariate logistic regression. The Carolina-Semmes grading scale was constructed using the independent predictors for LOS (0–12 points), discharge to inpatient facility (0–18 points), and 90-day readmission (0–6 points), and its performance was assessed using the QOD data set. The performance of the grading scale was then confirmed separately after using it in 2 separate neurosurgery practice sites (Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates [CNSA] and Semmes Murphey Clinic).

RESULTS

A total of 6921 patients were analyzed. Overall, 290 (4.2%) patients required extended LOS, 654 (9.4%) required inpatient facility care/rehabilitation on hospital discharge, and 474 (6.8%) were readmitted to the hospital within 90 days postdischarge. Variables that remained as independently associated with these unplanned events in multivariate analysis included age ≥ 70 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Classification System class > III, Oswestry Disability Index score ≥ 70, diabetes, Medicare/Medicaid, nonindependent ambulation, and fusion. Increasing point totals in the Carolina-Semmes scale effectively stratified the incidence of extended LOS, discharge to facility, and readmission in a stepwise fashion in both the aggregate QOD data set and when subsequently applied to the CNSA/Semmes Murphey practice groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors introduce the Carolina-Semmes grading scale that effectively stratifies the risk of prolonged hospital stay, need for postdischarge inpatient facility care, and 90-day hospital readmission for patients undergoing first-time elective 1- to 3-level degenerative lumbar spine surgery. This grading scale may be helpful in identifying patients who may require additional resource utilization within a global period after surgery.

Free access

Praveen V. Mummaneni, Erica F. Bisson, Panagiotis Kerezoudis, Steven Glassman, Kevin Foley, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Eric Potts, Mark Shaffrey, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Domagoj Coric, John Knightly, Paul Park, Kai-Ming Fu, Clinton J. Devin, Silky Chotai, Andrew K. Chan, Michael Virk, Anthony L. Asher and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a degenerative condition that can be surgically treated with either open or minimally invasive decompression and instrumented fusion. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches may shorten recovery, reduce blood loss, and minimize soft-tissue damage with resultant reduced postoperative pain and disability.

METHODS

The authors queried the national, multicenter Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) registry for patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion between July 2014 and December 2015 for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. The authors recorded baseline and 12-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, numeric rating scale (NRS)–back pain (NRS-BP), NRS–leg pain (NRS-LP), and satisfaction (North American Spine Society satisfaction questionnaire). Multivariable regression models were fitted for hospital length of stay (LOS), 12-month PROs, and 90-day return to work, after adjusting for an array of preoperative and surgical variables.

RESULTS

A total of 345 patients (open surgery, n = 254; MIS, n = 91) from 11 participating sites were identified in the QOD. The follow-up rate at 12 months was 84% (83.5% [open surgery]; 85% [MIS]). Overall, baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics were similarly distributed between the cohorts. Two hundred fifty seven patients underwent 1-level fusion (open surgery, n = 181; MIS, n = 76), and 88 patients underwent 2-level fusion (open surgery, n = 73; MIS, n = 15). Patients in both groups reported significant improvement in all primary outcomes (all p < 0.001). MIS was associated with a significantly lower mean intraoperative estimated blood loss and slightly longer operative times in both 1- and 2-level fusion subgroups. Although the LOS was shorter for MIS 1-level cases, this was not significantly different. No difference was detected with regard to the 12-month PROs between the 1-level MIS versus the 1-level open surgical groups. However, change in functional outcome scores for patients undergoing 2-level fusion was notably larger in the MIS cohort for ODI (−27 vs −16, p = 0.1), EQ-5D (0.27 vs 0.15, p = 0.08), and NRS-BP (−3.5 vs −2.7, p = 0.41); statistical significance was shown only for changes in NRS-LP scores (−4.9 vs −2.8, p = 0.02). On risk-adjusted analysis for 1-level fusion, open versus minimally invasive approach was not significant for 12-month PROs, LOS, and 90-day return to work.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvement was found in terms of all functional outcomes in patients undergoing open or MIS fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. No difference was detected between the 2 techniques for 1-level fusion in terms of patient-reported outcomes, LOS, and 90-day return to work. However, patients undergoing 2-level MIS fusion reported significantly better improvement in NRS-LP at 12 months than patients undergoing 2-level open surgery. Longer follow-up is needed to provide further insight into the comparative effectiveness of the 2 procedures.

Full access

J. Kenneth Burkus, Kevin Foley, Regis Haid and Jean-Charles LeHuec

The authors present their radiographic criteria for assessing fusion of the lumbar spine after anterior interbody fusion with intradiscal implants. These criteria include the assessment of plain radiographs, dynamic motion radiographs, and thin-cut computerized tomography scans. Fusion within the instrumented spinal motion segment can be determined using radiographic evaluation to assess spinal alignment on sequential examinations, angular and translational changes on dynamic motion studies, and device–host interface, and to identify new bone formation and bone remodeling. Finally, to aid the clinician in assessing fusion, the authors describe the five zones of fusion within the intervertebral disc space.