Dataset Information

Hip or spine surgery first?: a survey of treatment order for patients with concurrent degenerative hip and spinal disorders

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, with surgical treatment being indicated for both. Whether arthroplasty of the hip or spinal surgery should be performed first remains uncertain.

Materials and methods

Clinical scenarios were devised for a survey asking the preferred order of surgery and the rationale for this decision for five fictional patients with both OA of the hip and degenerative lumbar disorders. These were symptomatic OA of the hip and: 1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurological claudication; 2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; 3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; 4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and 5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. This survey was sent to 110 members of The Hip Society and 101 members of the Scoliosis Research Society. The choices of the surgeons were compared among scenarios and between surgical specialties using the chi-squared test. The free-text comments were analyzed using text-mining.

Results

Responses were received from 51 hip surgeons (46%) and 37 spine surgeons (37%). The percentages of hip surgeons recommending 'hip first' differed significantly among scenarios: 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (p < 0.001). The percentages of spine surgeons recommending 'hip first' were 49% for scenario 1; 70% for scenario 2; 19% for scenario 3; 78% for scenario 4; and 0% for scenario 5. There were significant differences between the groups for scenarios 3 (more hip surgeons recommended 'hip first'; p = 0.012) and 4 (more hip surgeons recommended 'spine first'; p = 0.006).

Conclusion

In patients with coexistent OA of the hip and degenerative disorders of the spine, the question of 'hip or spinal surgery first' elicits relatively consistent answers in some clinical scenarios, but remains controversial in others, even for experienced surgeons. The nature of neurological symptoms can influence surgeons' decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):37-44.

SUBMITTER: Liu N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6568023 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hip or spine surgery first?: a survey of treatment order for patients with concurrent degenerative hip and spinal disorders

Liu N N Goodman S B SB Lachiewicz P F PF Wood K B KB

The bone & joint journal 20190601 6_Supple_B

<h4>Aims</h4>Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, with surgical treatment being indicated for both. Whether arthroplasty of the hip or spinal surgery should be performed first remains uncertain.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Clinical scenarios were devised for a survey asking the preferred order of surgery and the rationale for this decision for five fictional patients with both OA of the hip and degenerati ...[more]

PMID: 31146559

Similar Datasets

Project description:Retrospective administrative database analysis.To determine the impact of glycemic control on perioperative complications and outcomes in patients undergoing degenerative cervical spine surgery.Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a highly prevalent systemic disease that has been shown to increase morbidity and mortality after spine surgery. Few studies have demonstrated negative effects on patients with DM who undergo cervical spine procedures; however, whether glycemic control influences surgical outcome is still unknown.The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from 2002 to 2011. Patients who underwent cervical spine surgery for degenerative conditions were identified using the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes. Three surgical cohorts were chosen: controlled diabetic, uncontrolled diabetic, and patients without diabetes. Patient demographics, surgical procedures, perioperative complications and postoperative outcomes were assessed.The prevalence of controlled and uncontrolled diabetic patients undergoing degenerative cervical spine surgery had been increasing significantly from 2002 to 2011. Compared with patients without diabetes, uncontrolled diabetic patients had significantly increased odds of respiratory, cardiac, and genitourinary complications. Uncontrolled diabetic patients also had significantly increased risk of pulmonary embolism and postoperative infection. Uncontrolled diabetic patients had increased risk of inpatient mortality (odds ratio = 6.39, 95% confidence interval = 4.09-10.00, P < 0.0001) and increased mean length of stay (almost 5 d) compared with nondiabetic patients. Similarly, controlled diabetic patients increased the odds of perioperative complications; however not nearly to the same degree. Controlled diabetic patients extended the mean length of stay by almost a day (P < 0.0001) and significantly increased costs compared with nondiabetic patients.Poor glycemic control increases the odds of inpatient mortality and perioperative complications in patients undergoing degenerative cervical spine surgery. Controlling DM before degenerative cervical spine surgery may lead to better outcomes and decreased costs.Therapeutic Level 3.

Project description:Study designRetrospective database analysis.ObjectiveTo assess the effect glycemic control has on perioperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective degenerative lumbar spine surgery.Summary of background dataDiabetes mellitus (DM) is a prevalent disease of glucose dysregulation that has been demonstrated to increase morbidity and mortality after spine surgery. However, there is limited understanding of whether glycemic control influences surgical outcomes in patients with DM undergoing lumbar spine procedures for degenerative conditions.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample was analyzed from 2002 to 2011. Hospitalizations were isolated on the basis of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, procedural codes for lumbar spine surgery and diagnoses codes for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Patients were then classified into 3 cohorts: controlled diabetic, uncontrolled diabetic, and nondiabetic. Patient demographic data, acute complications, and hospitalization outcomes were determined for each cohort.ResultsA total of 403,629 (15.7%) controlled diabetic patients and 19,421 (0.75%) uncontrolled diabetic patients underwent degenerative lumbar spine surgery from 2002 to 2011. Relative to nondiabetic patients, uncontrolled diabetic patients had significantly increased odds of cardiac complications, deep venous thrombosis, and postoperative shock; in addition, uncontrolled diabetic patients also had an increased mean length of stay (approximately, 2.5 d), greater costs (1.3-fold), and a greater risk of inpatient mortality (odds ratio=2.6, 95% confidence interval=1.5-4.8, P<0.0009). Controlled diabetic patients also had increased risk of acute complications and inpatient mortality when compared with nondiabetic patients, but not nearly to the same magnitude as uncontrolled diabetic patients.ConclusionSuboptimal glycemic control in diabetic patients undergoing degenerative lumbar spine surgery leads to increased risk of acute complications and poor outcomes. Patients with uncontrolled DM, or poor glucose control, may benefit from improving glycemic control prior to surgery.Level of evidence3.

Project description:STUDY DESIGNRetrospective analysis of Medicare claims linked to a multicenter clinical trial.OBJECTIVEThe Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) provided a unique opportunity to examine the validity of a claims-based algorithm for grouping patients by surgical indication. SPORT enrolled patients for lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. We compared the surgical indication derived from Medicare claims with that provided by SPORT surgeons, the "gold standard."SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATAAdministrative data are frequently used to report procedure rates, surgical safety outcomes, and costs in the management of spinal surgery. However, the accuracy of using diagnosis codes to classify patients by surgical indication has not been examined.METHODSMedicare claims were link to beneficiaries enrolled in SPORT. The sensitivity and specificity of 3 claims-based approaches to group patients on the basis of surgical indications were examined: (1) using the first listed diagnosis; (2) using all diagnoses independently; and (3) using a diagnosis hierarchy on the basis of the support for fusion surgery.RESULTSMedicare claims were obtained from 376 SPORT participants, including 21 with disc herniation, 183 with spinal stenosis, and 172 with degenerative spondylolisthesis. The hierarchical coding algorithm was the most accurate approach for classifying patients by surgical indication, with sensitivities of 76.2%, 88.1%, and 84.3% for disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis cohorts, respectively. The specificity was 98.3% for disc herniation, 83.2% for spinal stenosis, and 90.7% for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Misclassifications were primarily due to codes attributing more complex pathology to the case.CONCLUSIONStandardized approaches for using claims data to group patients accurately by surgical indications have widespread interest. We found that a hierarchical coding approach correctly classified more than 90% of spine patients into their respective SPORT cohorts. Therefore, claims data seem to be a reasonably valid approach to classifying patients by surgical indication.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE3.

Project description:Background:Regional differences in acceptance and utilization of MISST by spine surgeons may have an impact on clinical decision-making and the surgical treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. The purpose of this study was to analyze the acceptance and utilization of various minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) by spinal surgeons the world over. Methods:The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) Do you think minimally invasive spinal surgery is considered mainstream in your area and practice setting? (II) Do you perform minimally invasive spinal surgery? (III) What type of MIS spinal surgery do you perform? (IV) If you are performing endoscopic spinal decompression surgeries, which approach do you prefer? The responses were cross-tabulated by surgeons' demographic data, and their practice area using the following five global regions: Africa & Middle East, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Pearson Chi-Square measures, Kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS Version 25.0. Results:A total of 586 surgeons accessed the survey. Analyzing the responses of 292 submitted surveys regional differences in opinion amongst spine surgeons showed that the highest percentage of surgeons in Asia (72.8%) and South America (70.2%) thought that MISST was accepted into mainstream spinal surgery in their practice area (P=0.04) versus North America (62.8%), Europe (52.8%), and Africa & Middle East region (50%). The percentage of spine surgeons employing MISST was much higher per region than the rate of surgeons who thought it was mainstream: Asia (96.7%), Europe (88.9%), South America (88.9%), and Africa & Middle East (87.5%). Surgeons in North America reported the lowest rate of MISST implementation globally (P<0.000). Spinal endoscopy (59.9%) is currently the most commonly employed MISST globally followed by mini-open approaches (55.1%), and tubular retractor systems (41.8%). The most preferred endoscopic approach to the spine is the transforaminal technique (56.2%) followed by interlaminar (41.8%), full endoscopic (35.3%), and over the top MISST (13.7%). Conclusions:The rate of implementation of MISST into day-to-day clinical practice reported by spine surgeons was universally higher than the perceived acceptance rates of MISST into the mainstream by their peers in their practice area. The survey suggests that endoscopic spinal surgery is now the most commonly performed MISST.

Dataset Information

Hip or spine surgery first?: a survey of treatment order for patients with concurrent degenerative hip and spinal disorders

Aims

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Hip or spine surgery first?: a survey of treatment order for patients with concurrent degenerative hip and spinal disorders

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets