Advertisement

Surgical training in spine surgery: safety and patient-rated outcome

  • Guy WaisbrodEmail author
  • Anne F. Mannion
  • Támas F. Fekete
  • Frank Kleinstueck
  • Deszö Jeszenszky
  • Daniel Haschtmann
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in patient-reported outcomes and surgical complication rates between lumbar procedures carried out either by experienced board-certified spine surgeons (BCS) or by supervised spine surgery residents (RES) in a large Swiss teaching hospital.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively within the framework of the EUROSPINE Spine Tango Registry. It involved the data of 1415 patients undergoing first-time surgery in our institution between the years 2004 and 2016. Patients were divided into three groups based on the surgical procedure: lumbar single-level fusion (SLF), single-level decompression (SLD) for lumbar spinal stenosis and disc hernia procedures (DH). Patient-reported outcome measures (primary outcome) included the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively plus single items concerning satisfaction with care and global treatment outcome (GTO). Secondary outcomes included surgical variables such as blood loss, duration of surgery, complication rates and length of stay.

Results

There were no significant differences between the RES and BCS patient groups for most of the demographic and baseline clinical variables with the exception of age in the SLD group (p = 0.012), BMI in the DH group (p = 0.02) and leg pain in the SLF group (p = 0.03). COMI scores improved significantly after all three types of procedure (p < 0.0001) without significant difference (p > 0.05) between the patients of RES and BCS. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between RES and BCS patients with regard to satisfaction and GTO. There were no significant differences between RES and BCS (p > 0.05) in the surgical or medical complication rates.

Conclusion

In the given setting, surgical training of spine surgery residents under guided supervision by board-certified spine surgeons was shown to be safe, as it was not associated with greater morbidity or mortality. Furthermore, it had no detrimental influence on patient-reported outcomes. The findings can be used to give reassurance to prospective patients that are to be operated on by supervised spine surgery residents.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Surgical training Patient-reported outcome Complications spine surgery Lumbar spine surgery 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2019_5883_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (139 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 139 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dutta S et al (2003) And doctor, no residents please! J Am Coll Surg 197:1012–1017Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis H (1994) Increasing rates of cervical and lumbar spine surgery in the United States, 1979–1990. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1117–1123 (Discussion 1123–4) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cherkin DC et al (1994) An international comparison of back surgery rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1201–1206Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rajaee SS et al (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:67–76Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weinstein JN et al (2004) Trends and geographic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine. Health Aff (Millwood) Suppl Var VAR81-9, vol 23. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.var.81?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed
  6. 6.
    Pugely AJ et al (2014) The effect of resident participation on short-term outcomes after orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:2290–2300Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kothari P et al (2016) Impact of resident involvement on morbidity in adult patients undergoing fusion for spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:1296–1302Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Auerbach JD et al (2008) Perioperative outcomes and complications related to teaching residents and fellows in scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1113–1118Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schoenfeld AJ et al (2013) The impact of resident involvement on post-operative morbidity and mortality following orthopaedic procedures: a study of 43,343 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:1483–1491Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stienen MN et al (2014) Early surgical education of residents is safe for microscopic lumbar disc surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 156:1205–1214Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C R (2015) EUROSPINE Spine Tango. EUROSPINE. http://www.eurospine.org/spine-tango.htm. Accessed 02 July 2015
  12. 12.
    Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roder C et al (2005) SSE Spine Tango—content, workflow, set-up. Tango Eur Spine J 14(10):920–924Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mannion AF et al (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mannion AF et al (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):367–373Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daniels AH et al (2014) Variability in spine surgery procedures performed during orthopaedic and neurological surgery residency training: an analysis of ACGME case log data. J Bone Jt Surg Am 96:e196Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stienen MN et al (2016) Neurosurgical resident education in Europe—results of a multinational survey. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 158:3–15Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ritchie RW, Reynard J (2009) Consent for surgery: Will you be doing my operation, doctor? BJU Int 104:766–768Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cowles RA et al (2001) Doctor-patient communication in surgery: attitudes and expectations of general surgery patients about the involvement and education of surgical residents. J Am Coll Surg 193:73–80Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fan S et al (2010) Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19:316–324Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ghahreman A et al (2010) Minimal access versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery 66:296–304 (Discussion 304) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gu G et al (2014) Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop 38:817–824Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mukai Y et al (2013) Intramuscular pressure of the multifidus muscle and low-back pain after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of mini-open and conventional approaches. J Neurosurg Spine 19:651–657Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang HL et al (2011) Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl) 124:3868–3874Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M (2012) Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J 12:209–215Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baek GS et al (2012) Fragmentectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy in single-level lumbar disc herniations: comparison of clinical results and recurrence rates. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 52:210–214Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barth M et al (2008) Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy: part 2: radiographic evaluation and correlation with clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:273–279Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fakouri B et al (2011) Lumbar microdiscectomy versus sequesterectomy/free fragmentectomy: a long-term (> 2 y) retrospective study of the clinical outcome. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:6–10Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kast E et al (2008) Success of simple sequestrectomy in lumbar spine surgery depends on the competence of the fibrous ring: a prospective controlled study of 168 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1567–1571Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu X, Yuan S, Tian Y (2013) Modified unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: technical note. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E732–E737Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Phan K, Mobbs RJ (2016) Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:E91–E100Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thome C, Borm W, Meyer F (2008) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: current strategies in diagnosis and treatment. Dtsch Arztebl Int 105:373–379Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thome C et al (2005) Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 3:129–141Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stolke D, Sollmann WP, Seifert V (1989) Intra- and postoperative complications in lumbar disc surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14:56–59Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weinstein MA, McCabe JP, Cammisa FP Jr (2000) Postoperative spinal wound infection: a review of 2391 consecutive index procedures. J Spinal Disord 13:422–426Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wilson DH, Harbaugh R (1981) Microsurgical and standard removal of the protruded lumbar disc: a comparative study. Neurosurgery 8:422–427Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Atlas SJ et al (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica secondary to a lumbar disc herniation: 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 30:927–935Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fakouri B, Shetty NR, White TC (2015) Is sequestrectomy a viable alternative to microdiscectomy? A systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1957–1962Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fourney DR et al (2010) Does minimal access tubular assisted spine surgery increase or decrease complications in spinal decompression or fusion? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:S57–S65Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goldstein CL et al (2016) Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 24:416–427Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Machado GC et al (2015) Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10:e0122800Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parker SL et al (2014) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg 82:230–238Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Harris EB et al (2011) Mini-open versus open decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 40:E257–E261Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bosacco SJ, Gardner MJ, Guille JT (2001) Evaluation and treatment of dural tears in lumbar spine surgery: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 389:238–247Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Buck JS, Yoon ST (2015) The incidence of durotomy and its clinical and economic impact in primary, short-segment lumbar fusion: an analysis of 17,232 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:1444–1450Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cammisa FP Jr et al (2000) Incidental durotomy in spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2663–2667Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Imagama S et al (2011) Perioperative complications and adverse events after lumbar spinal surgery: evaluation of 1012 operations at a single center. J Orthop Sci 16:510–515Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Takahashi Y et al (2013) Incidental durotomy during lumbar spine surgery: risk factors and anatomic locations: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:165–169Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wiese M et al (2004) The related outcome and complication rate in primary lumbar microscopic disc surgery depending on the surgeon’s experience: comparative studies. Spine J 4:550–556Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    McMahon P, Dididze M, Levi AD (2012) Incidental durotomy after spinal surgery: a prospective study in an academic institution. J Neurosurg Spine 17:30–36Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kleinstuck FS et al (2009) The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1198–1203Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kleinstueck FS et al (2011) The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain. Eur Spine J 20:1166–1173Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kleinstueck FS et al (2016) Adult degenerative scoliosis: comparison of patient-rated outcome after three different surgical treatments. Eur Spine J 25:2649–2656Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kleinstueck FS et al (2012) To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer? Eur Spine J 21:268–275Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pfandler M et al (2017) Virtual reality-based simulators for spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine J 17:1352–1363Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Edelstein AI et al (2014) Impact of resident involvement on orthopaedic surgery outcomes: an analysis of 30,628 patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. J Bone Jt Surg Am 96:e131Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lee NJ et al (2018) The impact of resident involvement in elective posterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(5):316–323Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stienen MN et al (2015) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: is surgical education safe? Acta Neurochir (Wien) 157:1395–1404Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spine Surgery Unit, Department of Spine and Orthopaedic SurgerySwiss Paraplegic CenterNottwilSwitzerland
  2. 2.Spine Unit, Department of Spine Surgery, Schulthess ClinicZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations