Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Longitudinal Trends of Patient Demographics and Morbidity of Different Approaches in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Analysis Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. | LitMetric
Anesthesiology, Critical Care & Pain Management, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA. Electronic address:
Published: August 2022
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
Objective: The aims of this study were to determine the time trend of demographics, complications, and outcomes for patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion/lateral lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF/LLIF) and to compare the differences in the time trends between both procedures.
Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients undergoing PLIF/TLIF and ALIF/LLIF procedures. Outcomes were analyzed for differences between 2 time periods in the PLIF/TLIF and ALIF/LLIF cohorts separately (2009-2013 and 2015-2019). Longitudinal time trends of the 2 procedures were determined by difference-in-differences (DID) analysis. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.
Results: For both approaches, there was an increase in age and American Society of Anesthesiologists class over time, accompanied by a significant decrease in blood transfusions and morbidity. The DID analysis showed a greater change in age (DID:-1.8%; P < 0.001), and more patients were rated American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 (DID: -2.4%; P = 0.033) in the ALIF/LLIF cohort than in the PLIF/TLIF cohort. Length of stay declined significantly over time in both cohorts, with a greater reduction observed for patients who underwent ALIF/LLIF than for patients who underwent PLIF/TLIF (DID: 0.2%; P = 0.014). There were no changes in readmission rates over time in either cohort (PLIF/TLIF DID: 0.6%; P = 0.080; ALIF/LLIF DID: -0.2%; P = 0.696).
Conclusions: Time trends for PLIF/TLIF and ALIF/LIIF showed a significant increase in the number of older patients with complex medical status undergoing surgery. Despite these trends, there were decreases in overall postoperative morbidity, incidence of blood transfusion, and length of stay, without increasing readmission. These results suggest general improvement in surgical and perioperative management of lumbar fusion over time with greater gains found in ALIF/LLIF-specific care than in PLIF/TLIF.
