Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

CO-VARIATES OF LENGTH OF HOSPITAL STAY IN POSTERIOR SPINAL FUSION



Abstract

Background: context: Length of hospital stay (LOS) varies widely within patients with posterior spinal fusion. So far there is little evidence on its co-variates.

Purpose: This study examined which co-variates influence LOS in posterior spinal fusion. Study design: Prospective consecutive documentation of hospital based interventions in the international spine registry Spine Tango. Patient sample: Between 05/2005 and 11/2006 data of 3437 patients were documented in the registry. 790 patients with degenerative spinal disease (614) or spondylolisthesis (176), who had been treated with posterior decompression and spinal fusion, were included in this study. Median age was 62.8 yrs (min 13.2 yrs, max 89.8 yrs) with a female to male ratio of 2:1. Median LOS was 11 days (IQR 8–14 d). Outcome measures: LOS was chosen as dependent outcome variable.

Methods: Multiple linear regression was performed on following independent variables: age, gender, main pathology, number of spinal segments of posterior fusion, level of fusion, number of previous spinal surgeries, operation time, clinic (number of fusions, academic status), surgeon credentials, type of fusion (sole fusion, fusion + instrumentation, fusion + instrumentation + cage).

Results: Clinic (p< 0.0001) was found to be a highly significant co-variate for LOS (min 7 d, max 14 d). Number of fusions per clinic (min 25, max 434) and academic status of clinic had no influence on LOS. Further significant covariates were surgeon credentials (surgeons in training: 8.5 d, specialised spine surgeons: 11 d, orthopaedic or neurosurgeons: 12 d; p=0.001), number of spinal segments of posterior fusion (1 segment: 10 d, 2–3 segments: 12 d, 4–5 segments: 12.5 d, > 5 segments: 15 d; p=0.002), and age group (< 50 yrs: 9 d, 50–59 yrs: 11 d, 60–69 yrs: 12 d, ≥70 yrs: 13 d; p=0.01). Borderline significance was found for gender (women: 12 d, men: 10 d; p=0.05). All other variables showed no influence on LOS.

Conclusion: Co-variates of LOS of patients with posterior spinal fusion are clinic, independent of number of spinal surgeries per clinic and academic status of clinic, surgeon credentials, number of segments of fusion, age group, and gender. A short LOS in surgeries performed by surgeons in training is explained by a smaller number of segments of fusions in these procedures. A subgroup analysis on the co-variate clinic should be performed assessing further explanatory variables. However, this goes beyond the possibilities of documentation in a spine registry.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org