Commentary and Perspective   |    
Risk Factors for Complications and Mortality After Spine Surgery Assessed with the NSQIP Database: Where Do We Go from Here?Commentary on an article by Andrew J. Schoenfeld, MD, et al.: “Risk Factors for Immediate Postoperative Complications and Mortality Following Spine Surgery: A Study of 3475 Patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program”
Raj D. Rao, MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
  • Disclosure statement for author(s): PDF

The author did not receive payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his institution), from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. He, or his institution, has had a financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with an entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The author has not had any other relationships, or has engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by the authors are always provided with the online version of the article.

Copyright © 2011 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2011 Sep 07;93(17):e101 1-2. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00786
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
text A A A
The authors should be congratulated for their efforts in ascertaining the immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality following spine surgery. They reiterate that adverse events can be frequent following hospitalization, anesthetic administration, and surgical intervention. While mortality was not necessarily related to the surgical intervention itself, it is sobering to learn that ten patients died within a month after surgery in this cohort of 3475 patients. Three patients developed a stroke, thirty patients in the same cohort developed wound infections, thirty-seven patients developed thromboembolic events, fifty-eight patients developed urinary tract infections, and 106 patients underwent repeat surgical intervention, all within thirty days of the index procedure. The authors’ list of adverse outcomes will contribute to our discussions with patients on the immediate risks of surgical intervention, promote more realistic patient expectations, and improve the process of informed consent. These data also provide additional information to policy makers, physicians, and hospital administrators in determining population incidences of adverse outcomes. This will help in formulating standards for patient care, "never events," and acceptable rates for hospital readmission.
The authors assert that this information obtained from the hospital-based National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database will be more applicable to the American population as a whole than similar previously published data from a single surgeon or from one center. The database represents approximately 200 of the roughly 6000 hospitals in the United States, with a large proportion of Veterans Affairs and academic facilities. The availability of data on the cases of only 3475 patients who had spine surgery at 200 hospitals over a four-year period results in an average of four to five cases per year per hospital, and suggests substantial loss of data. While the incidences of morbidity and mortality are roughly similar to those published elsewhere, it is unclear that the volume and institutional representation of this database accurately reflect the breadth of surgical experiences in U.S. hospitals.
This study raises important issues on the design of an ideal registry for monitoring surgical outcomes. The NSQIP database is geared primarily toward the determination of mortality and morbidity in the thirty-day period following surgery. Ascertainment of harm in the perioperative period is an important part of the overall process of quality improvement from surgical procedures. Equally important to the process of quality improvement is longer-term survival, functional outcome, quality of life, pain relief, and comparison of different interventions. Registry data driven by surgeons and professional medical associations are likely to be more beneficial in developing the longer-term data that are critical to the informed decision-making process.
Where do we go from here? Postoperative adverse events are frequently linked by policy makers and patients with the surgeon and surgical procedure. This study clarifies that immediate postoperative complications are, for the most part, related to the age and preexisting medical condition of the patient. A better understanding of anticipated outcomes and their association with preexisting comorbidities will help patients to develop more realistic expectations from the procedure they are contemplating. Monitoring of anesthetic techniques and perioperative care processes will provide further clarification in ascertaining the causes of immediate perioperative morbidity and mortality, and eventually allow the development of better care pathways.
The incidence of adverse events in the immediate postoperative phase highlights the need for refined pathways of care for patients in the perioperative period. Algorithms or predictive models with thresholds of age or medical conditions that exclude patients from surgery are difficult to create, given the multiple variables involved. The surgeon bears ultimate responsibility in balancing the results of preoperative medical and nutritional evaluation and patient expectations from surgery, and deciding whether the benefits of surgery outweigh the associated risks. It is also important to recognize that surgery does not occur in a vacuum. Surgeons and hospital administrators should combine their efforts to ensure that effective multidisciplinary care, involving the anesthesiologist, internist, surgeon, nurses, and therapist, is provided throughout the perioperative period for the patient undergoing spinal surgery.

Submit a comment


Accreditation Statement
These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
CME Activities Associated with This Article
Submit a Comment
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe

Related Content
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
JBJS Case Connector
Topic Collections
Related Audio and Videos
PubMed Articles
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
Louisiana - Ochsner Health System
Pennsylvania - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
S. Carolina - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Univerity of South Carlonina
Oklahoma - The University of Oklahoma