门诊前路颈椎间盘置换术(ACDR)在非住院手术中心与医院环境下的安全性和有效性:为期两年的回顾性分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-16 DOI:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001591
Neil Patel, Kailey Carota Hanley, Daniel Coban, Stuart Changoor, George Abdelmalek, Kumar Sinha, Ki Hwang, Arash Emami
{"title":"门诊前路颈椎间盘置换术(ACDR)在非住院手术中心与医院环境下的安全性和有效性:为期两年的回顾性分析。","authors":"Neil Patel, Kailey Carota Hanley, Daniel Coban, Stuart Changoor, George Abdelmalek, Kumar Sinha, Ki Hwang, Arash Emami","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort analysis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare clinical outcomes of outpatient anterior cervical disk replacements (ACDR) performed in free-standing private ambulatory surgery centers versus tertiary hospital centers.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and Efficacy of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Disk Replacement (ACDR) in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Hospital Setting: A 2-year Retrospective Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Neil Patel, Kailey Carota Hanley, Daniel Coban, Stuart Changoor, George Abdelmalek, Kumar Sinha, Ki Hwang, Arash Emami\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort analysis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare clinical outcomes of outpatient anterior cervical disk replacements (ACDR) performed in free-standing private ambulatory surgery centers versus tertiary hospital centers.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001591\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001591","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计回顾性队列分析:比较在独立的私立非住院手术中心和三级医院中心进行的门诊颈椎间盘前路置换术(ACDR)的临床效果:颈椎间盘置换术(ACDR)是治疗各种颈椎退行性病变的一种日益流行的技术。由于经济和便利的优势,使用非住院手术中心(ASC)进行门诊颈椎手术的患者越来越多;然而,关于评估在非住院手术中心与医院门诊中心进行 ACDR 的长期安全性和有效性的文献却很少:方法: 对 2012 年至 2020 年期间在 2 家门诊 ASC 和 4 家三级医疗中心接受 1 级或 2 级 ACDR 的所有患者进行了回顾性队列回顾,随访至少 24 个月。每位患者的保险批准情况和患者的偏好决定了患者在 ASC 或非 ASC 的分布情况。对人口统计学、围手术期数据、随访时间、并发症和翻修率进行了分析。随访时使用 VAS 和 NDI 评估功能结果:结果:共纳入 177 名患者(65 名非 ASC 患者和 52 名 ASC 患者)。两组患者在人口统计学和随访时间上没有明显差异。ASC患者的手术时间明显更短(ASC:89.5分钟;非ASC:110.5分钟):我们为期两年的研究结果表明,在 ASC 中进行的 ACDR 具有缩短手术时间和减少失血量的优点,同时不会增加术后并发症的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Safety and Efficacy of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Disk Replacement (ACDR) in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Hospital Setting: A 2-year Retrospective Analysis.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Spine Surgery
Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
236
期刊介绍: Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure. Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
期刊最新文献
Influence of Preoperative Disability on Outcomes Following Primary Surgical Treatment of Cervical Disc Herniation. Racial Disparities in Utilization and Outcomes of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty. Factors Associated With Return to Work Following Laminoplasty for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. Novel Risk Factors for Postoperative Hematoma Requiring Reoperation Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Hangman's Fractures: A Review of Current Concepts in Evaluation and Management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1