Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center and Traditional Hospital Settings, Part 1: Multi-Center Assessment of Surgical Safety


doi: 10.3390/jpm13020311.

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Scott M Schlesinger et al.


J Pers Med.


.

Abstract

(1) Background: The technological advances achieved with minimally-invasive surgery have enabled procedures to be undertaken in outpatient settings, and there has been growing acceptance of performing minimally-invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC). The purposeof this study was to determine the comparative 30 day safety profile for patients treated with TLIF in the ASC versus the hospital setting. (2) Methods: This multi-center study retrospectively collected baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, and 30 day postoperative safety outcomes for patients having a TLIF using the VariLift®-LX expandable lumbar interbody fusion device. Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing TLIF in the ASC (n = 53) versus in the hospital (n = 114). (3) Results: Patients treated in-hospital were significantly older, frailer and more likely to have had previous spinal surgery than ASC patients. Preoperative back and leg pain scores were similar between study groups (median, 7). ASC patients had almost exclusively one-level procedures (98%) vs. 20% of hospital procedures involving two-levels (p = 0.004). Most procedures (>90%) employed a stand-alone device. The median length of stay for hospital patients was five times greater than for ASC patients (1.4 days vs. 0.3 days, p = 0.001). Emergency department visits, re-admissions and reoperations were rare whether the patients were managed in the traditional hospital setting or the ASC. (4) Conclusions: There were equivalent 30 day postoperative safety profiles for patients undergoing a minimally-invasive TLIF irrespective of surgical setting. For appropriately selected surgical candidates, the ASC offers a viable and attractive option for their TLIF procedure with the advantage of same-day discharge and at-home recovery.


Keywords:

22633; CPT ® 22630; TLIF; ambulatory surgery center; fusion; interbody cages; safety.

Conflict of interest statement

J.E.B. is an independent advisor to Wenzel Spine (Wenzel Spine, Austin, TX, USA) and received remuneration for manuscript development. S.M.S., B.R.G., M.B.G., and M.P.L. received no funding for this study and report no conflicts of interest.

Figures


Figure 1



Figure 1

VariLift®-LX expandable stand-alone lumbar interbody fusion device (Wenzel Spine, Austin, TX, USA).


Figure 2



Figure 2

Box and whisker plot indicating length of stay by study group. The box indicates the upper and lower quartiles and the central line is the median. The points at the end of the “whiskers” are the 2.5% and 97.5% values. * Indicates outlying values.

Similar articles

References

    1. Gerling M.C., Hale S.D., White-Dzuro C., Pierce K.E., Naessig S.A., Ahmad W., Passias P.G. Ambulatory spine surgery. J. Spine Surg. 2019;5((Suppl. S2)):S147–S153. doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.09.19.



      DOI



      PMC



      PubMed

    1. Pendharkar A.V., Shahin M.N., Ho A.L., Sussman E.S., Purger D.A., Veeravagu A., Ratliff J.K., Desai A.M. Outpatient spine surgery: Defining the outcomes, value, and barriers to implementation. Neurosurg. Focus. 2018;44:E11. doi: 10.3171/2018.2.FOCUS17790.



      DOI



      PubMed

    1. Sivaganesan A., Hirsch B., Phillips F.M., McGirt M.J. Spine Surgery in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Setting: Value-Based Advancement or Safety Liability? Neurosurgery. 2018;83:159–165. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy057.



      DOI



      PubMed

    1. Witiw C.D., Wilson J.R., Fehlings M.G., Traynelis V.C. Ambulatory Surgical Centers: Improving Quality of Operative Spine Care? Global Spine J. 2020;10((Suppl. S1)):29S–35S. doi: 10.1177/2192568219849391.



      DOI



      PMC



      PubMed

    1. Park J., Ham D.W., Kwon B.T., Park S.M., Kim H.J., Yeom J.S. Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Techniques, Technologies, and Indications. Asian Spine J. 2020;14:694–701. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0384.



      DOI



      PMC



      PubMed

Grant support

This research received no external funding.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on vk
VK
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Close Menu