Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Rajiv K. Sethi x
  • Refine by Access: all x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Jean-Christophe Leveque, Vijay Yanamadala, Quinlan D. Buchlak, and Rajiv K. Sethi

OBJECTIVE

Pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) provides extensive correction in patients with fixed sagittal plane imbalance but is associated with high estimated blood loss (EBL). Anterior column realignment (ACR) with lateral graft placement and sectioning of the anterior longitudinal ligament allows restoration of lumbar lordosis (LL). The authors compare peri- and postoperative measures in 2 groups of patients undergoing correction of a sagittal plane imbalance, either through PSO or the use of lateral lumbar fusion and ACR with hyperlordotic (20°–30°) interbody cages, with stabilization through standard posterior instrumentation in all cases.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective chart review of cases involving a lumbar PSO or lateral lumbar interbody fusion and ACR (LLIF-ACR) between 2010 and 2015 at the authors’ institution. Patients who had a PSO in the setting of a preexisting fusion that spanned more than 4 levels were excluded. Demographic characteristics, spinopelvic parameters, EBL, operative time, and LOS were analyzed and compared between patients treated with PSO and those treated with LLIF-ACR.

RESULTS

The PSO group included 14 patients and the LLIF-ACR group included 13 patients. The mean follow-up was 13 months in the LLIF-ACR group and 26 months in the PSO group. The mean EBL was significantly lower in the LLIF-ACR group, measuring approximately 50% of the mean EBL in the PSO group (1466 vs 2910 ml, p < 0.01). Total LL correction was equivalent between the 2 groups (35° in the PSO group, 31° in the LLIF-ACR group, p > 0.05), as was the preoperative PI-LL mismatch (33° in each group, p > 0.05) and the postoperative PI-LL mismatch (< 1° in each group, p = 0.05). The fusion rate as assessed by the need for reoperation due to pseudarthrosis was lower in the LLIF-ACR group but not significantly so (3 revisions in the PSO group due to pseudarthrosis vs 0 in the LLIF-ACR group, p > 0.5). The total operative time and LOS were not significantly different in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first direct comparison of the LLIF-ACR technique with the PSO in adult spinal deformity correction. The study demonstrates that the LLIF-ACR provides equivalent deformity correction with significantly reduced blood loss in patients with a previously unfused spine compared with the PSO. This technique provides a powerful means to avoid PSO in selected patients who require spinal deformity correction.

Restricted access

Rajiv K. Sethi, Caroline E. Drolet, Rebecca P. Pumpian, Jesse Shen, Kelsey Hanson, Sofia Guerra, and Philip K. Louie

OBJECTIVE

Measuring costs across entire episodes of care, time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) has recently been described as a novel cost accounting arm of value-based care organizations. Lean methodology is a system used to understand pathways of care at a granular level, allowing for standardization. The current work presents an attempt at combining the 2 methodologies to detect meaningful variation in a patient’s care following single-level spine fusion. The objective of this study was to evaluate the combination of TDABC and lean methodologies in detecting meaningful variability in time-based care in patients undergoing single-level spine fusion surgery.

METHODS

This study is a consecutive case series of patients who underwent single-level spine fusion performed by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained spine surgeons. Patients were diagnosed with either lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis. Additional inclusion criteria included inpatient stays from 1 to 3 days, discharge to home, and no readmission within 30 days of surgery. Patient demographic data were obtained. Time spent on activities for each personnel role was aggregated in 15-minute increments occurring preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively. Patients were analyzed in 3 groups based on the duration of their in-hospital stay.

RESULTS

Patients discharged on postoperative day (POD) 3 had statistically significantly more total time spent than those discharged on POD 2. Patients discharged on POD 1 had less total time than those in the former 2 groups. The amount of time spent with patients did not differ for personnel in either preoperative or postanesthesia care unit phases of care. There was a statistically significant difference in time spent in surgery for surgeons, anesthesia attendings, circulators, and scrub technicians.

CONCLUSIONS

In a healthcare setting run by lean methodology, TDABC may detect meaningful variability in an episode of care for single-level spine fusion. Clinicians and administrators can use this combination to allocate costs appropriately, optimize value care streams, and help improve patient care.