Outpatient transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion demonstrated favorable safety in comparison to the inpatient setting: analysis of 10,595 NSQIP patients and systematic review

IF 2 Q1 Medicine
Simon G. Ammanuel , Kaissa Sylla , Cuong P. Luu , Momin M. Mohis , Bradley Schmidt
{"title":"Outpatient transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion demonstrated favorable safety in comparison to the inpatient setting: analysis of 10,595 NSQIP patients and systematic review","authors":"Simon G. Ammanuel ,&nbsp;Kaissa Sylla ,&nbsp;Cuong P. Luu ,&nbsp;Momin M. Mohis ,&nbsp;Bradley Schmidt","doi":"10.1016/j.wnsx.2025.100478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine nationally how outpatient surgery affects transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) outcomes versus the inpatient setting.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>TLIF patients were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement database for the years 2015–2020 and stratified into inpatient and outpatient groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses, adjusting for differing patient characteristics, were performed to delineate outcome differences. A review of PubMed following PRISMA guidelines summarized prior level 3 evidence on how outpatient TLIF had affected outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Contrasting the characteristics of the 10,237 inpatient to 358 outpatient TLIF cases, the outpatient group fared younger (57.1 vs. 59.9 years old, p &lt; 0.001) and lower in ASA &gt;2 (42.2 % vs. 51.1 % p = 0.001). The outpatient group experienced shorter operations (183.86 vs. 214.29 min, p &lt; 0.001), shorter stays (1.97 vs. 3.40 days, p &lt; 0.001), and more home discharges (94.1 % vs. 87.1 %, p &lt; 0.001). The outpatient group experienced fewer minor complications (4.7 % vs 10.7 %, p &lt; 0.001), particularly perioperative blood transfusion (0.8 % vs 6.0 %, p &lt; 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed outpatient group did not differ in major complications (OR 0.92, CI 0.45–1.88, p = 0.82) or readmissions (OR 1.06, CI 0.64–1.77, p = 0.82). A review of 7 smaller retrospective cohort studies revealed that complications rates (6 of 7 studies, p ≥ 0.05), the visual analog scale, and the Oswestry Disability Index (3 of 4 studies, p ≥ 0.05) did not differ between settings.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>TLIF can be performed safely in the outpatient setting with comparable outcomes to inpatient TLIF with prudent patient selection. It is also likely to have similar long-term functional outcomes, which therefore supports its expanded coverage under Medicare.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37134,"journal":{"name":"World Neurosurgery: X","volume":"27 ","pages":"Article 100478"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Neurosurgery: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590139725000523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To determine nationally how outpatient surgery affects transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) outcomes versus the inpatient setting.

Methods

TLIF patients were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement database for the years 2015–2020 and stratified into inpatient and outpatient groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses, adjusting for differing patient characteristics, were performed to delineate outcome differences. A review of PubMed following PRISMA guidelines summarized prior level 3 evidence on how outpatient TLIF had affected outcomes.

Results

Contrasting the characteristics of the 10,237 inpatient to 358 outpatient TLIF cases, the outpatient group fared younger (57.1 vs. 59.9 years old, p < 0.001) and lower in ASA >2 (42.2 % vs. 51.1 % p = 0.001). The outpatient group experienced shorter operations (183.86 vs. 214.29 min, p < 0.001), shorter stays (1.97 vs. 3.40 days, p < 0.001), and more home discharges (94.1 % vs. 87.1 %, p < 0.001). The outpatient group experienced fewer minor complications (4.7 % vs 10.7 %, p < 0.001), particularly perioperative blood transfusion (0.8 % vs 6.0 %, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed outpatient group did not differ in major complications (OR 0.92, CI 0.45–1.88, p = 0.82) or readmissions (OR 1.06, CI 0.64–1.77, p = 0.82). A review of 7 smaller retrospective cohort studies revealed that complications rates (6 of 7 studies, p ≥ 0.05), the visual analog scale, and the Oswestry Disability Index (3 of 4 studies, p ≥ 0.05) did not differ between settings.

Conclusions

TLIF can be performed safely in the outpatient setting with comparable outcomes to inpatient TLIF with prudent patient selection. It is also likely to have similar long-term functional outcomes, which therefore supports its expanded coverage under Medicare.
门诊经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术的安全性优于住院:对10595例NSQIP患者的分析和系统评价
目的在全国范围内确定门诊手术对经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)结果的影响。方法从2015-2020年国家外科质量改进数据库中识别stlif患者,并将其分为住院组和门诊组。单因素和多因素分析,调整不同的患者特征,进行描述结果差异。根据PRISMA指南对PubMed的回顾总结了先前关于门诊TLIF如何影响预后的3级证据。结果10237例住院TLIF患者与358例门诊TLIF患者的特征比较,门诊组患者年龄更年轻(57.1岁vs 59.9岁);0.001), ASA >;2更低(42.2% vs. 51.1% p = 0.001)。门诊组手术时间较短(183.86分钟vs 214.29分钟,p <;0.001),住院时间较短(1.97 vs. 3.40天,p <;0.001),更多的家庭出院(94.1%对87.1%,p <;0.001)。门诊组的轻微并发症较少(4.7% vs 10.7%, p <;0.001),尤其是围手术期输血(0.8% vs 6.0%, p <;0.001)。多因素分析显示,门诊组在主要并发症(OR 0.92, CI 0.45-1.88, p = 0.82)和再入院(OR 1.06, CI 0.64-1.77, p = 0.82)方面无显著差异。对7项较小的回顾性队列研究的回顾显示,并发症发生率(7项研究中有6项,p≥0.05)、视觉模拟量表和Oswestry残疾指数(4项研究中有3项,p≥0.05)在不同的环境中没有差异。结论通过谨慎的患者选择,stlif可以安全地在门诊进行,其结果与住院TLIF相当。它也可能有类似的长期功能结果,因此支持扩大医疗保险的覆盖范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Neurosurgery: X
World Neurosurgery: X Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
44 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信