Search

Introduction: After adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, patients often require postoperative rehabilitation at an inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) center or a skilled nursing facility (SNF). However, home discharge is often preferred by patients and hsas been shown to decrease costs. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we sought to (1) report the incidence of discharge to home, (2) determine the factors significantly associated with discharge to home in the form of a simple scoring system, and (3) evaluate the impact of discharge disposition on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was undertaken for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and at least 2-year follow-up. Exposure variables included preoperative, perioperative, and radiographic data. The primary outcome was discharge status (dichotomized as home vs. IPR/SNF). Secondary outcomes included PROMs, such as the numeric rating scales (NRSs) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. A subanalysis comparing IPR to SNF discharge was conducted. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: Of 221 patients undergoing ASD surgery with a mean age of 63.6 ± 17.6, 112 (50.6%) were discharged home, 71 (32.2%) were discharged to an IPR center, and 38 (17.2%) were discharged to an SNF. Patients discharged home were significantly younger (55.7 ± 20.1 vs. 71.8 ± 9.1, p < 0.001), had lower rate of 2+ comorbidities (38.4% vs. 45.0%, p = 0.001), and had less hypertension (57.1% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, patients who were discharged home had significantly fewer levels instrumented (10.0 ± 3.0 vs. 11.0 ± 3.4 levels, p = 0.030), shorter operative times (381.4 ± 139.9 vs. 461.6 ± 149.8 mins, p < 0.001), less blood loss (1101.0 ± 977.8 vs. 1739.7 ± 1332.9 mL, p < 0.001), and shorter length of stay (5.4 ± 2.8 vs. 9.3 ± 13.9 days, p < 0.001). Radiographically, preoperative SVA (9.1 ± 6.5 vs. 5.2 ± 6.8 cm, p < 0.001), PT (27.5 ± 11.1° vs. 23.4 ± 10.8°, p = 0.031), and T1PA (28.9 ± 12.7° vs. 21.6 ± 13.6°, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients who were discharged to an IPR center/SNF. Additionally, the operating surgeon also significantly influenced the disposition status ( p < 0.001). A scoring system of the listed factors was proposed and was validated using univariate logistic regression (OR = 1.55, 95%CI = 1.34-1.78, p < 0.001) and ROC analysis, which revealed a cutoff value of > 6 points as a predictor of non-home discharge (AUC = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.68-0.80, p < 0.001, sensitivity = 63.3%, specificity = 74.1%). The factors in the scoring system were age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, TIL ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15°. When comparing IPR ( n = 71) vs. SNF ( n = 38), patients discharged to an SNF were significantly older (74.4 ± 8.6 vs. 70.4 ± 9.1, p = 0.029) and were more likely to be female (89.5% vs. 70.4%, p = 0.024). Conclusions: Approximately 50% of patients were discharged home after ASD surgery. A simple scoring system based on age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, total instrumented levels ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15° was proposed to predict non-home discharge. These findings may help guide postoperative expectations and resource allocation after ASD surgery.

Introduction: Whether a combined anterior-posterior (AP) approach offers additional benefits over the posterior-only (P) approach in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery remains unknown. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we compared the combined AP vs. the P-only approach in: (1) preoperative/perioperative variables, (2) radiographic measurements, and (3) postoperative outcomes. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. The primary exposure was the operative approach: a combined AP approach or P alone. Postoperative outcomes included mechanical complications, reoperation, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), defined as 30% of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Multivariable linear regression was controlled for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Results: Among 238 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 34 (14.3%) patients underwent the AP approach and 204 (85.7%) underwent the P-only approach. The AP group consisted mostly of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1 (73.5%) and/or L4/L5 (38.0%). Preoperatively, the AP group had more previous fusions (64.7% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001), higher pelvic tilt (PT) (29.6 ± 11.6° vs. 24.6 ± 11.4°, p = 0.037), higher T1 pelvic angle (T1PA) (31.8 ± 12.7° vs. 24.0 ± 13.9°, p = 0.003), less L1-S1 lordosis (-14.7 ± 28.4° vs. -24.3 ± 33.4°, p < 0.039), less L4-S1 lordosis (-25.4 ± 14.7° vs. 31.6 ± 15.5°, p = 0.042), and higher sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (102.6 ± 51.9 vs. 66.4 ± 71.2 mm, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, the AP approach had longer operative time (553.9 ± 177.4 vs. 397.4 ± 129.0 min, p < 0.001), more interbodies placed (100% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001), and longer length of stay (8.4 ± 10.7 vs. 7.0 ± 9.6 days, p = 0.026). Radiographically, the AP group had more improvement in T1PA (13.4 ± 8.7° vs. 9.5 ± 8.6°, p = 0.005), L1-S1 lordosis (-14.3 ± 25.6° vs. -3.2 ± 20.2°, p < 0.001), L4-S1 lordosis (-4.7 ± 16.4° vs. 3.2 ± 13.7°, p = 0.008), and SVA (65.3 ± 44.8 vs. 44.8 ± 47.7 mm, p = 0.007). These outcomes remained statistically significant in the multivariable analysis controlling for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found in mechanical complications, reoperations, or MCID of PROMs. Conclusions: Preoperatively, patients undergoing the combined anterior-posterior approach had higher PT, T1PA, and SVA and lower L1-S1 and L4-S1 lordosis than the posterior-only approach. Despite increased operative time and length of stay, the anterior-posterior approach provided greater sagittal correction without any difference in mechanical complications or PROMs.