Outpatient surgery in the cervical spine: is it safe?

Michael J Lee, Iain Kalfas, Haley Holmer, Andrea Skelly
{"title":"Outpatient surgery in the cervical spine: is it safe?","authors":"Michael J Lee, Iain Kalfas, Haley Holmer, Andrea Skelly","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1389088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale As the length of stay after cervical spine surgery has decreased substantially, the feasibility and safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery come into question. Although minimal length of stay is a targeted metric for quality and costs for medical centers, the safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery has not been clearly defined. Objective The objective of this article is to evaluate the safety of inpatient versus outpatient surgery in the cervical spine for adult patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic degenerative disc disease. Methods A systematic review of the literature was undertaken for articles published through February 19, 2014. Electronic databases and the bibliographies of key articles were searched to identify comparative studies evaluating the safety of inpatient versus outpatient surgery in the cervical spine. Spinal cord stimulation, spinal injections, and diagnostic procedures were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results Five studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. One study reported low risk of hematoma (0% of outpatients and 1.6% of inpatients). Two studies reported on mortality and both reported no deaths in either group following surgery. Dysphagia risks ranged from 0 to 10% of outpatients and 1.6 to 5% of inpatients, and infection risks ranged from 0 to 1% of outpatients and 2 to 2.8% of inpatients. One study reported that no (0) outpatients were readmitted to the hospital due to a complication, compared with four inpatients (7%). The overall strength of evidence was insufficient for all safety outcomes examined. Conclusion Though the studies in our systematic review did not suggest an increased risk of complication with outpatient cervical spine surgery, the strength of evidence to make a recommendation was insufficient. Further study is needed to more clearly define the role of outpatient cervical spine surgery. </p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 2","pages":"101-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174186/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1389088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale As the length of stay after cervical spine surgery has decreased substantially, the feasibility and safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery come into question. Although minimal length of stay is a targeted metric for quality and costs for medical centers, the safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery has not been clearly defined. Objective The objective of this article is to evaluate the safety of inpatient versus outpatient surgery in the cervical spine for adult patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic degenerative disc disease. Methods A systematic review of the literature was undertaken for articles published through February 19, 2014. Electronic databases and the bibliographies of key articles were searched to identify comparative studies evaluating the safety of inpatient versus outpatient surgery in the cervical spine. Spinal cord stimulation, spinal injections, and diagnostic procedures were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results Five studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. One study reported low risk of hematoma (0% of outpatients and 1.6% of inpatients). Two studies reported on mortality and both reported no deaths in either group following surgery. Dysphagia risks ranged from 0 to 10% of outpatients and 1.6 to 5% of inpatients, and infection risks ranged from 0 to 1% of outpatients and 2 to 2.8% of inpatients. One study reported that no (0) outpatients were readmitted to the hospital due to a complication, compared with four inpatients (7%). The overall strength of evidence was insufficient for all safety outcomes examined. Conclusion Though the studies in our systematic review did not suggest an increased risk of complication with outpatient cervical spine surgery, the strength of evidence to make a recommendation was insufficient. Further study is needed to more clearly define the role of outpatient cervical spine surgery.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

颈椎门诊手术:安全吗?
研究设计 系统综述。研究背景 随着颈椎手术后住院时间的大幅缩短,门诊颈椎手术的可行性和安全性受到质疑。尽管最短住院时间是医疗中心衡量质量和成本的目标指标,但门诊颈椎手术的安全性尚未得到明确界定。本文旨在评估有症状或无症状退行性椎间盘病变的成年患者接受住院与门诊颈椎手术的安全性。方法 对2014年2月19日之前发表的文献进行了系统性回顾。检索了电子数据库和主要文章的参考书目,以确定评估颈椎住院手术与门诊手术安全性的比较研究。脊髓刺激、脊髓注射和诊断程序被排除在外。两位独立审稿人采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)系统对证据的强度进行了评估,并在达成共识的基础上解决了分歧。结果 五项研究符合纳入标准。一项研究报告了低血肿风险(门诊患者为 0%,住院患者为 1.6%)。两项研究报告了死亡率,两组患者术后均无死亡病例。吞咽困难的风险在门诊患者中介于 0% 到 10% 之间,在住院患者中介于 1.6% 到 5% 之间;感染的风险在门诊患者中介于 0% 到 1% 之间,在住院患者中介于 2% 到 2.8%之间。一项研究报告称,没有门诊患者(0 例)因并发症再次入院,而住院患者有 4 例(7%)。所有安全结果的总体证据强度均不足。结论 虽然我们的系统回顾中的研究并未表明门诊颈椎手术的并发症风险会增加,但提出建议的证据强度不足。我们需要进一步研究,以更明确地界定门诊颈椎手术的作用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信