Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) typically begins with conservative care and progresses to minimally invasive procedures, including interspinous spacer without decompression or fusion (ISD) or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). This study examined safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures among LSS patients receiving an ISD versus MILD as the first surgical intervention. METHODS: 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files were used to identify patients with an ISD or MILD (first procedure=index date) from 2017 to 2021. ISD and MILD patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching based on demographics and clinical characteristics. Safety outcomes and subsequent spinal procedures were captured from index date until end of follow-up. Cox models were used to analyze rates of subsequent surgical interventions, LSS-related interventions, open decompression, fusion, ISD, and MILD. Cox models were used to assess postoperative complications during follow-up and logistic regression to analyze life-threatening complications within 30 days of index procedure. RESULTS: A total of 3682 ISD and 5499 MILD patients were identified. After matching, 3614 from each group were included in the analysis (mean age=74 years, mean follow-up=20.0 months). The risk of undergoing any intervention, LSS-related intervention, open decompression, and MILD were 21%, 28%, 21%, and 81% lower among ISD compared with MILD patients. Multivariate analyses showed no significant differences in the risk of undergoing fusion or ISD, experiencing postoperative complications, or life-threatening complications (all p≥0.241) between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These results showed ISD and MILD procedures have an equivalent safety profile. However, ISDs demonstrated lower rates of open decompression and MILD.

Cross-Disciplinary Perceptions of Structured Interprofessional Rounds in Promoting Teamwork Within an Academic Tertiary Care Obstetric Unit.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, physician and nursing leaders at Brigham and Women's Hospital initiated structured interprofessional rounds (SIPRs) on the labor and delivery (L&D) suite to improve team communication. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of providers' perceptions of SIPRs and their effectiveness in improving teamwork. We hypothesized that on average, providers would perceive SIPRs as being effective in promoting teamwork, but ratings would differ among professional groups. METHODS: After a factor analysis and internal consistency assessment, a 19-item paper-based questionnaire was used to evaluate providers' perceptions using a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents included L&D nurses, midwives, obstetricians, and anesthesiologists who participate in SIPRs. The primary aim was to evaluate the providers' perceptions of SIPRs and their association with professional roles. The outcome was total response score for each provider, ranging from 19 to 95; perception of SIPRs as being effective in promoting teamwork was defined as having a total response score of >66.5 (mean score, >3.5 per question). A univariable linear regression model was performed, followed by a multivariable analysis adjusting for predictors that modified the outcome; predictors included years of professional practice, years of experience on the L&D suite, number of clinical work hours worked weekly, and principal shift assignment among nurses. The associations between these predictors and providers' perceptions were assessed as a secondary aim. RESULTS: A total of 234 practitioners responded (100% response rate). The mean total response score (SD) for all providers was 73.3 (9.5). After multivariable adjustment, the mean total response scores were significantly higher for obstetric providers than for anesthesia (Δ mean, 6.5, 95% CI, 0.3, 12.7 P = .036) and midwifery (Δ mean, 12.5, 95% CI, 2.0, 23.0, P = .009) providers. Providers scored significantly lower if they worked >60 clinical hours per week compared with ≤20 (Δ mean, -13.7, 95% CI, -25.3, -2.1, P = .009), 21-40 (Δ mean, -8.0, 95% CI, -15.8, -0.09, P = .049), or 41-60 hours (Δ mean, -8.1, 95% CI, -14.5, -1.7, P = .004). Duration of practice in professional role and experience on the L&D suite were not predictive of SIPRs ratings. CONCLUSIONS: On average, providers on the L&D suite perceive SIPRs as being effective in promoting teamwork. Perception ratings were significantly influenced by professional role and number of clinical hours worked weekly, suggesting that these factors should be explored in future research to minimize perception gaps and support a dynamic culture of interprofessional collaboration.

Incomplete Spontaneous Recovery from Airway Obstruction During Inhaled Anesthesia Induction: A Computational Simulation.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled induction with spontaneous respiration is a technique used for difficult airways. One of the proposed advantages is if airway patency is lost, the anesthetic agent will spontaneously redistribute until anesthetic depth is reduced and airway patency can be recovered. There are little and conflicting clinical or experimental data regarding the kinetics of this anesthetic technique. We used computer simulation to investigate this situation. METHODS: We used GasMan, a computer simulation of inhaled anesthetic kinetics. For each simulation, alveolar ventilation was initiated with a set anesthetic induction concentration. When the vessel-rich group level reached the simulation specified airway obstruction threshold, alveolar ventilation was set at 0 to simulate complete airway obstruction. The time until the vessel-rich group anesthetic level decreased below the airway obstruction threshold was designated time to spontaneous recovery. We varied the parameters for each simulation, exploring the use of sevoflurane and halothane, airway obstruction threshold from 0.5 to 2 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC), anesthetic induction concentration 2 to 4 MAC sevoflurane and 4 to 6 MAC halothane, cardiac output 2.5 to 10 L/min, functional residual capacity 1.5 to 3.5 L, and relative vessel-rich group perfusion 67% to 85%. RESULTS: In each simulation, there were 3 general phases: anesthetic wash-in, obstruction and overshoot, and then slow redistribution. During the first 2 phases, there was a large gradient between the alveolar and vessel-rich group. Alveolar do not reflect vessel-rich group anesthetic levels until the late third phase. Time to spontaneous recovery varied between 35 and 749 seconds for sevoflurane and 13 and 222 seconds for halothane depending on the simulation parameters. Halothane had a faster time to spontaneous recovery because of the lower alveolar gradient and less overshoot of the vessel-rich group, not faster redistribution. Higher airway obstruction thresholds, decreased anesthetic induction, and higher cardiac output reduced time to spontaneous recovery. To a lesser effect, decreased functional residual capacity and the decreased relative vessel-rich groups' perfusion also reduced the time to spontaneous recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous recovery after complete airway obstruction during inhaled induction is plausible, but the recovery time is highly variable and depends on the clinical and physiologic situation. These results emphasize that induction is a non-steady-state situation, thus effect-site anesthetic levels should be modeled in future research, not alveolar concentration. Finally, this study provides an example of using computer simulation to explore situations that are difficult to investigate clinically.