Literature DB >> 34990539

Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification Does Not Limit Safety or Improvement Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Conor P Lynch1, Elliot D K Cha1, Cara E Geoghegan1, Caroline N Jadczak1, Shruthi Mohan1, Kern Singh1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification has been used to risk stratify surgical candidates. Our study compares outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) procedures based on preoperative ASA physical status classification.
METHODS: A surgical registry was reviewed for primary, single-level MIS TLIF patients. Patients were categorized by preoperative ASA physical status classification: ASA I, ASA II, ASA III+. Perioperative complications were compared among groups. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for back pain, leg pain, physical function, and disability were recorded preoperatively and at 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative timepoints. PROM improvement from baseline (ΔPROM) and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was calculated for each timepoint and compared among groups. MCID achievement was determined as ΔPROMs that surpassed previously established MCID values.
RESULTS: Of the 487 patients, 64 had an ASA classification of I, whereas 336 had an ASA of II, and 87 had an ASA of III or greater. Rates of complications were not associated with ASA classification (all p > 0.050). Neither mean PROM scores nor ΔPROM scores were significantly associated with ASA classification at any timepoint (all p > 0.050). MCID achievement was significantly associated with ASA classification for back pain at 1 year only (p = 0.041). Overall MCID achievement was not significantly associated with ASA classification for any PROM (p > 0.050).
CONCLUSION: While ASA classification has been commonly used to risk stratify surgical candidates for spinal procedures, patients with an ASA of III or greater may be able to achieve similar long-term outcomes following MIS TLIF given proper selection criteria.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anesthesiologist; Minimally invasive surgery; Patient-reported outcomes; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Year:  2022        PMID: 34990539      PMCID: PMC9537840          DOI: 10.14245/ns.2142088.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurospine        ISSN: 2586-6591


  25 in total

Review 1.  A review of ASA physical status - historical perspectives and modern developments.

Authors:  D Mayhew; V Mendonca; B V S Murthy
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 6.955

2.  Approach-based Comparative and Predictor Analysis of 30-day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the ACS-NSQIP Dataset.

Authors:  Austen David Katz; Nickolas Mancini; Teja Karukonda; Matthew Greenwood; Mark Cote; Isaac L Moss
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  The Impact of Worker's Compensation Claims on Outcomes and Costs Following an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Authors:  Ehsan Tabaraee; Junyoung Ahn; Daniel D Bohl; Islam M Elboghdady; Khaled Aboushaala; Kern Singh
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Discriminative ability of commonly used indices to predict adverse outcomes after poster lumbar fusion: a comparison of demographics, ASA, the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index, and the modified Frailty Index.

Authors:  Nathaniel T Ondeck; Daniel D Bohl; Patawut Bovonratwet; Ryan P McLynn; Jonathan J Cui; Blake N Shultz; Adam M Lukasiewicz; Jonathan N Grauer
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance.

Authors:  Scott L Parker; Stephen K Mendenhall; David N Shau; Owoicho Adogwa; William N Anderson; Clinton J Devin; Matthew J McGirt
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2012-02-10

6.  An Evaluation of Patient Risk Factors to Determine Eligibility to Undergo Orthopaedic Surgery in a Freestanding Ambulatory Center A Survey of 4,242 Consecutive Patients.

Authors:  Matthew Siow; Germaine Cuff; Jovan Popovic; Joseph Bosco
Journal:  Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013)       Date:  2017-05

Review 7.  Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery.

Authors:  John D McCormick; Brian C Werner; Adam L Shimer
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.020

8.  Factors affecting length of stay after elective posterior lumbar spine surgery: a multivariate analysis.

Authors:  Jordan A Gruskay; Michael Fu; Daniel D Bohl; Matthew L Webb; Jonathan N Grauer
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 4.166

9.  Utilization of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification system in evaluating outcomes and costs following deformity spine procedures.

Authors:  Alexander J Schupper; William H Shuman; Rebecca B Baron; Sean N Neifert; Emily K Chapman; Jeffrey Gilligan; Jonathan S Gal; John M Caridi
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-08-11

10.  American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification.

Authors:  Mohamed Daabiss
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2011-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.