Literature DB >> 23397190

Time spent per patient in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery.

Ludovic Kaminski1, Xavier Banse.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the time needed from a surgeon's viewpoint to treat a patient operated for lumbar spinal stenosis. We firstly aimed to give evidence of the wide ranging duration of standardized procedure. Secondly, we investigated factors affecting the time allocated to each patient.
METHODS: 438 medical records of patients operated on for lumbar decompression without fusion (2005-2011) were retrospectively examined. Primary data were operative time (OT, min), length of stay (LoS, days) and number of postoperative visits. A fourth parameter was calculated, the time spent per patient (TSPP, min) by summing the time spent in surgery, during inpatient and outpatient follow-up visits. Factors that influenced these medical resources were examined.
RESULTS: Median (5th-95th percentile) LoS was 5 days (2-15), OT 106 min (60-194), number of medical visits 5 (2-11) and TSPP 329 min (206-533). In descending order, factors predicting LoS were age, no. of levels, sex, operative technique, cardiovascular risk index, dural tear and haematoma. Factors predicting OT were number of levels, dural tear, foraminotomy, synovial cyst and body mass index. The statistical model could predict 36% of the TSPP variance. We recommend that surgeons add 35 min for each level, 29 min for patients over 65 years, 30 min for women, 132 min for dural tear and 108 min for epidural haematoma.
CONCLUSION: TSPP treated for lumbar spinal stenosis is highly variable, yet partially predictable. These data may help individual surgeons or heads of departments to plan their activities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23397190      PMCID: PMC3731491          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2691-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  30 in total

1.  Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery.

Authors:  T H Lee; E R Marcantonio; C M Mangione; E J Thomas; C A Polanczyk; E F Cook; D J Sugarbaker; M C Donaldson; R Poss; K K Ho; L E Ludwig; A Pedan; L Goldman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1999-09-07       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  A decade's experience in lumbar spine surgery in Belgium: sickness fund beneficiaries, 2000-2009.

Authors:  Marc Du Bois; Marek Szpalski; Peter Donceel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Predicting morbidity and mortality of lumbar spine arthrodesis in patients in their ninth decade.

Authors:  Christopher S Raffo; William C Lauerman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy.

Authors:  Claudius Thomé; Dimitris Zevgaridis; Olaf Leheta; Hansjörg Bäzner; Christiane Pöckler-Schöniger; Johannes Wöhrle; Peter Schmiedek
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2005-08

Review 5.  Trends and variations in the use of spine surgery.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study.

Authors:  Halit Cavuşoğlu; Ramazan Alper Kaya; Osman Nuri Türkmenoglu; Cengiz Tuncer; Ibrahim Colak; Yunus Aydin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Quality of data regarding diagnoses of spinal disorders in administrative databases. A multicenter study.

Authors:  T Faciszewski; S K Broste; D Fardon
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  The ASA classification of physical status--a recapitulation.

Authors:  A S Keats
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  Factors predicting hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion in patients undergoing revision posterior lumbar spine decompression, fusion, and segmental instrumentation.

Authors:  Fengyu Zheng; Frank P Cammisa; Harvinder S Sandhu; Federico P Girardi; Safdar N Khan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations.

Authors:  M A Ciol; R A Deyo; E Howell; S Kreif
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.562

View more
  3 in total

1.  [Pre- and postoperative fast-track treatment concepts in spinal surgery : patient information and patient cooperation].

Authors:  C Fleege; M Arabmotlagh; A Almajali; M Rauschmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Intraspinal Lumbar Juxtaarticular Cyst Treatment Through CT-Guided Percutaneus Induced Rupture Results in a Favorable Patient Outcome.

Authors:  Adisa Kursumovic; Richard Bostelmann; Maria Gollwitzer; Stefan Rath; Hans Jakob Steiger; Athanasios K Petridis
Journal:  Clin Pract       Date:  2016-11-24

3.  Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Foraminoplasty for Treating Central Lumbar Stenosis.

Authors:  Bei-Xi Bao; Jian-Wei Zhou; Pan-Feng Yu; Cheng Chi; Hua Qiang; Hui Yan
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 2.071

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.