Instrumented fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) has been challenged recently with high impact trials demonstrating similar changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and less morbidity/cost with laminectomy alone. Randomized trials often fail, however, to evaluate a heterogeneous population of patients. A standardized clinical assessment and management plan (SCAMP) was created as a decision aid for surgeons based on the radiographic stability and clinical presentation of patients. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of those patients who followed the decision aid with respect to fusion/no fusion to those who did not.

Patients were prospectively enrolled from eleven different Canadian institutions and followed from 2015–2019. A degenerative spondylolisthesis instability classification system (DSIC) was created using best available evidence stratifying patients into three different subtypes (1. stable degenerative spondylolisthesis, 2. potentially unstable spondylolisthesis and 3. unstable spondylolisthesis). The decision aid recommends laminectomy alone for group 1 patients, posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws in type 2 patients and pedicle screw and interbody fusion for type 3 patients. One year changes in HRQOL, length of hospital stay (LOS), medication use and surgical time were compared between each group and in context of whether the treatment fell within the decision aid recommendation. Statistics were performed with STATA software.

There were 394 patients initially enrolled and 334 (84.8%) with full one year data available for comparison. There were 95 type 1 (stable), 224 type 2 (potentially unstable) and 75 type 3 (unstable) patients initially classified. Baseline Ostwestry disability index (ODI), EQ-5D, and SF-12 MCS scores were significantly worse for type 3 patients versus type 1 patients. One hundred and eight patients were treated within the recommendations of the DSIC system (108/334, 32.3%). Surgeons performed interbody fusions in 141 patients (42%) rather than follow DSIC recommending a less invasive approach. There were no significant differences EQ-5D, SF-12 PCS/MCS, PHQ-9 or ODI at one year between patient groups. There was a trend towards shorter operating times for those patients following the DSIC system (195 minutes non-followers versus 180 followers, p=0.078) and reduced hospital stay (4.46 days non-followers versus 3.98 followers, p=0.065).

There were no significant clinical differences in outcome at 1 year whether patients underwent decompression alone, decompression/posterolateral fusion or interbody fusion regardless of the stability classification. Surgeons were more likely to perform potentially unnecessary interbody fusions even in those patients with stable or potentially unstable spondylolisthesis. Although not statistically significant, there is some suggestion that following the DSIC system based on best evidence recommendations leads to more judicious/responsible use of hospital resources. Further study is required to determine why surgeons are more likely to choose more invasive, higher rigidity constructs in patients with LDS.

Lower-extremity orthopaedic procedures may be performed under either regional or general anaesthesia, or a combination of both techniques. There is a growing body of evidence supporting the benefits of regional anaesthesia, with meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and registry data suggesting decreases in deep surgical site infections, thromboembolic events, cardiopulmonary complications and length of stay associated with use of regional anaesthesia. In patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery specifically, there is evidence demonstrating decreased post-operative pain, nausea, vomiting, opioid use and unplanned hospital admission. This supports an increased role for the use in regional anaesthesia in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. However, the type of anaesthetic used is dependent on surgeon, patient, anaesthesiologist and institutional factors. The purpose of this study is to investigate pre-operative factors that predict the type of anaesthetic used in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery.

Data was collected prospectively on 888 patients undergoing foot or ankle surgery at a single institution. The primary method of anaesthesia for each procedure was recorded. Ten additional variables were recorded and analysed: age, BMI, gender, diabetes, ASA status, procedure length, procedure start time, elective vs. trauma procedure, primary vs. revision procedure and preoperative anticoagulation. Logistic regression modelling was performed to identify factors that independently predict the type of anaesthetic used.

General anaesthetic was employed in 280 patients (32%), and regional anaesthesia was the primary anaesthetic type used in 608 (68%). Logistic regression modelling demonstrated that factors that independently predict use of general anaesthetic include younger age (p<0.0001; Odds Ratio 0.97/year), male sex (0.0033; 1.618), procedure start time (0.0319; 1.066/hour) and length of procedure (<0.0001; 1.520/hour). Patients who underwent general anaesthetic had a mean length of procedure of 108 +/− 77 minutes, whereas patients provided with regional anaesthesia had a mean length of procedure 83 +/− 64 minutes.

With increasing evidence supporting the benefits of regional anaesthesia in patients undergoing lower extremity surgery, it is important to identify modifiable factors that contribute to patients receiving alternative treatments. Since later procedure start time was identified as an independent predictor of general anaesthetic use, there may be a role for identifying patients at increased risk of complications associated with general anaesthesia and scheduling earlier start times. Furthermore, while it is logical that extended length of procedure may be a contraindication to regional anaesthesia, the mean procedure time of 108 minutes in the general anaesthesia group indicates that many of these patients should still be considered candidates for regional anaesthesia.

In the current health care climate, there is an increasing focus on cost savings and resource management. As such, there is an emphasis on decreasing length of stay and performing surgery on an outpatient basis. Consequently, some patients will have unanticipated intra-operative or post-operative adverse events that will necessitate an unplanned post-operative hospital admission or a readmission after discharge. These unplanned admissions or readmissions represent an increased burden on health care systems and can cause cancellation of other scheduled procedures. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether pre-operative patient risk factors or intra-operative events could predict unplanned admission or readmission following discharge in patients undergoing either elective or emergency foot and ankle surgery.

Data was prospectively collected on a total of 889 patients. The patients were divided into two groups: patients without readmissions (N=791) and patients who had an unplanned admission or readmission (N=98). We also collected and analysed the following variables: age, gender, BMI, diabetes, ASA class, surgery start time, length of surgery, regional vs. general anesthetic, elective vs. trauma surgery and type of procedure. Logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors that could independently predict unplanned admissions or readmissions to hospital following foot and ankle surgery.

Factors that could be used to independently predict readmission were length of surgery (p 0.0154, Odds Ratio 1.004) and trauma surgery (0.0167; 1.978). For every 1-hour increase in length of surgery, the odds of unplanned admission/readmission increase by 1.27 times. The odds of patients undergoing surgery for acute traumatic injuries getting readmitted are 1.978 times higher than for elective surgery patients.

In conclusion, our study showed that pre-operative patient risk factors including BMI, diabetes, and ASA status were unable to predict whether patients would have an unplanned admission or readmission. The two factors that were able to predict whether patients would have an unplanned admission or readmission were length of the procedure and trauma surgery – both of which are not readily modifiable. Our results showed that in spite of institutional measures to ensure timely discharge, only 11% of patients required an unplanned admission or readmission.