Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleComplications

Predicting Length of Stay After Thoracolumbar Trauma: A Single-Center, Retrospective Analysis

Justin E. Kung, Jael E. Camacho, Jacob Bruckner, Ivan B. Ye, Alexandra E. Thomson, Daniel Cavanaugh, Eugene Y. Koh, Daniel E. Gelb, Charles Sansur and Steven C. Ludwig
International Journal of Spine Surgery June 2022, 16 (3) 417-426; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8242
Justin E. Kung
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jael E. Camacho
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacob Bruckner
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ivan B. Ye
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexandra E. Thomson
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Cavanaugh
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eugene Y. Koh
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
MD, PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel E. Gelb
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles Sansur
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven C. Ludwig
1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Flowchart of patients included in the study.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Scatter plots of natural log (ln)-transformed length of stay (LOS) and LOS predicted by model 1 and 2 vs actual ln-transformed LOS and LOS. (a) Model 1 vs actual: ln-transformed LOS; (b) model 1 vs actual: LOS; (c) model 2 vs actual: ln-transformed LOS; (d) model 2 vs actual: LOS.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Bivariate analysis of demographic variables and LOS.

    DemographicMean ± SDa Spearman ρ P Valueb
    Age45.7 ± 19.70.130.07
    Body mass index27.5 ± 5.60.100.17
    Charlson Comorbidity Index0.73 ± 1.40.200.005 b
      N (%)c LOS, median ± IQR 
    Sex   
     Male139 (70.9)6.9 ± 7.10.23
     Female57 (29.1)6.7 ± 7.1
    Insurance   
     Medicaid45 (23.0)7.6 ± 11.00.71
     Medicare40 (20.4)7.0 ± 6.9
     Private79 (40.3)6.6 ± 5.1
     No insurance/self-pay15 (7.7)5.6 ± 12.4
     Other17 (8.7)6.5 ± 6.1
    • ↵a Continuous variables reported as mean ± SD and Spearman ρ correlation with LOS.

    • ↵b Indicates statistically significant values with P < 0.05.

    • ↵c Categorical variables reported as N (%) and median LOS ± IQR.

    • IQR, interquartile range; LOS, length of stay.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Bivariate analysis of trauma variables and LOS.

    VariableMean ± SDa Spearman ρ P Valueb
    Glasgow Coma Scale13.9 ± 3.0−0.38<0.0001 b
    Injury severity score20.5 ± 12.40.44<0.0001b
    N (%)c LOS, median ± IQR
    Mechanism of injury  0.69
     Fall95 (48.5)7.0 ± 6.6 
     Motor vehicle collision91 (46.4)6.6 ± 6.8 
     Ped struck4 (2.0)14.3 ± 28.1 
     Other6 (3.1)6.2 ± 4.1 
    Fracture level  <0.0001b
     T1-T989 (45.4)8.9 ± 13.1 
     T10-L290 (45.9)6.0.± 3.1 
     L3-L517 (8.7)6.0 ± 4.4 
    Fracture morphology  0.005b
     Burst/compression94 (48.5)6.4 ± 4.0 
     Extension-distraction16 (8.2)6.4 ± 7.1 
     Flexion-distraction29 (14.9)6.0 ± 7.6 
     Fracture-dislocation36 (18.6)11.1 ± 12.8 
     Combination >119 (9.8)7.3 ± 8.1 
    American Society of Anesthesiologists classification  <0.0001b
     116 (9.1)5.3 ± 5.8 
     273 (41.5)5.8 ± 3.6 
     373 (41.5)8.3 ± 6.4 
     414 (8.0)25.3 ± 29.4 
    Loss of consciousness  0.0009b
     No142 (72.4)6.1 ± 4.5 
     Yes54 (27.6)8.9 ± 16.7 
    Neurological status  <0.0001b
     Intact92 (48.2)5.7 ± 4.61 
     Incomplete injury59 (30.9)6.6 ± 3.8 
     Complete injury40 (20.9)12.1 ± 20.6 
    Pulmonary injury  <0.0001b
     No129 (65.8)5.9 ± 4.0 
     Yes67 (34.2)9.3 ± 12.6 
    Assisted ventilation  <0.0001b
     No169 (87.1)6.4 ± 4.2 
     Mec. ventilation <96 h13 (6.7)9.9 ± 15.3 
     Mec. ventilation >96 h12 (6.2)21.8 ± 10.6 
    Polytrauma  <0.0001b
     No59 (30.1)5.1 ± 3.1 
     Yes137 (69.9)7.6 ± 8.6 
    • ↵a Continuous variables reported as mean ± SD and Spearman ρ correlation with LOS.

    • ↵b Indicates statistically significant values with P < 0.05.

    • ↵c Categorical variables reported as N (%) and median LOS ± IQR.

    • IQR, interquartile range; LOS, length of stay.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Bivariate analysis of perioperative variables and LOS.

    VariableMean ± SDa Spearman ρ P Valueb
    Length of surgery161.3 ± 90.50.32<0.0001b
    Instrumented segments3.9 ± 1.50.30<0.0001b
    Estimated blood loss582.8 ± 676.60.36<0.0001b
      N (%)c LOS, median ± IQR
    Surgical technique0.005b
     Open133 (67.9)7.4 ± 7.1
     Minimally invasive surgery63 (32.1)5.6 ± 4.2
    Surgical approach0.37
     Posterior184 (93.9)6.7 ± 6.7
     Anterior9 (4.6)6.5 ± 2.3
     Combined3 (1.5)12.6 ± 5.3
    Packed red blood cells transfusion<0.0001b
     No144 (73.5)6.0 ± 4.3
     Yes52 (26.5)9.5 ± 11.2
    • ↵a Continuous variables reported as mean ± SD and Spearman ρ correlation with LOS.

    • ↵b Indicates statistically significant values with P < 0.05.

    • ↵c Categorical variables reported as N (%) and median LOS ± IQR.

    • IQR, interquartile range; LOS, length of stay.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Bivariate analysis of postoperative and postdischarge variables and LOS.

    VariableMean ± SDa Spearman ρ P Valueb
    Number of unique complicationsc 2.5 ± 3.10.67<0.0001b
      N (%)d LOS, median ± IQR
    Cardiac  0.002b
     No176 (89.8)6.7 ± 5.5 
     Yes20 (10.2)14.4 ± 27.1 
    Pulmonary  <0.0001b
     No70 (35.7)5.8 ± 3.1 
     Yes126 (64.3)13.0 ± 15.9 
    Gastrointestinal  <0.0001b
     No154 (78.6)6.0 ± 3.3 
     Yes42 (21.4)16.2 ± 18.4 
    Renal/genitourinary  <0.0001b
     No137 (69.9)6.0 ± 4.2 
     Yes59 (30.1)11.3 ± 11.1 
    Skin  0.001b
     No189 (96.4)6.7 ± 6.2 
     Yes7 (3.6)23.6 ± 37.3 
    Neurologic  0.0001b
     No174 (88.8)6.6 ± 5.0 
     Yes22 (11.2)13.4 ± 20.5 
    Hematologic/infectious  <0.0001b
     No124 (63.3)6.0 ± 4.4 
     Yes72 (36.7)8.9 ± 12.8 
    Discharge facility  <0.0001b
     Home60 (31.1)5.0 ± 2.0 
     Rehabilitation131 (67.9)8.5 ± 9.9 
     Other2 (1.0)3.1 ± 0.9 
    30-day readmission  0.51
     No190 (96.9)6.8 ± 6.7 
     Yes6 (3.1)6.3 ± 5.6 
    Reoperation  0.93
     No193 (98.5)6.8 ± 6.7 
     Yes3 (1.5)6.7 ± 7.4 
    • ↵a Continuous variables reported as mean ± SD and Spearman ρ correlation with LOS.

    • ↵b Indicates statistically significant values with P < 0.05.

    • ↵c See Appendix A for list of complications tracked.

    • ↵d Categorical variables reported as N (%) and median LOS ± IQR.

    • IQR, interquartile range; LOS, length of stay.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Multivariate analysis of ln-transformed LOS.

    Formula:Embedded Image
     EstimateValuea P ValueAdjusted r b
    Model 1: preoperative variables onlyc  0.52
     Intercept2.30-
     GCS0.52GCS ≥11: −1
    GCS <11: 1
    <0.0001d
     ASA0.17“1” or “2”: −1
    “3” or “4”: 1
    0.0003d
     Neurological status0.14“Complete injury”: 1
    Other: −1
    0.03d
     Polytrauma0.12No: −1
    Yes: 1
    0.03d
     ISS0.012ISS0.01d
    Model 2: all variablesb  0.69
     Intercept2.27-
     GCS0.31GCS ≥11: −1
    GCS <11: 1
    <0.0001d
     ASA0.096“1” or “2”: −1
    “3” or “4”: 1
    0.007d
     Neurological status0.12“Complete injury”: 1
    Other: −1
    0.008d
     Polytrauma0.16No: −1
    Yes: 1
    <0.0001d
     PRBC transfusion0.085No: −1
    Yes: 1
    0.03d
     Number of unique complications0.093Number of unique complications<0.0001d
     Skin complication0.20No: −1
    Yes: 1
    0.03d
     Discharge facility0.11Rehablitation center: 1
    Other: −1
    0.004d
    • ↵a Use bolded value as value.

    • ↵b All variables with statistically significant association with LOS included in initial model before backward stepwise selection: all statistically significant preoperative variables, length of surgery, instrumented segments, estimated blood loss, surgical technique, PRBC transfusion, number of unique complications, cardiac complications, pulmonary complications, gastrointestinal complications, renal/genitourinary complications, skin complications, neurologic complications, hematologic/infectious complications, and discharge facility.

    • ↵c Preoperative variables with statistically significant association with LOS included in initial model before backward stepwise selection: Charles Comorbidity Index, GCS, ISS, fracture level, fracture morphology, ASA score, loss of consciousness, neurological status, pulmonary injury, assisted ventilation, and polytrauma.

    • ↵d Indicates statistically significant values with P < 0.05.

    • ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; Estimate, regression coefficient; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; ISS, injury severity score; LOS, length of stay; PRBC, packed red blood cells.

  • Appendix A: Postoperative Complications Recorded by System
    Cardiac: Cardiac catheterization, arrhythmia, hypotension/hypertension, pericarditis, syncope, and cardiogenic shock
    Pulmonary: Lung abscess, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, pneumonia, reintubation, respiratory distress/failure, tracheostomy, atelectasis, pulmonary edema, pneumothorax, sinusitis, and empyema
    Gastrointestinal: Clostridium difficile infection, constipation, dysphagia, gastrointestinal bleed, Ogilvie syndrome, pancreatitis, parenteral nutrition, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, ileus, diarrhea, and acute cholecystitis
    Renal/Gastrourinary: Acute renal failure, urinary retention, urosepsis, and urinary tract infectionSkin: Amputation, compartment syndrome, wound dehiscence, wound drainage, wound infection superficial, wound infection deep, and cellulitis
    Neurologic: Delirium tremens, seizures, tardive dyskinesia, delirium, alcoholic withdrawal, diabetes insipidus, increased intracranial pressure, transient ischemic attack, and cerebral spinal fluid leak
    Hematologic/Infectious: Septic shock, anemia, transfusion of blood products, bacteremia, deep vein thrombosis, hematoma, superficial thrombophlebitis, and coagulopathyOther (not included in a system): Fever >103 °F, acidosis, fluid and electrolytes, and nutrition
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 16, Issue 3
1 Jun 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Predicting Length of Stay After Thoracolumbar Trauma: A Single-Center, Retrospective Analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Predicting Length of Stay After Thoracolumbar Trauma: A Single-Center, Retrospective Analysis
Justin E. Kung, Jael E. Camacho, Jacob Bruckner, Ivan B. Ye, Alexandra E. Thomson, Daniel Cavanaugh, Eugene Y. Koh, Daniel E. Gelb, Charles Sansur, Steven C. Ludwig
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jun 2022, 16 (3) 417-426; DOI: 10.14444/8242

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Predicting Length of Stay After Thoracolumbar Trauma: A Single-Center, Retrospective Analysis
Justin E. Kung, Jael E. Camacho, Jacob Bruckner, Ivan B. Ye, Alexandra E. Thomson, Daniel Cavanaugh, Eugene Y. Koh, Daniel E. Gelb, Charles Sansur, Steven C. Ludwig
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jun 2022, 16 (3) 417-426; DOI: 10.14444/8242
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Postmyelography Acute Paraplegia in Patients With Spinal Cord Stimulators: Case Series and Review of Literature
  • Higher Incidence of Thrombotic Complications in Thoracic Spine Surgery
  • Spinopelvic Fixation Using an Osseointegrative Implant: Analysis of Postmarket Surveillance to Determine the Failure Rate
Show more Complications

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • length of stay
  • thoracolumbar
  • spine trauma
  • predictors
  • trauma
  • formula

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire