BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of different types of inpatient rehabilitation on outcomes of patients undergoing lower extremity amputation for nontraumatic reasons. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between patients who received inpatient rehabilitation on specific rehabilitation bed units (specialized) to patients who received rehabilitation on general medical/surgical units (generalized) during the acute postoperative period. METHODS: This was an observational study including 1339 veterans who underwent lower extremity amputation between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2004. Data were compiled from 9 administrative databases from the Veterans Health Administration. Propensity score risk adjustment methodology was used to reduce selection bias in looking at the effect of type of rehabilitation on outcomes (1-year survival, home discharge from the hospital, prescription of a prosthetic limb within 1 year post surgery, and improvement in physical functioning at rehabilitation discharge). RESULTS: After applying propensity score risk adjustment, there was strong evidence that patients who received specialized versus generalized rehabilitation were more likely to be discharged home (risk difference = 0.10), receive a prescription for a prosthetic limb (risk difference = 0.13), and improve physical functioning (gains on average 6.2 points higher). Specialized patients had higher 1-year survival (risk difference = 0.05), but the difference was not statistically significant. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated our findings to be unaffected by a moderately strong amount of unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of specialized compared with generalized rehabilitation during the acute postoperative inpatient period was associated with better outcomes. Future studies will need to look at different intensity, timing, and location of rehabilitation services.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of different types of inpatient rehabilitation on outcomes of patients undergoing lower extremity amputation for nontraumatic reasons. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between patients who received inpatient rehabilitation on specific rehabilitation bed units (specialized) to patients who received rehabilitation on general medical/surgical units (generalized) during the acute postoperative period. METHODS: This was an observational study including 1339 veterans who underwent lower extremity amputation between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2004. Data were compiled from 9 administrative databases from the Veterans Health Administration. Propensity score risk adjustment methodology was used to reduce selection bias in looking at the effect of type of rehabilitation on outcomes (1-year survival, home discharge from the hospital, prescription of a prosthetic limb within 1 year post surgery, and improvement in physical functioning at rehabilitation discharge). RESULTS: After applying propensity score risk adjustment, there was strong evidence that patients who received specialized versus generalized rehabilitation were more likely to be discharged home (risk difference = 0.10), receive a prescription for a prosthetic limb (risk difference = 0.13), and improve physical functioning (gains on average 6.2 points higher). Specialized patients had higher 1-year survival (risk difference = 0.05), but the difference was not statistically significant. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated our findings to be unaffected by a moderately strong amount of unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of specialized compared with generalized rehabilitation during the acute postoperative inpatient period was associated with better outcomes. Future studies will need to look at different intensity, timing, and location of rehabilitation services.
Authors: M G Stineman; J A Shea; A Jette; C J Tassoni; K J Ottenbacher; R Fiedler; C V Granger Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Patrick K Murray; Mendel Singer; Neal V Dawson; Charles L Thomas; Randall D Cebul Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Margaret G Stineman; Pui L Kwong; Jibby E Kurichi; Janet A Prvu-Bettger; W Bruce Vogel; Greg Maislin; Barbara E Bates; Dean M Reker Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Margaret G Stineman; Pui L Kwong; Dawei Xie; Jibby E Kurichi; Diane Cowper Ripley; David M Brooks; Douglas E Bidelspach; Barbara E Bates Journal: PM R Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Jianxun Zhou; Barbara E Bates; Jibby E Kurichi; Pui L Kwong; Dawei Xie; Margaret G Stineman Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Jibby E Kurichi; Dawei Xie; Pui L Kwong; Barbara E Bates; W Bruce Vogel; Margaret G Stineman Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Jibby E Kurichi; Diane Cowper Ripley; Dawei Xie; Pui L Kwong; Barbara E Bates; Margaret G Stineman Journal: PM R Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Jibby E Kurichi; W Bruce Vogel; Pui L Kwong; Dawei Xie; Barbara E Bates; Margaret G Stineman Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.159