Comparison of endoscopic and non-endoscopic lumbar decompression outcomes using ACS-NSQIP database 2017-2022.

Q1 Medicine
Journal of spine surgery Pub Date : 2025-06-27 Epub Date: 2025-05-30 DOI:10.21037/jss-24-163
Adam J Ward, Samuel Ezeonu, Tina Raman, Charla Fischer, Themistocles S Protopsaltis, Yong H Kim
{"title":"Comparison of endoscopic and non-endoscopic lumbar decompression outcomes using ACS-NSQIP database 2017-2022.","authors":"Adam J Ward, Samuel Ezeonu, Tina Raman, Charla Fischer, Themistocles S Protopsaltis, Yong H Kim","doi":"10.21037/jss-24-163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recently, spine surgeons have begun adapting endoscopy to perform decompressive laminectomy which has been reported to provide smaller incisions and potentially lower risk of complications compared to traditional techniques. This study aimed to compare patient characteristics and adverse outcomes between patients undergoing endoscopic <i>vs.</i> open or minimally invasive (MIS) laminectomy using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2017 to 2022, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code of 63030 or 62380 were used to filter the dataset between open/tubular retractor-based and endoscopic single-level lumbar decompression cases, respectively. Overall, as collected, the endoscopic group consisted of 336 patients and the non-endoscopic group had 55,111 patients. The groups were compared to evaluate the patient characteristics and adverse events within 30 days after their operation. Outcome measures compared were operative time, length of stay (days), adverse outcomes [superficial infection, deep infection, organ/space infection, wound dehiscence, pneumonia, unplanned intubation, pulmonary embolism, ventilator >48 hours, progressive renal insufficiency, acute renal failure, urinary tract infection, stroke/cerebrovascular accident (CVA) accident, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, blood transfusion, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), sepsis, and septic shock], 30-day readmission, return to operating room (OR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After propensity score adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), endoscopic patients had less total adverse outcomes than open (1.2% <i>vs.</i> 4.8%, P=0.01), with significantly lower rate of blood transfusions (P<0.05) compared to the non-endoscopic group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who underwent endoscopic lumbar decompression demonstrated a significantly lower rate of total adverse events and significantly lower rate of blood transfusions compared to their counterparts. This data from the ACS-NSQIP supports the reported benefits of endoscopic technique in the current literature. As endoscopic surgery becomes more widely utilized throughout the United States, more data will become available for further studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":17131,"journal":{"name":"Journal of spine surgery","volume":"11 2","pages":"234-241"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12226183/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of spine surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-24-163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recently, spine surgeons have begun adapting endoscopy to perform decompressive laminectomy which has been reported to provide smaller incisions and potentially lower risk of complications compared to traditional techniques. This study aimed to compare patient characteristics and adverse outcomes between patients undergoing endoscopic vs. open or minimally invasive (MIS) laminectomy using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database.

Methods: Using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2017 to 2022, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code of 63030 or 62380 were used to filter the dataset between open/tubular retractor-based and endoscopic single-level lumbar decompression cases, respectively. Overall, as collected, the endoscopic group consisted of 336 patients and the non-endoscopic group had 55,111 patients. The groups were compared to evaluate the patient characteristics and adverse events within 30 days after their operation. Outcome measures compared were operative time, length of stay (days), adverse outcomes [superficial infection, deep infection, organ/space infection, wound dehiscence, pneumonia, unplanned intubation, pulmonary embolism, ventilator >48 hours, progressive renal insufficiency, acute renal failure, urinary tract infection, stroke/cerebrovascular accident (CVA) accident, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, blood transfusion, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), sepsis, and septic shock], 30-day readmission, return to operating room (OR).

Results: After propensity score adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), endoscopic patients had less total adverse outcomes than open (1.2% vs. 4.8%, P=0.01), with significantly lower rate of blood transfusions (P<0.05) compared to the non-endoscopic group.

Conclusions: Patients who underwent endoscopic lumbar decompression demonstrated a significantly lower rate of total adverse events and significantly lower rate of blood transfusions compared to their counterparts. This data from the ACS-NSQIP supports the reported benefits of endoscopic technique in the current literature. As endoscopic surgery becomes more widely utilized throughout the United States, more data will become available for further studies.

使用ACS-NSQIP数据库2017-2022比较内镜下和非内镜下腰椎减压效果。
背景:最近,脊柱外科医生开始采用内窥镜进行减压椎板切除术,据报道,与传统技术相比,内窥镜切口更小,并发症风险更低。本研究旨在利用美国外科医师学会的国家手术质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)数据库,比较内镜下、开放式或微创(MIS)椎板切除术患者的特征和不良后果。方法:使用2017 - 2022年ACS-NSQIP数据库,分别使用现行程序术语(Current procedure Terminology, CPT)代码63030或62380对开放式/管状牵开器腰椎减压和内镜下单节段腰椎减压病例数据集进行筛选。总的来说,收集到的内镜组有336例患者,非内镜组有55111例患者。比较两组患者术后30天内的特征和不良事件。比较的结果指标为手术时间、住院天数(天)、不良结局[表浅感染、深部感染、器官/间隙感染、伤口破裂、肺炎、意外插管、肺栓塞、呼吸机bbb48小时、进行性肾功能不全、急性肾功能衰竭、尿路感染、卒中/脑血管意外(CVA)事故、心脏骤停、心肌梗死、输血、深静脉血栓形成(DVT)、败血症和感染性休克]、30天再入院,返回手术室。结果:经年龄、性别、种族、体质指数(BMI)、美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)分级和Charlson合病指数(CCI)等因素调整倾向评分后,内镜下患者的不良结局总发生率低于开腹手术患者(1.2% vs. 4.8%, P=0.01),输血率显著低于开腹手术患者(P)。与对照组相比,接受内窥镜腰椎减压术的患者总的不良事件发生率和输血率显著降低。来自ACS-NSQIP的数据支持了当前文献中内镜技术报道的益处。随着内窥镜手术在美国得到更广泛的应用,将有更多的数据可供进一步研究。
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
Journal of spine surgery
Journal of spine surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
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