A Comparative Analysis Among the SRS M&M, NIS, and KID Databases for the Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

STUDY

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVES

A growing number of publications have utilized the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) database, but none have compared it to other large databases. The objective of this study was to compare SRS complications with those in administrative databases.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) and Kid's Inpatient Database (KID) captured a greater number of overall complications while the SRS M&M data provided a greater incidence of spine-related complications following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery. Chi-square was used to obtain statistical significance, with p < .05 considered significant.

METHODS

The SRS 2004-2007 (9,904 patients), NIS 2004-2007 (20,441 patients) and KID 2003-2006 (10,184 patients) databases were analyzed for AIS patients who underwent fusion. Comparable variables were queried in all three databases, including patient demographics, surgical variables, and complications.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing AIS in the SRS database were slightly older (SRS 14.4 years vs. NIS 13.8 years, p < .0001; KID 13.9 years, p < .0001) and less likely to be male (SRS 18.5% vs. NIS 26.3%, p < .0001; KID 24.8%, p < .0001). Revision surgery (SRS 3.3% vs. NIS 2.4%, p < .0001; KID 0.9%, p < .0001) and osteotomy (SRS 8% vs. NIS 2.3%, p < .0001; KID 2.4%, p < .0001) were more commonly reported in the SRS database. The SRS database reported fewer overall complications (SRS 3.9% vs. NIS 7.3%, p < .0001; KID 6.6%, p < .0001). However, when respiratory complications (SRS 0.5% vs. NIS 3.7%, p < .0001; KID 4.4%, p < .0001) were excluded, medical complication rates were similar across databases. In contrast, SRS reported higher spine-specific complication rates. Mortality rates were similar between SRS versus NIS (p = .280) and SRS versus KID (p = .08) databases.

CONCLUSIONS

There are similarities and differences between the three databases. These discrepancies are likely due to the varying data-gathering methods each organization uses to collect their morbidity data.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.