RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes among lumbar fusion patients treated at an orthopaedic specialty hospital (OSH), a hybrid community hospital (HCH), and a conventional community hospital in comparison to a tertiary care hospital (TCH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In spine surgery, strategies to reduce length of stay (LOS) include a myriad of pre-, intra-, and postoperative strategies that require a multidisciplinary infrastructure. The sum of these efforts has led to the creation of orthopedic specialty hospitals and protocols that have been adopted by community hospitals as well. There is a notable lack of information regarding the results of these efforts across different healthcare institution models. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients undergoing elective one or two-level lumbar fusion between 2017 and 2022 at a large urban TCH, an OSH, a HCH, and a conventional CH. Data was collected on patient characteristics, demographics, comorbidities, BMI, smoking status, surgical type, surgical levels, surgery duration, hospital length of stay, readmissions, reoperations, and discharge status within a year. Patients across the four surgical settings were matched based on age, BMI, CCI, type of procedure, and number of levels fused. RESULTS: A total of 1435 patients met the inclusion criteria. Length of hospital stay was significantly longer at TCH compared to OSH, HCH, and CH by an average of 1-2 days (P<0.001). 90-day readmissions were higher at TCH compared to OSH (P=0.001). TCH patients also were less likely to be discharged home than OSH and HCH patients (P=0.001 and P=0.016, respectively). No significant differences were noted in 1-year reoperation rates across all hospital models. CONCLUSION: Shorter lengths of stays and more home discharges at the orthopaedic specialty hospital and community hospital settings did not compromise surgical quality or postoperative outcomes.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a complex procedure that often requires the removal of previous implants. There is little information evaluating the difference between removing cemented or noncemented knee prostheses in revision surgeries. The purpose of this study was to determine whether removing cemented or noncemented implants would affect surgical time and expenses incurred during revision procedures. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a single-institution database to identify 300 patients who underwent femoral and tibial implant rTKA from 2016 to 2022 because of mechanical complications (infection cases excluded). Radiographs and surgical reports were used to confirm whether the fixation technique was cemented (N = 243) or noncemented (N = 57). The primary outcomes were surgical time and surgery costs. Secondary outcomes included readmission rates, revision implants used, stem usage, and insurance type. RESULTS: The average surgical time was 121 minutes for noncemented and 128 minutes for cemented procedures (P = 0.118). The 90-day readmission rates for each group were similar at 7.00% for the cemented cohort and 8.77% for the noncemented cohort (P = 0.643). For patients with Medicare Advantage, the respective surgery costs were $1,966 for noncemented and $1,968 for cemented TKA (P = 0.988). For patients with commercial insurance, the respective surgery costs were $4,854 for noncemented and $5,660 for cemented TKA (P = 0.330). CONCLUSION: Primary knee fixation type, cemented or noncemented, did not appear to influence the surgical duration or surgical costs of both-implant revision knee surgery indicated for mechanical complications.
