Literature DB >> 27064334

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Ambulatory Surgery Centers: Patient Selection and Outcome Measures Compared With an Inhospital Cohort.

Kingsley R Chin1, Fabio J R Pencle, André V Coombs, Morgan D Brown, Kasey J Conklin, Andew M O'Neill, Michael J McGarry, Jason A Seale, Elijah A Hothem.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Comparative analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and outcomes of moving lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgeries to an outpatient setting. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LLIF has been popularized as a less invasive lumbar fusion surgery as an alternative approach to anterior lumbar interbody fusions, posterior lateral interbody fusion, and transforaminal lateral interbody fusion (TLIF). Lumbar fusions have been traditionally performed in a hospital setting because of the potential blood loss, length of surgery, and need for longer recovery. There is a movement to transition spine surgeries to outpatient settings with many benefits afforded by less invasive techniques and technologies.
METHODS: The medical records of 70 consecutive patients with prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed. Two cohort groups, inpatients (40 patients) and outpatients (30 patients), were created. Patient demographics, risk factors, and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated to determine inclusion criteria for study. RESULT: A total of 34 males and 36 females, age range (31-71) average 59.3 ± 2.3 years. Average BMI was 29.6 ± 1.1 kg/m. The most common level operated on being L3-L4 in both groups (63%). Mean preoperative inpatient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) increased from 48.5 ± 3.0 to 55.5 ± 3.2 compared with outpatient preoperative ODI means reduced from 45.2 ± 5.1 to 39.1 ± 4.6. There was no statistically significant change in VAS scores between groups. There was however significant improvement in outpatient preoperative VAS scores from 7.3 ± 0.5 to 4.1 ± 0.5, P = 0.045.
CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the present study have shown that patients who had LLIF performed in the outpatient setting had statistically significant improvement in ODI scores compared with the inpatient setting (P = 0.013). Fusion was achieved in all patients and there was no evidence of implant failure or subsidence. Complications were transient in both settings. We conclude that outpatient LLIF improves patients' outcomes with similar safety profile as the hospital setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27064334     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001285

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  16 in total

1.  Outpatient Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Using Multimodal Analgesic Management in the Ambulatory Surgery Setting.

Authors:  James M Parrish; Nathaniel W Jenkins; Thomas S Brundage; Nadia M Hrynewycz; Jeffrey Podnar; Asokumar Buvanendran; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12-29

2.  Ambulatory spine surgery.

Authors:  Michael C Gerling; Steven D Hale; Claire White-Dzuro; Katherine E Pierce; Sara A Naessig; Waleed Ahmad; Peter G Passias
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

Review 3.  Future endeavors in ambulatory spine surgery.

Authors:  Avani S Vaishnav; Steven J McAnany
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

Review 4.  Current trends in ambulatory spine surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Edward M DelSole; Heeren S Makanji; Mark F Kurd
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

5.  Experience of using a 3-blade LES-Tri retractor over 5 years for lumbar decompression microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Kingsley R Chin; Fabio J R Pencle; Jason A Seale; Frank K Pencle
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-08-07

Review 6.  Complication avoidance and management in ambulatory spine surgery.

Authors:  Evan D Sheha; Peter B Derman
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

Review 7.  Ambulatory surgery center ownership models.

Authors:  Neil Badlani
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

Review 8.  Lumbar spinal fusion in the outpatient setting: an update on management, surgical approaches and planning.

Authors:  Bryce A Basques; Joseph Ferguson; Kyle N Kunze; Frank M Phillips
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

9.  A psoas splitting approach developed for outpatient lateral interbody fusion versus a standard transpsoas approach.

Authors:  Kingsley R Chin; Fabio J R Pencle; Morgan D Brown; Jason A Seale
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

10.  Safety and Efficiency of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty in Ambulatory Surgery Centers vs. Hospital Settings.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; Glenn R Buttermann; Richard Wohns; Jason Billinghurst; Darrell C Brett; Richard Kube; J Rafe Sales; Nicholas J Wills; Ross Sherban; Francine W Schranck; Anne G Copay
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-10-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.