Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Jan 1;44(1):79-83.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002739.

Outpatient and Inpatient Single-level Cervical Total Disc Replacement: A Comparison of 30-day Outcomes

Dale N Segal  1 , Jacob M Wilson, Christopher Staley, S Tim Yoon
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Outpatient and Inpatient Single-level Cervical Total Disc Replacement: A Comparison of 30-day Outcomes

Dale N Segal et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). .

Abstract

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes between patients undergoing outpatient and inpatient single-level cervical total disc replacement (TDR) surgery.

Summary of background data: Cervical TDR is a motion-sparing treatment for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. It is an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a similar complication rate. Like ACDF, it may be performed in the inpatient or outpatient setting. Efforts to reduce health care costs are driving spine surgery to be performed in the outpatient setting. As cervical TDR surgery continues to gain popularity, the safety of treating patients on an outpatient basis needs to be validated.

Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for patients who underwent single-level cervical disc replacement surgery between 2006 and 2015. Complication data including 30-day complications, reoperation rate, readmission rate, and length of stay data were compared between the inpatient and outpatient cohort using univariate analysis.

Results: There were 531 (34.2%) patients treated as outpatients and 1022 (65.8%) were treated on an inpatient basis. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics. The overall 30-day complication rate was 1.4% for inpatients and 0.6% for outpatients. Reoperation rate was 0.6% for inpatient and 0.4% for outpatients. Readmission rate was 0.9% and 0.8% for inpatient and outpatient, respectively. There were no statistical differences identified in rates of readmission, reoperation, or complication between the inpatient and outpatient cohorts.

Conclusion: There was no difference between 30-day complications, readmission, and reoperation rates between inpatients and outpatients who underwent a single-level cervical TDR. Furthermore, the overall 30-day complication rates were low. This study supports that single-level cervical TDR can be performed safely in an outpatient setting.

Level of evidence: 3.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Gao X, Yang Y, Liu H, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with Prestige-LP for the treatment of contiguous 2-level cervical degenerative disc disease: 5-year follow-up results. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97:e9671.
    1. Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2017; 27:7–19.
    1. Hisey MS, Zigler JE, Jackson R, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level mobi-c cervical total disc replacement vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results at 5-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10:10.
    1. Laratta JL, Shillingford JN, Saifi C, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty: a comprehensive review of single-level, multilevel, and hybrid procedures. Global Spine J 2018; 8:78–83.
    1. Maharaj MM, Mobbs RJ, Hogan J, et al. Anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Spine Surg 2015; 1:72–85.

Publication types

MeSH terms