Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Complication avoidance with pre-operative screening: insights from the Seattle spine team

  • Complications in Spine Surgery (E Klineberg, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Complication rates for complex adult lumbar scoliosis surgery are unacceptably high. Standardized preoperative evaluation protocols have been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of a spectrum of negative outcomes associated with complex adult lumbar scoliosis surgery. To increase patient safety and reduce complication risk, an entire medical and surgical team should work together to care for adult lumbar scoliosis patients. This article describes preoperative patient evaluation strategies with a particular focus on adult lumbar scoliosis surgery involving six or more levels of spinal fusion. Domains considered include recent preoperative evaluation literature, predictive risk modeling, the appropriate management of medical conditions, and the composition and activities of a multidisciplinary conference review team. An evidence-based comprehensive systematic preoperative surgical evaluation process is described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Acosta FL et al. Morbidity and mortality after spinal deformity surgery in patients 75 years and older: complications and predictive factors: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(6):667–74. doi:10.3171/2011.7.SPINE10640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS. Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E3. doi:10.3171/2009.12.FOCUS09254.

  3. Bertram W, Harding I. Complicatons of spinal deformity and spinal stenosis surgery in adults greater than 50 years old. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (British Volume). 2012;94(Suppl X):105.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cho SK et al. Major complications in revision adult deformity surgery: risk factors and clinical outcomes with 2- to 7-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(6):489–500. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182217ab5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Cheh G, Stobbs G, Bridwell KH. Adult spinal deformity surgery: complications and outcomes in patients over age 60. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(20):2238–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Glassman SD et al. The impact of perioperative complications on clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):2764–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwab FJ et al. Risk factors for major peri-operative complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: a multi-center review of 953 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(12):2603–10. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2370-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lenke LG, Fehlings MG, Schaffrey CI, Cheung KM, Carreon LY. Prospective, multicenter assessment of acute neurologic complications following complex adult spinal deformity surgery: The Scoli-Risk-1 Trial. Spine J. 2013;13(9):S67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tormenti MJ et al. Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(1):44–50. doi:10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Halpin RJ et al. Standardizing care for high-risk patients in spine surgery: the Northwestern high-risk spine protocol. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(25):2232–8. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e8abb0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee MJ et al. Risk factors for medical complication after lumbar spine surgery: a multivariate analysis of 767 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(21):1801–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Charosky S, Guigui P, Blamoutier A, Roussouly P, Chopin D. Complications and risk factors of primary adult scoliosis surgery: a multicenter study of 306 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(8):693–700. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ff5c1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sansur CA et al. Scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality of adult scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(9):E593–7. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182059bfd.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sethi RK et al. The Seattle Spine Team approach to adult deformity surgery: a systems-based approach to perioperative care and subsequent reduction in perioperative complication rates. Spine Deformity. 2014;2:95–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.12.002 . Describes a systematic and standardized multidisciplinary preoperative evaluation protocol, which consistently utilizes the capabilities of multiple medical professionals in an information-rich group problem-solving and decision-making process. This protocol facilitates risk management, results in safer patient care, and applies the principles of continuous improvement.

  15. Rampersaud RY et al. Intraoperative adverse events and related postoperative complications in spine surgery: implications for enhancing patient safety founded on evidence-based protocols. Spine. 2006;31(13):1503–10. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000220652.39970.c2.

  16. Yu X, Xiao H, Wang R, Huang Y. Prediction of massive blood loss in scoliosis surgery from preoperative variables. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(4):350–5. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826c63cb.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guay J, Haig M, Lortie L, Guertin MC, Poitras B. Predicting blood loss in surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. Can J Anesth. 1994;41(9):775–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baldus CR, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Okubadejo GO. Can we safely reduce blood loss during lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy procedures using tranexamic acid or aprotinin? A comparative study with controls. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(2):235–9. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c86cb9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Modi HN, Suh SW, Hong JY, Song SH, Yang JH. Intraoperative blood loss during different stages of scoliosis surgery: a prospective study. Scoliosis. 2010;5:16. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-5-16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Elgafy H, Bransford RJ, McGuire RA, Dettori JR, Fischer D. Blood loss in major spine surgery: are there effective measures to decrease massive hemorrhage in major spine fusion surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(9 Suppl):S47–56. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d833f6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Akins PT et al. Risk factors associated with 30-day readmissions after instrumented spine surgery in 14,939 patients. Spine. 2015;40(13):1022–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bekelis K, Desai A, Bakhoum SF, Missios S. A predictive model of complications after spine surgery: the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2005–2010. Spine J. 2014;14:7–1255. Predictive modeling and the application of its resulting algorithms represents a powerful tool for clinicians to more effectively stratify patients by risk. Risk calculators have the potential to facilitate the development of individualized risk profiles, contributing to safer decision-making and adding useful information to the informed consent process.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wang T et al. Risk assessment and characterization of 30-day perioperative myocardial infarction following spine surgery: a retrospective analysis of 1346 consecutive adult patients. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D'Hoore W, Sicotte C, Tilquin C. Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson comorbidity index. Methods Inf Med. 1993;32(5):382–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chitale R et al. International classification of disease clinical modification 9 modeling of a patient comorbidity score predicts incidence of perioperative complications in a nationwide inpatient sample assessment of complications in spine surgery. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques. 2015;28(4):126–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nerland US et al. The risk of getting worse: predictors of deterioration after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter observational study. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(4):1095–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jiang J, Teng Y, Fan Z, Khan S, Xia Y. Does obesity affect the surgical outcome and complication rates of spinal surgery? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(3):968–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Buerba RA, Fu MC, Gruskay JA, Long WD, Grauer JN. Obese Class III patients at significantly greater risk of multiple complications after lumbar surgery: an analysis of 10,387 patients in the ACS NSQIP database. Spine J. 2014;14(9):2008–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Marquez-Lara A, Nandyala SV, Sankaranarayanan S, Noureldin M, Singh K. Body mass index as a predictor of complications and mortality after lumbar spine surgery. Spine. 2014;39(10):798–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Salvetti DJ et al. Preoperative prealbumin level as a risk factor for surgical site infection following elective spine surgery. Surgical Neurology International. 2015;6 Suppl 19:S500.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ellis DJ et al. The relationship between preoperative expectations and the short-term postoperative satisfaction and functional outcome in lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review. Global Spine Journal. 2015;5(5):436.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Menendez ME, Neuhaus V, Bot AG, Ring D, Cha TD. Psychiatric disorders and major spine surgery: epidemiology and perioperative outcomes. Spine. 2014;39(2):E111–22. Identifying the links between psychiatric diagnoses and negative surgical outcomes facilitates addressing these important comorbidities pre-operatively, optimizing perioperative care processes and planning, and facilitating more effective risk management, thus improving surgical decision making and overall service quality.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. L Chapin, K Ward, and T Ryken, Preoperative depression, smoking, and employment status are significant factors in patient satisfaction after lumbar spine surgery, Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques, 2015

  34. Vasquez-Castellanos RA et al. 109 The profile of a smoker and its impact on outcomes after cervical spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2015;62:199–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee M, Cizik AM, Hamilton D, Chapman JR. Predicting medical complications after spine surgery: a validated model using a prospective surgical registry. Spine J. 2014;14(2):291–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Allen RT et al. An evidence-based approach to spine surgery. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(6 Suppl):15S–24S. doi:10.1177/1062860609348743.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ames CP et al. Perioperative outcomes and complications of pedicle subtraction osteotomy in cases with single versus two attending surgeons. Spine Deformity. 2013;1(1):51–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2012.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Baig MN et al. Vision loss after spine surgery: review of the literature and recommendations. Neurosurg Focus. 2007;23(5):E15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Joy BF et al. Standardized multidisciplinary protocol improves handover of cardiac surgery patients to the intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2011;12(3):304–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schwab F et al. Scoliosis Research Society—Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(12):1077–82. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823e15e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yagi M, King AB, Boachie-Adjei O. Incidence, risk factors, and natural course of proximal junctional kyphosis: Surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Minimum 5 years of follow-up. Spine. 2012;37(17):1479–89. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824e4888.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kebaish KM et al. Use of vertebroplasty to prevent proximal junctional fractures in adult deformity surgery: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Spine J. 2013;13(12):1897–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Martin CT, Skolasky RL, Mohamed AS, Kebaish KM. Preliminary results of the effect of prophylactic vertebroplasty on the incidence of proximal junctional complications after posterior spinal fusion to the low thoracic spine. Spine Deformity. 2013;1(2):132–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Theologis AA, Burch S. Prevention of acute proximal junctional fractures after long thoracolumbar posterior fusions for adult spinal deformity using 2-level cement augmentation at the upper instrumented vertebra and the vertebra 1 level proximal to the upper instrumented vertebra. Spine. 2015;40(19):1516–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sethi RK, Lavine S, Leveque JC, et al. A multidisciplinary adult spinal deformity preoperative conference leads to a significant rejection rate. Copenhagen: International Meeting of Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST); 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Drazin D et al. Complications and outcomes after spinal deformity surgery in the elderly: review of the existing literature and future directions. Neurosurg Focus. 2011;31(4):E3. doi:10.3171/2011.7.FOCUS11145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Li G et al. Adult scoliosis in patients over sixty-five years of age: outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment at a minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(20):2165–70. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b3ff0c.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. H R Weiss and D Goodall, Rate of complications in scoliosis surgery—a systematic review of the PubMed literature, Scoliosis, vol. 3, no. 9, 2008, doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-3-9

  50. Sciubba DM et al. A comprehensive review of complication rates after surgery for adult deformity: a reference for informed consent. Spine Deformity. 2015;3(6):575–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Eagle KA, Berger PB, Calkins H, et al. ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery—executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:542–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jackson RP, Simmons EH, Stripinis D. Coronal and sagittal plane spinal deformities correlating with back pain and pulmonary function in adult idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989;14:1391–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. P Varkey, M K Reller, and R K Resar, Basics of quality improvement in health care, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 735-739, doi:10.4065/82.6.735

  54. Nelson-Peterson DL, Leppa CJ. Creating an environment for caring using lean principles of the Virginia Mason Production System. J Nurs Adm. 2007;37(6):287–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. J P Womack and D T Jones, Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation.: Simon and Schuster, 2010.

  56. Porter ME. What is value in healthcare? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neuroscience Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Quinlan D. Buchlak, Vijay Yanamadala, Jean-Christophe Leveque & Rajiv Sethi

  2. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Rajiv Sethi

Authors
  1. Quinlan D. Buchlak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vijay Yanamadala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Christophe Leveque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rajiv Sethi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajiv Sethi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Quinlan D. Buchlak, Vijay Yanamadala, Jean-Christophe Leveque, and Rajiv Sethi declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Disclosures

All authors have reviewed and approved this manuscript and have no relevant disclosures to report.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Complications in Spine Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buchlak, Q.D., Yanamadala, V., Leveque, JC. et al. Complication avoidance with pre-operative screening: insights from the Seattle spine team. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9, 316–326 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9351-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9351-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation