Adverse events and their risk factors 90 days after cervical spine surgery: analysis from the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) is a statewide, multicenter quality improvement initiative. Using MSSIC data, the authors sought to identify 90-day adverse events and their associated risk factors (RFs) after cervical spine surgery.

METHODS

A total of 8236 cervical spine surgery cases were analyzed. Multivariable generalized estimating equation regression models were constructed to identify RFs for adverse events; variables tested included age, sex, diabetes mellitus, disc herniation, foraminal stenosis, central stenosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Classification System (ASA) class > II, myelopathy, private insurance, anterior versus posterior approach, revision procedures, number of surgical levels, length of procedure, blood loss, preoperative ambulation, ambulation day of surgery, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition.

RESULTS

Ninety days after cervical spine surgery, adverse events identified included radicular findings (11.6%), readmission (7.7%), dysphagia requiring dietary modification (feeding tube or nothing by mouth [NPO]) (6.4%), urinary retention (4.7%), urinary tract infection (2.2%), surgical site hematoma (1.1%), surgical site infection (0.9%), deep vein thrombosis (0.7%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), neurogenic bowel/bladder (0.4%), myelopathy (0.4%), myocardial infarction (0.4%), wound dehiscence (0.2%), claudication (0.2%), and ileus (0.2%). RFs for dysphagia included anterior approach (p < 0.001), fusion procedures (p = 0.030), multiple-level surgery when considering anterior procedures only (p = 0.037), and surgery duration (p = 0.002). RFs for readmission included ASA class > II (p < 0.001), while preoperative ambulation (p = 0.001) and private insurance (p < 0.001) were protective. RFs for urinary retention included increasing age (p < 0.001) and male sex (p < 0.001), while anterior-approach surgery (p < 0.001), preoperative ambulation (p = 0.001), and ambulation day of surgery (p = 0.001) were protective. Preoperative ambulation (p = 0.010) and anterior approach (p = 0.002) were protective of radicular findings.

CONCLUSIONS

A multivariate analysis from a large, multicenter, prospective database identified the common adverse events after cervical spine surgery, along with their associated RFs. This information can lead to more informed surgeons and patients. The authors found that early mobilization after cervical spine surgery has the potential to significantly decrease adverse events.

ABBREVIATIONS ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Classification System; BCBSM = Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan; BCN = Blue Care Network; CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; DRG = diagnosis-related group; DVT = deep vein thrombosis; GEE = generalized estimating equation; MSSIC = Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative; NPO = nothing by mouth; PE = pulmonary embolism; POD = postoperative day; RF = risk factor; UTI = urinary tract infection.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Victor Chang: Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital, West Bloomfield Township, MI. vchang1@hfhs.org.INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online February 15, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18666.Disclosures Dr. Schwalb: salary support for MSSIC role as Associate Director from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, consultant for Huidant, LLC, and clinical or research support for the study described from Medtronic. Dr. Park: consultant for Globus, NuVasive, Medtronic, and Allosource; and royalties from Globus. Dr. Chang: consultant for Globus Medical, K2M, and SpineGuard.Although Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and MSSIC work collaboratively, the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of BCBSM or any of its employees. Support for MSSIC is provided by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships program.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Ansari SFYan HZou JWorth RMBarbaro NM: Hospital length of stay and readmission rate for neurosurgical patients. Neurosurgery 82:1731812018

  • 2

    Asher ALSperoff TDittus RSParker SLDavies JMSelden N: The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): a collaborative North American outcomes registry to advance value-based spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39 (22 Suppl 1):S106S1162014

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Basques BAMcLynn RPFice MPSamuel AMLukasiewicz AMBohl DD: Results of database studies in spine surgery can be influenced by missing data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:289329042017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Bekelis KMcGirt MJParker SLHolland CMDavies JDevin CJ: The present and future of quality measures and public reporting in neurosurgery. Neurosurg Focus 39(6):E32015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Bernstein DNBrodell DLi YRubery PTMesfin A: Impact of the economic downturn on elective lumbar spine surgery in the United States: a national trend analysis, 2003 to 2013. Global Spine J 7:2132192017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Bernstein DNThirukumaran CSaleh AMolinari RWMesfin A: Complications and readmission after cervical spine surgery in elderly patients: an analysis of 1786 patients. World Neurosurg 103:859868.e82017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Bhashyam NDe la Garza Ramos RNakhla JNasser RJada APurvis TE: Thirty-day readmission and reoperation rates after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus those after cervical disc replacement. Neurosurg Focus 42(2):E62017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Bina RWLemole GMDumont TM: Measuring quality of neurosurgical care: readmission is affected by patient factors. World Neurosurg 88:21242016

  • 9

    Birkmeyer NJShare DCampbell DA JrPrager RLMoscucci MBirkmeyer JD: Partnering with payers to improve surgical quality: the Michigan plan. Surgery 138:8158202005

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Boulis NMMian FSRodriguez DCho EHoff JT: Urinary retention following routine neurosurgical spine procedures. Surg Neurol 55:23282001

  • 11

    Bronson WHKingery MTHutzler LKaria RErrico TBosco J: Lack of cost savings for lumbar spine fusions after bundled payments for care improvement initiative: a consequence of increased case complexity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [epub ahead of print] 2018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Chang VLu DCHoffman HBuchanan CHolly LT: Clinical results of cervical laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in 58 consecutive patients. Surg Neurol Int 5 (Suppl 3):S133–S1372014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Chang VSchwalb JMNerenz DRPietrantoni LJones SJankowski M: The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative: a statewide Collaborative Quality Initiative. Neurosurg Focus 39(6):E72015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Cole TVeeravagu AZhang MAzad TDDesai ARatliff JK: Anterior versus posterior approach for multilevel degenerative cervical disease: a retrospective propensity score-matched study of the MarketScan Database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:103310382015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Englesbe MJDimick JBSonnenday CJShare DACampbell DA Jr: The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative: will a statewide quality improvement initiative pay for itself? Ann Surg 246:110011032007

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Epstein NE: A review article on the benefits of early mobilization following spinal surgery and other medical/surgical procedures. Surg Neurol Int 5 (Suppl 3):S66S732014

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Golubovsky JLIlyas HChen JTanenbaum JEMroz TESteinmetz MP: Risk factors and associated complications for postoperative urinary retention after lumbar surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 18:153315392018

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Greenwald ASBassano AWiggins SFroimson MI: Alternative reimbursement models: bundled payment and beyond: AOA critical issues. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:e452016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Hackbarth GReischauer RMutti A: Collective accountability for medical care—toward bundled Medicare payments. N Engl J Med 359:352008

  • 20

    Jain NPhillips FMKhan SN: Distribution and determinants of 90-day payments for multilevel posterior lumbar fusion: a Medicare analysis. Clin Spine Surg 31:E197E2032018

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Joseph JRSmith BWMummaneni PVLa Marca FPark P: Postoperative dysphagia correlates with increased morbidity, mortality, and costs in anterior cervical fusion. J Clin Neurosci 31:1721752016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Jubelt LEGoldfeld KSBlecker SBChung WYBendo JABosco JA: Early lessons on bundled payment at an academic medical center. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25:6546632017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Karhade AVLarsen AMGCote DJDubois HMSmith TR: National databases for neurosurgical outcomes research: options, strengths, and limitations. Neurosurgery 83:3333442018

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Kato SNouri AWu DNori STetreault LFehlings MG: Comparison of anterior and posterior surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: an MRI-based propensity-score-matched analysis using data from the prospective multicenter AOSpine CSM North America and international studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:101310212017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Kowalik UPlante MK: Urinary retention in surgical patients. Surg Clin North Am 96:4534672016

  • 26

    Martin JRWang TYLoriaux DDesai RKuchibhatla MKarikari IO: Race as a predictor of postoperative hospital readmission after spine surgery. J Clin Neurosci 46:21252017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Minhas SVMazmudar ASPatel AA: Pre-operative functional status as a predictor of morbidity and mortality after elective cervical spine surgery. Bone Joint J 99-B:8248282017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Missios SBekelis K: Hospitalization cost after spine surgery in the United States of America. J Clin Neurosci 22:163216372015

  • 29

    Pashikanti LVon Ah D: Impact of early mobilization protocol on the medical-surgical inpatient population: an integrated review of literature. Clin Nurse Spec 26:87942012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Passias PGHorn SRJalai CMPoorman GBono OJRamchandran S: Comparative analysis of perioperative complications between a multicenter prospective cervical deformity database and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Spine J 17:163316402017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Phan KKim JSLee NJKothari PCho SK: Relationship between ASA scores and 30-day readmissions in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:85912017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Poole LMLe PDrake RMHelmer SDHaan JM: Analysis of patients ≥65 with predominant cervical spine fractures: issues of disposition and dysphagia. J Emerg Trauma Shock 10:13182017

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Radcliff KOng KLLovald SLau EKurd M: Cervical spine surgery complications and risks in the elderly. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:E347E3542017

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Rihn JACurrier BLPhillips FMGlassman SDAlbert TJ: Defining the value of spine care. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21:4194262013

  • 35

    Sankar AJohnson SRBeattie WSTait GWijeysundera DN: Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice. Br J Anaesth 113:4244322014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Schoenfeld AJOchoa LMBader JOBelmont PJ Jr: Risk factors for immediate postoperative complications and mortality following spine surgery: a study of 3475 patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:157715822011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Shadle BBarbaro CWaxman KConnor SVon Dollen K: Predictors of postoperative urinary retention. Am Surg 75:9229242009

  • 38

    Shin JIKim JSSteinberger JDiCapua JCho SK: Patient factors contributing to prolonged postoperative length of stay and increased rate of readmission after elective posterior cervical fusion. Clin Spine Surg 31:E55E612018

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Veeravagu AConnolly IDLamsam LLi ASwinney CAzad TD: Surgical outcomes of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an analysis of a national, administrative, longitudinal database. Neurosurg Focus 40(6):E112016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Wadhwa RKOhya JVogel TDCarreon LYAsher ALKnightly JJ: Risk factors for 30-day reoperation and 3-month readmission: analysis from the Quality and Outcomes Database lumbar spine registry. J Neurosurg Spine 27:1311362017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Wainwright TWImmins TMiddleton RG: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and its applicability for major spine surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 30:911022016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    Waljee JFBirkmeyer NJ: Collaborative quality improvement in surgery. Hand Clin 30:335343vi2014

  • 43

    Wang TTian XMLiu SKWang HZhang YZDing WY: Prevalence of complications after surgery in treatment for cervical compressive myelopathy: a meta-analysis for last decade. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e64212017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Wang TWang HLiu SDing WY: Incidence of C5 nerve root palsy after cervical surgery: a meta-analysis for last decade. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e85602017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Wu BSong FZhu S: Reasons of dysphagia after operation of anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Clin Spine Surg 30:E554E5592017

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 401 401 57
Full Text Views 138 138 25
PDF Downloads 116 116 13
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar