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 ArticleLumbar Spine

Comparison of Staged vs Same-Day Circumferential Spinal Fusions for Adult Spinal Deformity

Ahmed Albayar, Gabrielle Santangelo, Michael Spadola, Dominick Macaluso, Zarina S. Ali, Comron Saifi, Jonathan Heintz, Xiaoyan Han, Warren Bilker, Neil Malhotra, William C. Welch, Connor Wathen, Mert Marcel Dagli, Yohannes Ghenbot, Jang Yoon, Vincent Arlet and Ali K. Ozturk
International Journal of Spine Surgery October 2023, 8548; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8548
Ahmed Albayar
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gabrielle Santangelo
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
2 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: santanga@pennmedicine.upenn.edu
Michael Spadola
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dominick Macaluso
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zarina S. Ali
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Comron Saifi
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan Heintz
3 Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiaoyan Han
3 Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Warren Bilker
3 Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neil Malhotra
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William C. Welch
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Connor Wathen
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mert Marcel Dagli
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yohannes Ghenbot
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jang Yoon
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD, MSᴇ
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vincent Arlet
4 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ali K. Ozturk
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 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

    Postoperative complications. In the whole cohort, the staged (ST) group had more complications compared with the same-day (SD) group in the univariate analysis (OR 2.97, P = 0.001) and significantly higher incidence of postoperative pulmonary embolism (PE), altered mental status or delirium, cardiac arrhythmia, and surgical site infections. There were 63 patients (63%) with a postoperative complication within the long segment cohort with no difference between ST and SD groups on unadjusted analysis. Abbreviations: AMS, altered mental status; DVT, deep venous thrombosis; IPW, inverse probability weighting; LE, lower extremity; LS, long segment; PE, pulmonary embolism; SNF, skilled nursing facility; TIA, transient ischemic attack.

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

    Postoperative PE. Using IPW, the rate of PE was significantly higher in staged (ST) vs same-day (SD) groups in the whole cohort (12% vs 1.2%, P = 0.045). In the long segment cohort, there was a significant difference in the rate of postoperative PE in the ST vs SD group (OR = 13.0, P = 0.24). Abbreviations: DVT, deep venous thrombosis; IPW, inverse probability weighting; LS, long segment; PE, pulmonary embolism.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Length of Stay: In both unadjusted and IPW analyses, the length of stay for the staged (ST) group was longer than the same-day (SD) group (10.8 vs 64.8 days), and the ST group was expected to have length of stay 2.2 times longer than the SD group (P < 0.0001) in the whole cohort. In the long segment cohort, on both unadjusted and IPW analyses, we observed a longer length of stay for the ST group than the SD group (10.5 vs 6.2 days), and the ST group was expected to have length of stay 1.7 times longer than the SD group (P < 0.0001). Abbreviations: IPW, inverse probability weighting; LS, long segment.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Hospital costs. Within the whole cohort, the mean cost for same-day (SD) patients was $71,193 compared with $145,907 for staged (ST) patients. For the unadjusted analysis, the average cost was 1.9 times greater in the ST group vs SD group (95% CI 1.6008, 2.2698, P < 0.0001). On IPW, the average cost was 1.6 times greater in the ST group (95% CI 1.0733, 2.2887, P = 0.0203). The mean cost for SD patients with more than 4 levels fused was $93,267.67 compared with $153,481.20 for staged patients. The average cost for the ST group was 1.5 times greater than in the SD group (95% CI 1.2169, 1.8182, P = 0.0002). This significance was again seen using IPW with the average cost being 1.5 times greater in the ST group (95% CI 1.1730, 1.8728, P = 0.0013). Abbreviations: IPW, inverse probability weighting; LS, long segment.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Preoperative characteristics for the whole cohort.

    CharacteristicST (n = 50)Same-Day (n = 161)UnadjustedIPW
    OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P
    Diff (95% CI)Diff (95% CI)
    Age, y
     Range (median)29–76 (58)19–83 (57)2.71 (−0.57, 5.98)0.1053.08 (−2.27, 8.44)0.257
     Mean (SD)58.7 (8.9)56.0 (13.7)
    Female sex, n (%)30 (60.0%)106 (65.8%)0.78 (0.39, 1.59)0.5001.13 (0.40, 3.24)0.814
    Race, n (%)
     White46 (92.0%)121 (75.2%)Reference0.008*Reference0.792
     Black1 (2.0%)28 (17.4%)0.09 (0.01, 0.71)0.60 (0.08, 4.85)
     Other3 (6.0%)12 (7.5%)0.66 (0.18, 2.44)1.56 (0.23, 10.75)
    BMI, kg/m2
     Range (median)20.6–42.0 (28.8)18.8–46.0 (28.5)0.57 (−1.13, 2.27)0.5051.96 (−0.07, 3.99)0.089
     Mean (SD)29.2 (5.2)28.7 (5.4)
    Smoker6 (12.0%)28 (17.4%)0.65 (0.21, 1.74)0.5091.53 (0.33, 7.14)0.587
    Substance user2 (4.0%)9 (5.6%)0.70 (0.07, 3.55)>0.990.53 (0.10, 2.91)0.468
    Comorbidities
     Diabetes mellitus6 (12.0%)24 (14.9%)0.78 (0.24, 2.13)0.8171.46 (0.33, 6.52)0.622
     COPD7 (14.0%)8 (5.0%)3.11 (0.90, 10.39)0.0528.60 (1.83, 40.30)0.006*
     History of prior deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism2 (4.0%)12 (7.5%)0.52 (0.05, 2.46)0.5270.69 (0.10, 4.69)0.701
     Hyperlipidemia15 (30.0%)57 (35.4%)0.78 (0.36, 1.62)0.6091.67 (0.54, 5.15)0.373
     Hypertension32 (64.0%)85 (52.8%)1.59 (0.79, 3.26)0.1941.03 (0.35, 3.04)0.952
     Other cardiac diagnoses12 (24.0%)33 (20.5%)1.22 (0.52, 2.73)0.6931.22 (0.30, 4.90)0.782
     Anemia1 (2.0%)9 (5.6%)0.34 (0.01, 2.61)0.4580.31 (0.04, 2.64)0.283
     Coagulation disorders2 (4.0%)6 (3.7%)1.08 (0.10, 6.27)>0.990.56 (0.10, 3.26)0.519
     Thyroid disorders10 (20.0%)33 (20.5%)0.97 (0.39, 2.24)>0.990.54 (0.20, 1.43)0.213
     Postmenopausal osteoporosis3 (6.0%)13 (8.1%)0.69 (0.12, 2.67)0.7652.22 (0.32, 15.61)0.422
    Preoperative ASA score
     11 (2.0%)1 (0.6%)Reference0.446Reference0.945
     232 (64.0%)111 (68.9%)0.29 (0.02, 4.74)0.93 (0.05, 16.17)
     317 (34.0%)49 (30.4%)0.35 (0.02, 5.86)0.78 (0.04, 14.12)
    • Abbreviations: ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IPW, inverse probability weighting; ST, staged.

    • Note: There was no significant difference in age and sex distribution, mean BMI, ASA classification, preoperative comorbidities, or smoking status between the groups. The racial distribution was significantly different, with more White patients in the ST group. However, after IPW, there was no significant difference in race. In the IPW model, patient’s undergoing ST procedures had a significantly higher rate of COPD (OR = 8.6, P = 0.0063).

    • *Signifies P < 0.05.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Preoperative characteristics for the long segment cohort.

    CharacteristicST (n = 44)SD (n = 56)UnadjustedIPW
    OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P
    Diff (95% CI)Diff (95% CI)
    Age, y
     Range (median)29–76 (59)23–81 (63.5)3.20 (−7.36, 0.96)0.1302.87 (−7.47, 1.73)0.219
     Mean (SD)58.8 (9.0)62.0 (11.9)
    Female sex, n (%)28 (63.6)44 (78.6)0.48 (0.18, 1.27)0.1190.57 (0.18, 1.77)0.330
    Race, n (%)
     White40 (90.9%)44 (78.6%)Reference0.073Reference0.052
     Black1 (2.3%)9 (16.1%)0.12 (0.01, 1.01)0.06 (0.01, 0.59)
     Other3 (6.8%)3 (5.4%)1.10 (0.21, 5.77)0.98 (0.12, 7.95)
    BMI, kg/m2
     Range (median)20.6–41.9 (28.8)18.8–42.1 (27.9)1.33 (−0.78, 3.45)0.2140.13 (−2.01, 2.27)0.907
     Mean (SD)29.2 (5.2)27.8 (5.3)
    Smoker, n (%)4 (9.1%)5 (8.9%)1.02 (0.19, 5.08)>0.991.11 (0.26, 4.78)0.885
    Substance user, n (%)2 (4.6%)3 (5.4%)0.84 (0.07, 7.71)>0.991.06 (0.16, 7.03)0.954
    Comorbidities
     Diabetes mellitus5 (11.4%)7 (12.5%)0.90 (0.21, 3.58)>0.991.97 (0.48, 8.03)0.344
     Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease5 (11.4%)3 (5.4%)2.27 (0.41, 15.33)0.2952.71 (0.58, 12.66)0.204
     History of prior deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism1 (2.3%)6 (10.7%)0.19 (0.00, 1.72)0.1310.34 (0.04, 3.06)0.338
     Hyperlipidemia14 (31.8%)27 (48.2%)0.50 (0.20, 1.23)0.1070.92 (0.34, 2.49)0.869
     Hypertension29 (65.9%)33 (58.9%)1.35 (0.55, 3.34)0.5370.91 (0.33, 2.52)0.862
     Other cardiac diagnoses11 (25.0%)16 (28.6%)0.83 (0.30, 2.22)0.8211.04 (0.35, 3.04)0.948
     Anemia1 (2.3%)3 (5.4%)0.41 (0.01, 5.37)0.6290.67 (0.06, 7.26)0.741
     Coagulation disorders2 (4.6%)2 (3.6%)1.29 (0.09, 18.37)>0.993.57 (0.39, 33.06)0.262
     Thyroid disorders10 (22.7%)12 (21.4%)1.08 (0.37, 3.10)>0.991.69 (0.59, 4.81)0.330
     Postmenopausal osteoporosis2 (4.9%)5 (9.8%)0.47 (0.04, 3.10)0.4550.46 (0.08, 2.78)0.398
    Preoperative ASA score
     229 (65.9%)34 (60.7%)Reference0.678Reference0.914
     315 (34.1%)22 (39.3%)0.80 (0.32, 1.96)0.95 (0.37, 2.46)
    • Abbreviations: ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; IPW, inverse probability weighting; SD, same-day; ST, staged.

    • Note: Within the subgroup of 100 patients who underwent >4 levels of fusion (ST = 44, SD = 56), the ST and SD groups were not significantly different in demographics or preoperative comorbidities.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Perioperative characteristics

    CharacteristicsSTSDUnadjustedIPW
    OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P
    Ratio (95% CI)Ratio (95% CI)
    Whole Cohort
     n 50161
     Duration between procedures when staged, da
      Range (median)1–20 (2)-
      Mean (SD)2.9 (2.8)-
     Number of levels fused in ALIF, n (%)
      113 (26.0%)84 (52.2%)Reference<0.001*Reference0.603
      222 (44.0%)68 (42.2%)2.09 (0.98, 4.45)1.42 (0.43, 4.69)
      314 (28.0%)8 (5.0%)11.3 (3.97, 32.20)1.99 (0.52, 7.63)
      41 (2.0%)1 (0.6%)6.46 (0.38, 109.70)0.37 (0.02, 6.72)
     Number of levels fused in PSF
      Range (median)1–16 (8)1–15 (2)2.79 (2.20, 3.54)<0.001*1.29 (0.81, 2.05)0.275
      Mean (SD)9.1 (4.5)3.8 (3.2)
     Combined EBL, mL
      Range (median)25–4000 (1200)25–5100 (350)2.28 (1.61, 3.22)<0.001*1.07 (0.62, 1.83)0.819
      Mean (SD)1220 (891.5)609.2 (710.5)
     Total intraoperative complications, n (%)7 (14.0%)4 (2.5%)6.39 (1.52, 30.83)0.004*2.94 (0.55, 15.74)0.207
    LS Cohort
     n 4456
     Duration between procedures when staged, da
      Range (median)0–22 (2)-
      Mean (SD)2.9 (2.9)-
     Number of levels fused in ALIF, n (%)
      111 (25.0%)34 (60.7%)Reference<0.001*Reference0.322
      218 (40.9%)17 (30.4%)3.27 (1.27, 8.46)1.05 (0.34, 3.20)
      314 (31.8%)4 (7.1%)10.82 (2.94, 39.80)2.49 (0.59, 10.44)
      41 (2.3%)1 (1.8%)3.09 (0.18, 53.65)0.17 (0.01, 3.14)
     Number of levels fused in PSF
      Range (median)4–16 (8)4–15 (8)1.37 (1.17, 1.62)0.002*1.09 (0.86, 1.39)0.457
      Mean (SD)10 (3.9)7.3 (3.1)
     Combined EBL, m
      Range (median)25–4000 (1300)25–5100 (875)1.31 (0.89, 1.92)0.0880.82 (0.48, 1.40)0.471
      Mean (SD)1351.7 (869)1127.6 (945.4)
     Total intraoperative complications, n (%)6 (13.6%)2 (3.6%)4.26 (0.70, 44.80)0.1334.25 (0.73, 24.92)0.109
    • Abbreviations: ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; EBL, estimated blood loss; IPW, inverse probability weighting; LS, long segment; PSF, posterior spinal fusion; SD, same day; ST, staged.

    • Note: Intraoperative complications in the whole cohort were recorded in 11 cases (5.2%), with the ST group showed a significantly higher incidence compared with the SD group (OR = 6.4, P = 0.004). In the LS cohort, intraoperative complications were recorded in 8 patients (8%) with no statistically significant difference between ST and SD groups (Table 2).

    • *Signifies P < 0.05.

    • ↵a The median duration between the staged procedures was 2.9 days with a range of 0 to 22 days for the LS and whole cohort.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Postoperative characteristics.

    ComplicationsSTSDUnadjustedIPW
    OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P
    Ratio (95% CI)Ratio (95% CI)
    Whole Cohort
     n 50161
     No. of patients with postoperative complications31 (62.0%)57 (35.4%)2.98 (1.47, 6.09)0.001*2.28 (0.75, 6.91)0.146
     Acute blood loss anemia requiring transfusion14 (28.0%)29 (18%)1.77 (0.78, 3.89)0.1591.74 (0.56, 5.41)0.338
     DVT/PE6 (12.0%)2 (1.2%)10.84 (1.83, 111.79)0.003*10.92 (1.80, 66.15)0.045*
     AMS/delirium8 (16.0%)6 (3.7%)4.92 (1.4, 18.05)0.006*2.34 (0.54, 10.17)0.257
     Cardiac arrhythmia3 (6.0%)1 (0.6%)10.21 (0.79, 539.36)0.042*6.05 (0.58, 63.72)0.134
     Fever/bacteremia2 (4.0%)3 (1.9%)2.19 (0.18, 19.66)0.33912.18 (1.67, 88.74)0.014*
     transient ischemic attack/stroke1 (2.0%)1 (0.6%)3.27 (0.04, 257.88)0.4191.74 (0.10, 29.51)0.701
     Respiratory distress3 (6.0%)5 (3.1%)1.99 (0.30, 10.64)0.3970.74 (0.15, 3.63)0.711
     New-onset LE pain2 (4.0%)13 (8.1%)0.47 (0.05, 2.22)0.5290.52 (0.08, 3.51)0.503
     New-onset LE weakness1 (2.0%)8 (5.0%)0.39 (0.01, 3.05)0.6890.67 (0.07, 6.17)0.724
     Hematoma1 (2.0%)6 (3.7%)0.53 (0.01, 4.52)>0.990.10 (0.01, 0.99)0.049*
     Surgical site infections5 (10.0%)1 (0.6%)17.78 (1.89, 845.85)0.003*7.73 (0.83, 72.17)0.073
     Instrumentation-related complications1 (2.0%)1 (0.6%)3.27 (0.04, 257.88)0.4193.74 (0.22, 63.44)0.361
    LS Cohort
     n 4456
     No. of patients with postoperative complications30 (68.2%)33 (58.9%)1.49 (1.47, 6.09)0.4061.42 (0.52, 3.89)0.495
     Acute blood loss anemia requiring transfusion13 (29.6%)22 (39.3%)0.65 (0.78, 3.89)0.3990.50 (0.18, 1.39)0.181
     DVT/PE5 (11.4%)1 (1.8%)7.05 (1.37, 94.4)0.08412.96 (1.39, 121.12)0.025*
     AMS/delirium7 (15.9%)3 (5.4%)3.34 (1.40, 18.05)0.1013.73 (0.81, 17.19)0.091
     Cardiac arrhythmia3 (6.8%)1 (1.8%)4.02 (0.79, 539.36)0.3174.68 (0.44, 49.63)0.201
     Fever/bacteremia1 (2.3%)2 (3.6%)0.63 (0.18, 19.65)>0.993.77 (0.32, 44.48)0.291
     TIA/Stroke1 (2.3%)1 (1.8%)1.28 (0.04, 257.88)>0.991.47 (0.09, 24.87)0.791
     Respiratory distress3 (6.8%)2 (3.6%)1.98 (0.30, 10.64)0.6521.47 (0.22, 9.98)0.693
     New-onset LE pain1 (2.3%)6 (10.7%)0.19 (0.05, 2.22)0.1310.14 (0.01, 1.57)0.112
     New-onset LE weakness0 (0.0%)5 (8.9%)0.00 (0.00, 3.05)0.065--
     Hematoma1(2.3%)3 (5.4%)0.41 (0.01, 4.52)0.0840.22 (0.02, 2.36)0.210
     Surgical site infections5 (11.4%)1 (1.8%)7.05 (1.89, 845.85)>0.994.16 (0.45, 38.50)0.210
     Instrumentation-related complications1 (2.3%)1 (1.8%)1.28 (0.04, 257.88)0.6291.64 (0.10, 27.86)0.731
    • Abbreviations: AMS, altered mental status; DVT, deep venous thrombosis; IPW, inverse probability weighting; LE, lower extremity; LS, long segment; PE, pulmonary embolism; SD, same day; ST, staged; TIA, transient ischemic attack.

    • Note: The total number of patients with postoperative complications was 88 (41.7%), with significantly more in the SD group in the univariate analysis (OR 2.97, P = 0.001). There were 63 (63%) patients with postoperative complications within the LS cohort with no difference between the ST and SD groups on unadjusted analysis. IPW showed a significant difference in the rate of postoperative PE in the ST vs SD group (OR = 13.0, P = 0.24).

    • *Signifies P < 0.05.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Length of stay and readmissions.

    Outcome MeasureSTSame-DayUnadjustedIPW
    OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI)
    Ratio (95% CI)Ratio (95% CI)
    Whole Cohort
     LOS (d)
      Range (median)4–44 (8.5)12.5–22 (4)2.17 (1.87, 2.52)<0.001*1.86 (1.43, 2.42)<0.001*
      Mean (SD)10.8 (6.8)4.8 (2.5)
     Disposition
      Home19 (38.0%)112 (69.6%)Reference<0.001*Reference0.329
      SNF6 (12.0%)9 (5.6%)3.54 (1.75, 7.14)3.39 (0.63, 18.16)
      Rehabilitation24 (48.0%)40 (24.8%)3.93 (1.26, 12.31)1.70 (0.51, 5.62)
      Death1 (2.0%)0 (0.0%)--
     Reoperation during first admission4 (8.0%)5 (3.1%)2.71 (0.51, 13.11)0.2212.16 (0.40, 11.58)0.367
     Reoperation during readmission7 (14.0%)8 (5.0%)2.27 (0.54, 9.66)0.0720.86 (0.23, 3.26)0.823
     Total reoperations11 (22.0%)13 (8.1%)3.21 (1.19, 8.41)0.011*1.24 (0.38, 4.03)0.724
     30-day readmissions8 (16.0%)17 (10.6%)1.61 (0.56, 4.28)0.3201.33 (0.32, 5.52)0.691
     90-day readmissions11 (22.0%)18 (11.2%)2.24 (0.88, 5.48)0.0621.59 (0.43, 5.80)0.484
    LS Cohort
     LOS, d
      Range (median)4–25 (9)1–22 (5.5)1.70 (1.42, 2.04)<0.001*1.59 (1.29, 1.95)< 0.001*
      Mean (SD)10.5 (5)6.2 (3.1)
     Disposition
      Home16 (36.4%)24 (42.9%)Reference0.837Reference0.761
      SNF5 (11.4%)5 (8.9%)1.22 (0.52, 2.85)1.19 (0.26, 5.38)
      Rehabilitation22 (50.0%)27 (48.2%)1.50 (0.37, 6.03)0.74 (0.26, 2.15)
      Death1 (2.3%)0 (0.0%)--
     Reoperation during first admission3 (6.8%)3 (5.4%)1.29 (0.51, 13.11)>0.991.95 (0.34, 11.20)0.455
     Reoperation during readmission7 (15.9%)5 (8.9%)2.10 (0.38, 11.59)>0.991.21 (0.32, 4.52)0.781
     Total reoperations10 (22.7%)8 (14.3%)1.76 (1.19, 8.41)0.3041.42 (0.45, 4.49)0.549
     30-day readmissions7 (15.9%)8 (14.3%)1.14 (0.56, 4.28)>0.990.65 (0.17, 2.59)0.545
     90-day readmissions10 (22.7%)8 (14.3%)1.76 (0.88, 5.48)0.3041.02 (0.28, 3.70)0.978
    • Abbreviations: IPW, inverse probability weighting; LOS, length of stay; LS, long segment; SNF, skilled nursing facility; ST, staged.

    • Note: Length of stay was significantly different between the ST and same-day groups for both the whole cohort and the LS cohort (P < 0.001). Total 30-day readmission rate was not different between groups. Reoperations were significantly higher in ST group (P = 0.011), though this difference was not seen using IPW or in the LS cohort.

    • *Signifies P < 0.05

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • 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.
Comparison of Staged vs Same-Day Circumferential Spinal Fusions for Adult Spinal Deformity
(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
Comparison of Staged vs Same-Day Circumferential Spinal Fusions for Adult Spinal Deformity
Ahmed Albayar, Gabrielle Santangelo, Michael Spadola, Dominick Macaluso, Zarina S. Ali, Comron Saifi, Jonathan Heintz, Xiaoyan Han, Warren Bilker, Neil Malhotra, William C. Welch, Connor Wathen, Mert Marcel Dagli, Yohannes Ghenbot, Jang Yoon, Vincent Arlet, Ali K. Ozturk
International Journal of Spine Surgery Oct 2023, 8548; DOI: 10.14444/8548

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparison of Staged vs Same-Day Circumferential Spinal Fusions for Adult Spinal Deformity
Ahmed Albayar, Gabrielle Santangelo, Michael Spadola, Dominick Macaluso, Zarina S. Ali, Comron Saifi, Jonathan Heintz, Xiaoyan Han, Warren Bilker, Neil Malhotra, William C. Welch, Connor Wathen, Mert Marcel Dagli, Yohannes Ghenbot, Jang Yoon, Vincent Arlet, Ali K. Ozturk
International Journal of Spine Surgery Oct 2023, 8548; DOI: 10.14444/8548
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Segmental Interbody, Muscle-Preserving, Ligamentotaxis-Enabled Reduction: "SIMPLER" Technique for cMIS Correction of ASD
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Recovery Trajectories After Lumbar Fusion Stratified by Baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Disability Levels
  • Safety and Viability of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Complex Revision Lumbar Spine Surgeries: Insights From a Case Series of 135 Patients on Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion/Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Removal
  • Effects of Body Mass Index on Spondylolisthesis Surgery and Associated Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Retrospective Review
Show more Lumbar Spine

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • spinal fusion
  • deformity
  • circumferential fusion
  • staging
  • adult spinal deformity
  • staged surgery

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