Demographics and Outcomes of Spine Surgery in Octogenarians and Nonagenarians: A Comparison of the National Inpatient Sample, MarketScan and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Databases.
database
nonagenarians
octogenarians
retrospective
spine surgery
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Nov 2019
19 Nov 2019
Historique:
entrez:
31
12
2019
pubmed:
31
12
2019
medline:
31
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction Despite the increasing use of national databases to conduct spine research, questions remain regarding their study validity and consistency. This study tested for similarity and inter-database reliability in reported measures between three commonly used national databases. Methods International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9) codes were used to identify elderly (80-100 years) who underwent spine surgery patients in Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® claims database, National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) discharge database and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2006-2016). Patient baseline characteristics, comorbid status, insurance enrollment, and outcomes were queried and compared. Results We analyzed 15,105 MarketScan, 40,854 NIS, and 7682 NSQIP patients between ages 80 to 100 years (median, 82 years) who underwent spine surgeries during the study period. A majority of patients in both MarketScan and NIS were insured by Medicare (97% vs. 94%). Patients in MarketScan had lower comorbidity scores (comorbidity, 0-2) compared to those in NIS and NSQIP databases. The most common diagnosis was spinal stenosis in MarketScan (54.4%), NIS (54.6%), and NSQIP databases (65.2%). Fusion was the most common procedure performed in MarketScan (48.9%) and NIS databases (46.2%), whereas decompression (laminectomy/laminotomy) was the most common procedure in the NSQIP database (51.84%). In-hospital complications (any) were 6.5% in the MarketScan cohort, 5.3% in the NIS, and 2.02% in the NSQIP cohort. In terms of 30-day complications (any), the MarketScan database reported higher complications rate (12.7%) compared to the NSQIP database (5.08%). In-hospital mortality was slightly higher in the NIS database (0.32%) compared to MarketScan (0.21%) and NSQIP database (0.2%). MarketScan and NIS databases showed an increased risk of complications with increasing age, whereas NIS and NSQIP showed increasing complications with a higher number of comorbidities. Male gender had higher complication at 30-day post-discharge using MarketScan and NSQIP database. Conclusions Patients in the NSQIP and NIS database have more comorbidities; patients in the MarketScan database had the highest number of perioperative and 30-day post-discharge complications with the highest number of fusion procedures performed. Patients in the NSQIP database had the lowest number of fusion procedures and complication rates. As databases gain popularity in spine surgery, clinicians and reviewers should be cautious in generalizing results to whole populations and pay close attention to the population being represented by the data from which the statistical significance was derived.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31886087
doi: 10.7759/cureus.6195
pmc: PMC6922298
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e6195Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019, Bhargava et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Dec;39(6):E11
pubmed: 26621409
Med Care. 2009 Jun;47(6):626-33
pubmed: 19433995
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Aug 15;42(16):1248-1254
pubmed: 28067697
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Feb 15;46(1):E7
pubmed: 30942997
Am Heart J. 2015 Dec;170(6):1077-85
pubmed: 26678628
Spine J. 2008 Nov-Dec;8(6):904-10
pubmed: 18358787
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Dec 3;96(23):e193
pubmed: 25471919
JAMA Surg. 2014 Aug;149(8):766-72
pubmed: 24920308
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Jan 1;31(1):99-103
pubmed: 16395185
J Neurotrauma. 2008 Mar;25(3):173-83
pubmed: 18352831
Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Oct;39(4):E3
pubmed: 26424343
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Sep;472(9):2878-86
pubmed: 24867450
Am J Manag Care. 1998 Mar;4(3):399-409
pubmed: 10178500
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Feb 1;46(2):E15
pubmed: 30717045
Surg Endosc. 2017 Jul;31(7):2846-2853
pubmed: 27815745
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jun 1;33(13):1491-6
pubmed: 18520945
Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27
pubmed: 9431328
Bone Joint J. 2016 Mar;98-B(3):425-32
pubmed: 26920971
Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Oct;100(4):1155-61; discussion 1161-2
pubmed: 26319486
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Nov 1;24(21):2229-33
pubmed: 10562989
Med Care. 2012 Dec;50(12):1109-18
pubmed: 22929993
J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Sep;29(3):271-278
pubmed: 29914294
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013 Apr;26(2):74-8
pubmed: 22002570
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017 Mar;159(3):517-525
pubmed: 28050718
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Jan 1;46(1):E8
pubmed: 30611165
Spine J. 2014 Dec 1;14(12):2923-8
pubmed: 24780248
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jun;472(6):1672-80
pubmed: 24615426