Outpatient Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Population-Based Analysis of Trends and Complication Rates

Study Design. A retrospective case-control study. Objective. The aim of this study was to determine the nationwide trends and complication rates associated with outpatient posterior lumbar fusion (PLF). Summary of Background Data. Outpatient lumbar spine fusion is now possible secondary to minimally invasive techniques that allow for reduced hospital stays and analgesic requirements. Limited data are currently available regarding the clinical outcome of outpatient lumbar fusion. Methods. The Humana administrative claims database was queried for patients who underwent one to two-level PLF (CPT-22612 or CPT-22633 AND ICD-9–816.2) as either outpatients or inpatients from Q1 2007 to Q2 2015. The incidence of perioperative medical and surgical complications was determined by querying for relevant International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, and Charlson Comorbidity Index was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) of complications among outpatients relative to inpatients undergoing PLF. Results. Cohorts of 770 patients who underwent outpatient PLF and 26,826 patients who underwent inpatient PLF were identified. The median age was in the 65 to 69 years age group for both cohorts. The annual relative incidence of outpatient PLF remained stable across the study period (R2 = 0.03, P = 0.646). Adjusting for age, gender, and comorbidities, patients undergoing outpatient PLF had higher likelihood of revision/extension of posterior fusion [(OR 2.33, confidence interval (CI) 2.06–2.63, P < 0.001], anterior fusion (OR 1.64, CI 1.31–2.04, P < 0.001), and decompressive laminectomy (OR 2.01, CI 1.74–2.33, P < 0.001) within 1 year. Risk-adjusted rates of all other postoperative surgical and medical complications were statistically comparable. Conclusion. Outpatient lumbar fusion is uncommonly performed in the United States. Data collected from a national private insurance database demonstrate a greater risk of postoperative surgical complications including revision anterior and posterior fusion and decompressive laminectomy. Surgeons should be cautious in performing PLF in the outpatient setting, as the risk of revision surgery may increase in these cases. Level of Evidence: 3

[1]  Allen L. Ho,et al.  Outpatient vs Inpatient Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Population-Level Analysis of Outcomes and Cost , 2018, Neurosurgery.

[2]  H. Wong,et al.  How are patients influenced when counseled for minimally invasive lumbar spine surgeries? A stepwise model assessing pivotal information for decision-making. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[3]  M. Fu,et al.  Outpatient Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion is Associated With Fewer Short-term Complications in One- and Two-level Cases: A Propensity-adjusted Analysis , 2017, Spine.

[4]  K. Foley,et al.  Best Practices for Outpatient Anterior Cervical Surgery: Results From a Delphi Panel , 2017, Spine.

[5]  K. Chin,et al.  Clinical Outcomes of Outpatient Cervical Total Disc Replacement Compared With Outpatient Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion , 2017, Spine.

[6]  S. McClelland,et al.  Outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A meta-analysis , 2016, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[7]  K. Issa,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Outpatient Setting. , 2016, Orthopedics.

[8]  M. McGirt,et al.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the outpatient ambulatory surgery setting compared with the inpatient hospital setting: analysis of 1000 consecutive cases. , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[9]  K. Chin,et al.  Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Ambulatory Surgery Centers: Patient Selection and Outcome Measures Compared With an Inhospital Cohort , 2016, Spine.

[10]  R. Wohns,et al.  Outpatient Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody: Fusion Predictive Factors and Clinical Results , 2016, Spine.

[11]  Leonard T. Buller,et al.  National Trends in Ambulatory Surgery for Intervertebral Disc Disorders and Spinal Stenosis: A 12-Year Analysis of the National Surveys of Ambulatory Surgery , 2015, Spine.

[12]  K. Chin,et al.  Feasibility and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Outpatient Single-Level Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in a Surgery Center: Preliminary Results in 16 Patients , 2015, Spine.

[13]  M. Fu,et al.  Increased Risk of Complications After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Elderly: An Analysis of 6253 Patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database , 2014, Spine.

[14]  W. W. Eckman,et al.  Same-day Discharge After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Series of 808 Cases , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  A. Villavicencio,et al.  Preliminary Results on Feasibility of Outpatient Instrumented Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2013, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[16]  J. Friedman,et al.  Comparison of inpatient vs. outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective case series , 2009, BMC surgery.

[17]  P. Heagerty,et al.  Population-Based Trends in Volumes and Rates of Ambulatory Lumbar Spine Surgery , 2006, Spine.

[18]  J. Ledlie,et al.  Kyphoplasty Treatment of Vertebral Fractures: 2-Year Outcomes Show Sustained Benefits , 2006, Spine.

[19]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.