Variability in Standard Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Fusion Determined by National Databases

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jacob R. Joseph ; Brandon W. Smith ; Paul Park ; ^{ppark@med.umich.edu}
• 关键词：Administrative database ; Lumbar fusion ; National Inpatient Sample ; Outcome analysis ; Spine surgery ; University HealthSystem Consortium
• 刊名：World Neurosurgery
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：January 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：97
• 期：Complete
• 页码：236-240
• 全文大小：1681 K
• 卷排序：97

文摘

National databases are used with increasing frequency in spine surgery literature to evaluate patient outcomes. The differences between individual databases in relationship to outcomes of lumbar fusion are not known. We evaluated the variability in standard outcomes of posterior lumbar fusion between the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (NIS).MethodsNIS and UHC databases were queried for all posterior lumbar fusions (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code 81.07) performed in 2012. Patient demographics, comorbidities (including obesity), length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, and complications such as urinary tract infection, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, durotomy, and surgical site infection were collected using specific International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes.ResultsAnalysis included 21,470 patients from the NIS database and 14,898 patients from the UHC database. Demographic data were not significantly different between databases. Obesity was more prevalent in UHC (P = 0.001). Mean LOS was 3.8 days in NIS and 4.55 in UHC (P < 0.0001). Complications were significantly higher in UHC, including urinary tract infection, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, surgical site infection, and durotomy. In-hospital mortality was similar between databases.ConclusionsNIS and UHC databases had similar demographic patient populations undergoing posterior lumbar fusion. However, the UHC database reported significantly higher complication rate and longer LOS. This difference may reflect academic institutions treating higher-risk patients; however, a definitive reason for the variability between databases is unknown. The inability to precisely determine the basis of the variability between databases highlights the limitations of using administrative databases for spinal outcome analysis.