RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity (ASD) study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate 30-day readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for matched ASD patients receiving nonhome discharge (NON), including acute rehabilitation (REHAB), and skilled nursing facility (SNF), or home (HOME) discharge following ASD surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative disposition following ASD surgery frequently involves nonhome discharge. Little data exists for longer term outcomes for ASD patients receiving nonhome discharge versus patients discharged to home. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study were assessed for NON or HOME disposition following hospital discharge. NON was further divided into REHAB or SNF. Propensity score matching was used to match for patient age, frailty, spine deformity, levels fused, and osteotomies performed at surgery. Thirty-day hospital readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and 1-year and minimum 2-year postoperative PROs were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 241 of 374 patients were eligible for the study. NON patients were identified and matched to HOME patients. Following matching, 158 patients remained for evaluation; NON and HOME had similar preoperative age, frailty, spine deformity magnitude, surgery performed, and duration of hospital stay ( P >0.05). Thirty-day readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, and postoperative complications were similar for NON versus HOME and similar for REHAB (N=64) versus SNF (N=42) versus HOME ( P >0.05). At 1-year and minimum 2-year follow-up, HOME demonstrated similar to better PRO scores including Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 36v2 questionnaire Mental Component Score and Physical Component Score, and Scoliosis Research Society scores versus NON, REHAB, and SNF ( P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Acute needs must be considered following ASD surgery, however, matched analysis comparing 30-day hospital readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and PROs demonstrated minimal benefit for NON, REHAB, or SNF versus HOME at 1- and 2-year follow-up, questioning the risk and cost/benefits of routine use of nonhome discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-prognostic.
Assuntos
Fragilidade , Alta do Paciente , Adulto , Humanos , Readmissão do Paciente , Instituições de Cuidados Especializados de Enfermagem , Estudos Prospectivos , Fragilidade/complicações , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Propensity score matched analysis of a multi-center prospective adult spinal deformity (ASD) database. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate if surgical implant prophylaxis combined with avoidance of sagittal overcorrection more effectively prevents proximal junctional failure (PJF) than use of surgical implants alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PJF is a severe form of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). Efforts to prevent PJF have focused on use of surgical implants. Less information exists on avoidance of overcorrection of age-adjusted sagittal alignment to prevent PJF. METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients (age ≥18 yrs; ≥5 levels fused, ≥1 year follow-up) enrolled into a prospective multi-center ASD database were propensity score matched (PSM) to control for risk factors for PJF. Patients evaluated for use of surgical implants to prevent PJF (IMPLANT) versus no implant prophylaxis (NONE), and categorized by the type of implant used (CEMENT, HOOK, TETHER). Postoperative sagittal alignment was evaluated for overcorrection of age-adjusted sagittal alignment (OVER) versus within sagittal parameters (ALIGN). Incidence of PJF was evaluated at minimum 1 year postop. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty five of 834 eligible for study inclusion were evaluated. Following PSM to control for confounding variables, analysis demonstrated the incidence of PJF was lower for IMPLANT (nâ=â235; 10.6%) versus NONE (nâ=â390: 20.3%; Pâ<â0.05). Use of transverse process hooks at the upper instrumented vertebra (HOOK; nâ=â115) had the lowest rate of PJF (7.0%) versus NONE (20.3%; Pâ<â0.05). ALIGN (nâ=â246) had lower incidence of PJF than OVER (nâ=â379; 12.0% vs. 19.2%, respectively; Pâ<â0.05). The combination of ALIGN-IMPLANT further reduced PJF rates (nâ=â81; 9.9%), while OVER-NONE had the highest rate of PJF (nâ=â225; 24.2%; Pâ<â0.05). CONCLUSION: Propensity score matched analysis of 625 ASD patients demonstrated use of surgical implants alone to prevent PJF was less effective than combining implants with avoidance of sagittal overcorrection. Patients that received no PJF implant prophylaxis and had sagittal overcorrection had the highest incidence of PJF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.