Dataset Information

Lumbar Spine Surgery and What We Lost in the Era of the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Survey of the Lumbar Spine Research Society.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

This was a survey of the surgeon members of the Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS).

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess trends in surgical practice and patient management involving elective and emergency surgery in the early months of the coronavirus pandemic.

Summary of background data

The novel coronavirus has radically disrupted medical care in the first half of 2020. Little data exists regarding the exact nature of its effect on spine care.

Methods

A 53-question survey was sent to the surgeon members of the LSRS. Respondents were contacted via email 3 times over a 2-week period in late April. Questions concentrated on surgical and clinical practice patterns before and after the pandemic. Other data included elective surgical schedules and volumes, as well as which emergency cases were being performed. Surgeons were asked about the status of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus testing. Circumstances for performing surgical intervention on patients with and without testing as well as patients testing positive were explored.

Results

A total of 43 completed surveys were returned of 174 sent to active surgeons in the LSRS (25%). Elective lumbar spine procedures decreased by 90% in the first 2 months of the pandemic, but emergency procedures did not change. Patients with "stable" lumbar disease had surgeries deferred indefinitely, even beyond 8 weeks if necessary. In-person outpatient visits became increasingly rare events, as telemedicine consultations accounted for 67% of all outpatient spine appointments. In total, 91% surgeons were under some type of confinement. Only 11% of surgeons tested for the coronavirus on all surgical patients.

Conclusions

Elective lumbar surgery was significantly decreased in the first few months of the coronavirus pandemic, and much of outpatient spine surgery was practiced via telemedicine. Despite these constraints, spine surgeons performed emergency surgery when indicated, even when the COVID-19 status of patients was unknown.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

SUBMITTER: Arnold PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8628851 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Long-term outcome studies are frequently hindered by a decreasing frequency of patient follow-up with the treating surgeon over time. Whether this attrition represents a "loss of faith" in their index surgeon or the realities of a geographically mobile society has never been assessed in a population of patients undergoing spinal surgery. The purpose of this article is to determine the frequency with which patients who have undergone prior surgery and develop new problems attempt to follow-up with their index spine surgeon. The study design was a population survey. All patients seen at two university-based spine centers over a 3-month period were surveyed regarding prior spine surgery. The questionnaire asked details of the previous operation, whether the patient had sought follow-up with their index surgeon, why the patient did not continue treatment with that surgeon, and whether the patient was satisfied with their prior treatment. Sixty-nine patients completed the survey. Prior operations were lumbar (53 patients) and cervical (16). When asked the reason for not seeing their prior surgeon, 10 patients (15%) stated that they (the patient) had moved and 16 (23%) responded that their surgeon no longer practiced in the area. Thirteen (19%) were unhappy with their previous care, 22 (32%) were seeking a second opinion, and 7 (10%) were told they needed more complex surgery. Thirty-seven (54%) discussed their symptoms with their original surgeon before seeking another surgeon. Although 32 patients (46%) had not discussed their new complaints with their index surgeon, only 3 patients (4%) chose not to return to their prior surgeon despite having the opportunity to do so. Forty-nine patients (71%) were satisfied with their prior surgical care, and 42 patients (61%) would undergo the index operation again. Most of the patients seen at the authors' practices after undergoing prior spine surgery elsewhere failed to follow up with their prior spine surgeon for geographical reasons. It appears that the majority of patients who develop new spinal complaints will seek out their treating surgeon when possible. This suggests that patient attrition over long-term follow-up may reflect a geographically mobile population rather than patient dissatisfaction with prior treatment.