Clinical spine surgery · 2024
Safety and Efficacy of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Disk Replacement (ACDR) in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Hospital Setting: A 2-year Retrospective Analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Patel Neil, Carota Hanley Kailey, Coban Daniel, Changoor Stuart, Abdelmalek George, Sinha Kumar, Hwang Ki, Emami Arash
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes of outpatient anterior cervical disk replacements (ACDR) performed in free-standing private ambulatory surgery centers versus tertiary hospital centers.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ACDR is an increasingly popular technique for treating various degenerative pathologies of the cervical spine. There has been an increase in the utilization of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) for outpatient cervical procedures due to economic and convenience benefits; however, a paucity of literature exists in evaluating long-term safety and efficacy of ACDRs performed in ASCs versus outpatient hospital centers.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort review of all patients undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDRs at 2 outpatient ASCs and 4 tertiary care medical centers from 2012 to 2020, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months, was performed. Approval by each patient's insurance and patient preference determined distribution into an ASC or non-ASC. Demographics, perioperative data, length of follow-up, complications, and revision rates were analyzed. Functional outcomes were assessed using VAS and NDI at follow-up visits.
RESULTS: One hundred seventeen patients were included (65 non-ASC and 52 ASC). There were no significant differences in demographics or length of follow-up between the cohorts. ASC patients had significantly lower operative times (ASC: 89.5 minutes vs. non-ASC: 110.5 minutes, P <0.001) and mean blood loss (ASC: 17.5 mL vs. non-ASC: 25.3 mL, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed in rates of dysphagia (ASC: 21.2% vs. non-ASC: 15.6%, P <0.001), infection (ASC: 0.0% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P =0.202), ASD (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P =0.202), or revision (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 0.0%, P =0.262). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS and NDI scores ( P <0.001), but no significant differences in the degree of improvement were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Our 2-year results demonstrate that ACDRs performed in ASCs may offer the advantages of reduced operative time and blood loss without an increased risk of postoperative complications.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes of outpatient anterior cervical disk replacements (ACDR) performed in free-standing private ambulatory surgery centers versus tertiary hospital centers.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ACDR is an increasingly popular technique for treating various degenerative pathologies of the cervical spine. There has been an increase in the utilization of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) for outpatient cervical procedures due to economic and convenience benefits; however, a paucity of literature exists in evaluating long-term safety and efficacy of ACDRs performed in ASCs versus outpatient hospital centers.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort review of all patients undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDRs at 2 outpatient ASCs and 4 tertiary care medical centers from 2012 to 2020, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months, was performed. Approval by each patient's insurance and patient preference determined distribution into an ASC or non-ASC. Demographics, perioperative data, length of follow-up, complications, and revision rates were analyzed. Functional outcomes were assessed using VAS and NDI at follow-up visits.
RESULTS: One hundred seventeen patients were included (65 non-ASC and 52 ASC). There were no significant differences in demographics or length of follow-up between the cohorts. ASC patients had significantly lower operative times (ASC: 89.5 minutes vs. non-ASC: 110.5 minutes, P <0.001) and mean blood loss (ASC: 17.5 mL vs. non-ASC: 25.3 mL, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed in rates of dysphagia (ASC: 21.2% vs. non-ASC: 15.6%, P <0.001), infection (ASC: 0.0% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P =0.202), ASD (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P =0.202), or revision (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 0.0%, P =0.262). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS and NDI scores ( P <0.001), but no significant differences in the degree of improvement were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Our 2-year results demonstrate that ACDRs performed in ASCs may offer the advantages of reduced operative time and blood loss without an increased risk of postoperative complications.