Study Design. Secondary analysis of a large administrative database. Objective. The objectives of this study are to: 1) identify the incidence and cause of 90-day readmissions following primary elective lumbar spine surgery, 2) offer insight into potential risk factors that contribute to these readmissions, and 3) quantify the cost associated with these readmissions. Summary of Background Data. As bundled-payment models for the reimbursement of surgical services become more popular in spine, the focus is shifting toward long-term patient outcomes in the context of 90-day episodes of care. With limited data available on national 90-day readmission statistics available, we hope to provide evidence that will aid in the development of more cost-effective perioperative care models. Methods. Using ICD-9 coding, we identified all patients 18 years of age and older in the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) who underwent an elective, inpatient, primary lumbar spine surgery. Using multivariate logistic regression, we identified independent predictors of 90-day readmission while controlling for a multitude of confounding variables and completed a comparative cost analysis. Results. We identified 169,788 patients who underwent a primary lumbar spine procedure. In total 4268 (2.5%) were readmitted within 90 days. There was no difference in comorbidity burden between cohorts (readmitted vs. not readmitted) as quantified by the Elixhauser Comorbidity index. Independent predictors of increased odds of 90-day readmission were: anemia, uncomplicated diabetes and diabetes with chronic complications, surgical wound disruption and acute myocardial infarction at the time of the index admission, self-pay status, and an anterior surgical approach. Implant complications were identified as the primary related cause of readmission. These readmissions were associated with a significant cost increase. Conclusion. There are clearly identifiable risk factors that increase the odds of hospital readmission within 90 days of primary lumbar spine surgery. An overall 90-day readmission rate of 2.5%, while relatively low, carries significantly increased cost to both the patient and hospital. Level of Evidence: 3
Study Design: Retrospective review. Objectives: (1) Identify the 90-day rate of readmission following revision lumbar fusion, (2) identify independent risk factors associated with increased rates of readmission within 90 days, (3) and identify the hospital costs associated with revision lumbar fusion and subsequent readmission within 90 days. Methods: Utilizing 2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database, patients undergoing elective revision lumbar fusion were identified. With this sample, multivariate logistic regression was utilized to identify independent predictors of readmission within 90 days. An analysis of total hospital costs was also conducted. Results: In 2014, an estimated 14 378 patients underwent elective revision lumbar fusion. The readmission rate at 90 days was 3.1% (n = 446). Diabetes with chronic complications was the only comorbidity found to carry significantly increased odds of readmission. Surgical complications such as deep venous thrombosis, surgical wound disruption, hematoma, and pneumonia (experienced during the index admission) were also independent predictors of readmission. Anterior approaches were associated with increased odds of readmission. The most common related diagnoses on readmission were hardware issues, postoperative infection, and disc herniation. Readmissions were associated with an average of $96 152 in increased hospital costs per patient compared with those not readmitted. Conclusion: Relevant patient comorbidities and surgical complications were associated with increased readmission within 90 days. Readmission within 90 days was associated with significant increases in hospital costs.
Study Design. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective. To determine if the addition of L5-S1 interbody support in long fusion deformity constructs is associated with superior long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. To compare the 5-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications between long fusion constructs with L5-S1 interbody support versus posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone. Summary of Background Data. Cadaveric biomechanical studies have suggested that an interbody fusion at L5-S1 is beneficial in long fusion constructs with sacropelvic fixation. However, there is limited data reflecting the superiority of interbody support augmentation in optimizing arthrodesis and deformity correction relative to PLF alone. Methods. Eighty-eight consecutive adults with spinal deformity who underwent at minimum T11-pelvis posterior pedicle screw instrumentation with 5-year follow-up were included. Two cohorts were compared based on technique used at the lumbosacral junction (L5-S1): (A) no interbody (PLF; n ¼ 23), or (B) interbody support at L5-S1 (IB; n ¼ 65). Radiographic measurements and clinical outcome measures were compared at multiple time points. Complications were recorded and compared.Results. No differences in baseline patient characteristics between cohorts. One nonunion occurred at L5-S1 in the PLF group (P ¼ 0.091). Initial postop sagittal alignment was better in the IB group (PLF: 6.46 cm, IB: 2.48 cm, P ¼ 0.007); however, this was not maintained over long-term follow-up. No significant differences in proximal junctional kyphosis (PLF: 7/23, IB: 9/65, P ¼ 0.076). Proximal junctional failure was more frequent in the PLF group (PLF: 6/23, IB: 6/65, P ¼ 0.043). No significant differences in complications were found. Both cohorts had improvement from baseline pain and functional scores. Conclusion. There is no absolute long-term advantage for lumbar interbody support in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing spinal arthrodesis to the pelvis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.