Ambulatory Surgery Center Setting Research Articles

Driving Forces for Outpatient Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols: A Narrative Review.

To explore the recent developments and trends in the anesthetic and surgical practices for total hip and total knee arthroplasty and discuss the implications for further outpatient total joint arthroplasty procedures. Between 2012 and 2017 there was an 18.9% increase in the annual primary total joint arthroplasty volume. Payments to physicians falling by 7.5% (14.9% when adjusted for inflations), whereas hospital reimbursements and charges increased by 0.3% and 18.6%, respectively. Total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty surgeries were removed from the Medicare Inpatient Only in January 2018 and January 2020, respectively leading to same-day TKA surgeries increases from 1.2% in January 2016 to 62.4% by December 2020 Same-day volumes for THA surgery increased from 2% in January 2016 to 54.5% by December 2020. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have revolutionized modern anesthesia and surgery practices. Centers for Medicare Services officially removed total joint arthroplasty from the inpatient only services list, opening a new door for improved cost savings to patients and the healthcare system alike. In the post-COVID healthcare system numerous factors have pushed increasing numbers of total joint arthroplasties into the outpatient, ambulatory surgery center setting. Improved anesthesia and surgical practices in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative settings have revolutionized pain control, blood loss, and ambulatory status, rendering costly hospital stays obsolete in many cases. As the population ages and more total joint procedures are performed, the door is opening for more orthopedic procedures to exit the inpatient only setting in favor of the ambulatory setting.

Anesthesia-Related Closed Claims in Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

As higher acuity procedures continue to move from hospital-based operating rooms (HORs) to free-standing ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), concerns for patient safety remain high. We conducted a contemporary, descriptive analysis of anesthesia-related liability closed claims to understand risks to patient safety in the free-standing ASC setting, compared to HORs. Free-standing ASC and HOR closed claims between 2015 and 2022 from The Doctors Company that involved an anesthesia provider responsible for the claim were included. We compared the coded data of 212 free-standing ASC claims with 268 HOR claims in terms of severity of injury, major injuries, allegations, comorbidities, contributing factors, and financial value of the claim. Free-standing ASC claims accounted for almost half of all anesthesia-related cases (44%, 212 of 480). Claims with high severity of injury were less frequent in free-standing ASCs (22%) compared to HORs (34%; P = .004). The most common types of injuries in both free-standing ASCs and HORs were dental injury (17% vs 17%) and nerve damage (14% vs 11%). No difference in frequency was noted for types of injuries between claims from free-standing ASCs versus HORs--except that burns appeared more frequently in free-standing ASC claims than in HORs (6% vs 2%; P = .015). Claims with alleged improper management of anesthesia occurred less frequently among free-standing ASC claims than HOR claims (17% vs 29%; P = .01), as well as positioning-related injury (3% vs 8%; P = .025). No difference was seen in frequency of claims regarding alleged improper performance of anesthesia procedures between free-standing ASCs and HORs (25% vs 19%; P = .072). Technical performance of procedures (ie, intubation and nerve block) was the most common contributing factor among free-standing ASC (74%) and HOR (74%) claims. Free-standing ASC claims also had a higher frequency of communication issues between provider and patient/family versus HOR claims (20% vs 10%; P = .004). Most claims were not associated with major comorbidities; however, cardiovascular disease was less prevalent in free-standing ASC claims versus HOR claims (3% vs 11%; P = .002). The mean ± standard deviation total of expenses and payments was lower among free-standing ASC claims ($167,000 ± $295,000) than HOR claims ($332,000 ± $775,000; P = .002). This analysis of medical malpractice claims may indicate higher-than-expected patient and procedural complexity in free-standing ASCs, presenting patient safety concerns and opportunities for improvement. Ambulatory anesthesia practices should consider improving safety culture and communication with families while ensuring that providers have up-to-date training and resources to safely perform routine anesthesia procedures.

Safety and Outcome Measures of Ankle Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in an Ambulatory Surgical Center

The transition of traditionally hospital-based orthopedic procedures to the ambulatory surgery center setting provides many benefits from a patient care and financial perspective. Specifically, closed ankle fractures can potentially be managed at such centers without needing hospitalization. Adding to the paucity of data, this study describes the safety, cost, and outcomes of patients undergoing ankle fracture repair in an ambulatory surgery center. A retrospective chart review of 100 patients who underwent ankle fracture open reduction and internal fixation from a single ambulatory surgery center by 1 surgeon were reviewed. Demographic data, surgical characteristics including operating time and cost were collected. Short- and long-term complications, as well as, reoperation rates were reported and functional outcomes were described. Of the 100 patients, 59% were female and the overall average age was 50 ± 16 years. The average cost per case was $8,709.63 ± 6,360.18. The short-term complication rate was 16%, with surgical site infection reported as the most common complication. No postoperative hospital admissions were reported. Planned and unplanned hardware removal was performed in 7% and 5% of patients, respectively. The delayed union rate was 13%, in which 86% shared a history of smoking. Smoking history was the only statistically significant predictor of prolonged bone healing (p = .002). This investigation demonstrates low complications rates for surgeries performed in a surgery center when compared to historical rates of those procedures performed in the hospital. These results suggest that ambulatory surgery center-based ankle fracture repair does not increase complications while may decrease overall cost when compared to ankle ORIF in a hospital setting.

Increasing the Volume of Outpatient Total Joint Arthroplasty Procedures: An Evaluation of a Novel Rapid Recovery Pathway Program Within an Academic Medical Center.

There has been a national trend toward shifting joint arthroplasty procedures to the outpatient setting. These cases are often performed in freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), which are often not accessible to surgeons within academic practices. We sought to investigate a novel rapid recovery program used to transition arthroplasty patients to an outpatient-based care system within an academic medical center. All patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty between November 2019 and April 2021 were retrospectively evaluated for their eligibility for a rapid recovery pathway through the Extended Stay Unit (ESU) based on clinical and social criteria. Once admitted, patients were evaluated for whether they were discharged from the unit or if hospital admission was necessary. Out of the 444 patients deemed candidates for the rapid recovery program, 188 patients were admitted to the ESU (42.3%); 18 (9.6%) required inpatient hospital admission, with the majority of these due to failing physical therapy (16; 88.9%). Of the ESU patients who were successfully discharged home, 55 (32.4%) were discharged on postoperative day (POD) 0 and 115 (67.6%) on POD 1 (<23 hours). As total joint arthroplasties shift toward the outpatient setting, surgeons in academic institutions must employ strategies to increase their volume of patient candidates for outpatient procedures. Our retrospective study of prospectively collected data suggests the feasibility of creating a separate rapid recovery unit within the hospital that can be an effective method by which to eventually transition to the ASC setting.

Oral Sedation Anesthesia Protocol for In-Office Oculoplastic Surgery.

To present an oral anesthesia protocol for in-office oculoplastic surgery and to compare safety outcomes and patient and physician experiences to ambulatory surgery center (ASC)-based surgery with intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. A prospective study was performed on consecutive patients undergoing surgery at an oculofacial plastic surgery practice. Surgery was performed in an in-office setting using our standardized oral sedation protocol or at an ASC with intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. Preoperative and postoperative surveys were conducted by patients and physicians to compare surgical experience, safety, and efficacy of our oral sedation protocol for in-office surgery in the ASC setting. Two hundred and fifty-three patients (167 in-office and 86 at ASC) underwent surgery between March and November 2022. There was no significant difference in how patients or physicians rated their experience between the 2 locations. A significantly higher proportion of ASC patients would have rather had surgery in-office (34.9% vs. 19.2%; p = 0.006). A significantly higher number of physicians in the office setting would have rather performed surgery at the ASC than the reverse (12.7% vs. 2.3%, respectfully; p = 0.007). There were no safety complications reported in either setting. Within our patient cohort, the presented oral sedation protocol provided safe and effective anesthesia for in-office oculoplastic surgery that is comparable to an ASC.

Medicare procedural costs in ambulatory surgery centers versus hospital outpatient departments for spine surgeries.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of outpatient spine surgery, with reports of equivalent to improved patient outcomes compared with inpatient procedures. This has resulted in the increased use of outpatient surgery over time. However, there remains a paucity of literature evaluating the difference in costs between ambulatory surgery center (ASC)- and hospital outpatient department (HOPD)-based procedures for Medicare beneficiaries. Publicly available data from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were accessed via the Medicare Procedure Price Lookup tool. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify spine-specific procedures approved for the outpatient setting by CMS. Procedures were grouped into decompression (cervical, thoracic, and lumbar), fusion/instrumentation (cervical, lumbar, and sacroiliac), and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty cohorts, as well as an overall cohort. Data regarding total costs, facility fees, surgeon reimbursement, Medicare payments, and patient copayments were extracted for each procedure. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate means and standard deviations. Differences between ASC- and HOPD-associated costs were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Twenty-one individual CPT codes approved by Medicare for the ASC and/or HOPD setting were identified. Decompression procedures were associated with a significantly lower total cost ($4183 ± $411.07 vs $7583.67 ± $410.89, p < 0.001), facility fees ($2998 ± $0 vs $6397 ± $0, p < 0.001), Medicare payments ($3345.75 ± $328.80 vs $6064.75 ± $328.80, p < 0.001), and patient payments ($835.58 ± $82.13 vs $1515.58 ± $82.13, p < 0.001) in ASCs compared with HOPDs. Fusion/instrumentation procedures had significantly lower facility fees ($10,436.6 ± $2347.51 vs $14,161 ± $2147.07, p = 0.044) and Medicare payments ($9501.2 ± $1732.42 vs $13,757 ± $2037.58, p = 0.009) in ASCs, as well as a trend toward lower total costs ($11,876.8 ± $2165.22 vs $15,601.2 ± $2016.06, p = 0.076). Patient payments in the HOPD setting were significantly lower in the fusion/instrumentation cohort ($1843.6 ± $73.42 vs $2374.4 ± $433.48, p = 0.009). In the kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty cohort, there was no statistically significant difference between ASCs and HOPDs, despite lower overall costs in the ASC for all variables. Surgeon fees were the same regardless of setting for all procedures (p > 0.99). When combining decompression, fusion/instrumentation, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty CPT codes into a single cohort, ASC setting was associated with significant cost savings in total cost, facility fees, Medicare payments, and patient payments. In general, performing spine surgeries in ASCs is associated with cost savings compared with HOPDs. This was demonstrated for decompression and fusion/instrumentation, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty Medicare-approved outpatient procedures.

Patient-selection algorithm for outpatient shoulder arthroplasty in ambulatory surgery center: a retrospective update

Outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) presents a safe alternative to inpatient arthroplasty, while helping meet the rapidly rising volume of shoulder arthroplasty needs and minimizing health care costs. Identifying the correct patient for outpatient surgery is critical to maintaining the safety standards with TSA. This study sought to update an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) TSA patient-selection algorithm previously published by our institution. A retrospective chart review of TSAs was performed in an ASC at a single institution to collect patient demographics, perioperative risk factors, and postoperative outcomes with regard to reoperations, hospital admissions, and complications. The existing ASC algorithm for outpatient TSA was altered based on collected perioperative information, review of pertinent literature, and anesthesiology recommendations. A total of 319 TSAs were performed in an ASC in 298 patients over 7 years. Medically related complications occurred in 3 patients (0.9%) within 90 days of surgery, 2 of whom required hospital admission (0.6%) for acute kidney injury and pulmonary embolus. There were no instances of major cardiac events. Orthopedic-related complications occurred in 11 patients (3.4%), with hematoma development requiring evacuation and instability requiring revision being the most common causes. There was a low rate of perioperative complications and hospital admissions, confirming the safety of TSAs in an ASC setting. Based on prior literature and the population included, a pre-existing patient-selection algorithm was updated to better reflect increased comfort, knowledge, and data regarding safe patient selection for TSA in an ASC.

Patient Experiences With Hand Surgery in the Office Versus Ambulatory Surgery Center.

Background In hand surgery, physicians are working to improve patient satisfaction by offering several minor procedures in the physician's office via the Wide-Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet (WALANT) method.This study investigates the degree of patient satisfaction, out-of-pocket costs, peri- and postoperative pain, convenience, and comfort experienced with in-office hand procedures compared to ambulatory surgery center (ASC) procedures. Methods A 10-question survey consisting of a 10-point Likert scale of agreement and numerical questions was administered to patients treated with minor hand operations in the office and ASC settings in Florida, USA. The surgical procedures included are bony reconstruction, percutaneous pinning, open reduction internal fixation, closed fracture reduction, mass removal, endoscopic carpal tunnel release, Dupuytren's release/tendon repair, and trigger finger release. Procedures and patient demographics were assessed via chart review. Independent samples t-test was used to determine statistical associations with significance defined as p < 0.05. Results Patients reported a strong level of agreement in response to questions 1-3 and 6-8, indicating a high degree of convenience, comfort, and overall satisfaction with both in-office and ASC procedures. Positive metrics gauged in questions 1-3 and 6-8 averaged 9.64 ± 0.14 in the office setting and 9.62 ± 0.16 in the ASC setting.Questions 4 and 5 averaged 2.74 ± 0.29 in the office setting and 2.84 ± 4.12 in the ASC setting, indicating mild disagreement that the surgery or recovery period was painful. In-office patients reported taking 0.91 ± 2.80 days off work and ASC patients reported taking 12.43 ± 22.51 days off work following surgery (p = 0.0039). Respondents reported an out-of-pocket cost averaging $348 ± $943 in the office setting and $574 ± $1262 in the ASC setting, depending on insurance coverage (p = 0.3019). Conclusions Though costs and time off of work differed between the two groups due to the different procedures in either setting, patient satisfaction metrics were comparable. While patient satisfaction depends on the operating physician, these results demonstrate that patients treated in-office and in an ASC have similar levels of approval with their hand surgery care.

The Effect of Surgical Approach on the Outcomes of Same-Day Discharge Outpatient Total Hip Arthroplasty at a Single Ambulatory Surgery Center

BackgroundPrimary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly being performed in the outpatient setting. However, there is little known regarding the differences in same-day discharge (SDD) rates and complications of operative approach in same-day total hip arthroplasty in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) setting. MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed between July 2019 and October 2021 for all patients who underwent primary THA in a single freestanding ASC. Successful SDDs, surgical approaches, lengths of surgery, estimated blood losses (EBL), complications, and readmission events were recorded for each patient. Complications were compared using Pearson Chi-Squares, while EBL and surgery lengths were compared with 1-way analysis of variances (ANOVA) (alpha = 0.5). There were 17 total complications in 326 total hip arthroplasties (5.2%), including direct admissions to the emergency department, 30-day and 90-day readmissions, wound complications, instability, infection, and revision surgery. Among all complications, there were 5 direct admissions, making the successful SDD rate 98.5%. ResultsComplications and direct admissions were not associated with approach. The 30-day readmission rates were associated with approach, with no readmissions in the direct anterior approach (DAA) or the antero-lateral approach (AL) cohorts and 3 (4.3%) in the posterior approach (PA) cohort. ConclusionsIn the ASC setting, patients undergoing THA regardless of approach showed no difference in successful SDDs or complications aside from 30-day readmissions. Same-day THA can be safely performed in the DAA, AL, and PA to the hip.

Poster 199: Rate of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair performed at ambulatory surgery centers remains low despite significant cost savings for the healthcare system

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to 1) understand the differences in costs between rotator cuff repair (RCR) performed in ambulatory surgery center (ASC) versus outpatient hospital (OH) settings; 2) determine the patient’s out-of-pocket expenditure and surgeon reimbursement; and 3) characterize trends in expenditure for RCR over time. Methods: We identified patients who had undergone outpatient arthroscopic RCR in the United States (U.S.) using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. The database was chosen for its large, national sample of privately insured patients. Patients who had Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 29827 between April 1, 2013 and June 30, 2018 were included. Revision RCR procedures and procedures with a concomitant arthroscopic or open biceps tenodesis, Bankart repair, superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) repair, lysis of adhesions (CPT: 29828, 23430, 29806, 29807, 29825) were excluded. Day-of-surgery expenditure was identified by summing all claims billed with an “immediate-procedure-related code” in a 3-day window surrounding the date of the procedure (Procedure Date ± 1 Day). The day-of-surgery expenditure was broken down into anesthesia services, nerve block, operating room facility, surgical team, patient out-of-pocket expenditure, and other expenditures. Median and interquartile range were calculated for each variable. The breakdown of day- of-surgery expenditure and patient out-of-pocket expenditure between the OH and ASC settings were compared using two-tailed Mann Whitney U Tests. Spearman Rank Order Correlation was done for all variables to test for association between expenditure and year to determine trends over time. All values were inflation adjusted to 2018 dollars using the consumer price index for medical care. Results: A total of 43,020 patients were identified; 24,850 in the OH setting and 18,170 in the ASC setting. This converts to an ASC utilization of 42 percent over the study period. In 2018, ASC utilization was at 45%. We found that RCR performed in the OH setting resulted in 55% greater day-of-surgery expenditure (p&lt;0.001) than in the ASC setting. In the OH setting, operating room facility cost was 35% greater (p &lt;0.001), anesthesia services was 7.4% greater (p&lt;0.001), but nerve block was 2.4% lower (p&lt;0.001) (Figure 1). Additionally, for RCRs performed in the OH setting, Spearman coefficients demonstrated that immediate procedure cost (rho = 0.209, p &lt; 0.001) increased along with expenditure for anesthesia services (rho = 0.085, p &lt; 0.001), nerve block (rho = 0.135, p &lt; 0.001), and operating room facility cost (rho = 0.108, p &lt; 0.001) over our study period. For RCRs performed in the ASC setting, immediate procedure cost (rho = 0.309, p &lt; 0.001) increased along with expenditure for anesthesia services (rho = 0.116, p &lt; 0.001), nerve block (rho = 0.086, p &lt; 0.001), and operating room facility cost (rho = 0.148, p &lt; 0.001). Surgical team reimbursement was 6.3% greater in the ASC setting (p &lt; 0.001), but decreased over time in both the ASC (rho = -0.069, p &lt; 0.001) and OH (rho = -0.046, p &lt; 0.001) settings. Lastly, there was no difference in patient out-of-pocket expenditure for RCRs performed in the OH setting vs. ASC setting (Table 1). However, patient out-of-pocket expenditure for RCRs is increasing in both settings (OH: rho = 0.147, p &lt; 0.001; ASC: rho = 0.203, p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: RCR performed in an ASC setting results in significant cost savings for payers with a slight change in surgeon reimbursement and no change in patient-out-of-pocket expenditure. Most of the cost savings came from operating room facility expenditure. For the surgeon, surgical team reimbursements are higher in the ASC setting. However, the overall trend in surgical team reimbursement is downwards in both the ASC and OH settings whereas the cost per RCR to the healthcare system is increasing. Thus, surgeon reimbursement is becoming a smaller percentage of the immediate procedure cost and should not be further cut when policy makers evaluate strategies to decrease the economic burden of RCRs on the healthcare system, especially when the cost savings from performing a RCR far outweigh both the amount the surgeon is reimbursed as well as the difference in surgeon reimbursement between an ASC and OH. For a healthcare system, especially under a population health perspective, the incentive to perform RCRs at an ASC is significant. The cost savings come from almost every breakdown category. The cost savings achieved per RCR in an ASC vs. an OH equals about $4,000. With nearly 400,000 RCRs performed per year, the U.S. healthcare system could save a projected $1.6 billion per year on RCRs alone when the surgery is performed in an ASC. Thus, our study shows that there is a clear financial advantage to the healthcare system for RCRs being done at ASCs, although the patient does not realize these cost savings. [Table: see text]

Implementing a health-system–wide antibiotic stewardship program in ambulatory surgery centers

Background: In 2016, the CDC released the Core Elements of Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship, which extended the requirements previously released for hospital facilities and nursing homes to the outpatient setting. Several regulatory agencies focused on outpatient antimicrobial use. However, The Joint Commission and the Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) Leapfrog Group excluded ambulatory surgery centers from their medication management standards and questions. Due to the public health and patient safety benefits of implementing an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) and increasing regulatory interest in the matter, the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) Ambulatory Surgery Division formally launched a nationwide ASP for its ambulatory surgery centers in March 2021. Methods: HCA is a large healthcare system with 146 ASCs in 16 states in 2021. The structure of the ASCs are local surgery centers with a medical director, a nurse responsible for infection prevention, and a pharmacist at a regional level. The types of surgeries vary based on location and ASC site. In 2019, a multidisciplinary team formed the corporate planning committee. The program was modeled after the CDC Core Elements and The Joint Commission’s requirements for an ASP. Each ASC was asked to build a local ASP team, led by a local physician and a regionally based pharmacist. In addition, a stewardship goal was established to update all preoperative antibiotic surgical-site infection prophylaxis order sets. The corporate committee provided educational resources, including evidence-based guidelines for appropriate antibiotic selection for surgical-site infections. They collected antibiotic cost per case as a baseline metric to track and analyze. Pediatric, ophthalmic, and gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures were excluded from the program. Results: From January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021, including only centers that were operational during this period and excluding single specialty endoscopy centers, antibiotic cost per case decreased annually from $2.38 to $1.84 (t = 4.157; P &lt; .005), and the postoperative infection rate also declined from 0.370 to 0.304 (t = 2.079; P = .040). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that implementing a health-system–wide outpatient antibiotic stewardship program in the ambulatory surgery center setting is feasible and may contribute to decreased antibiotic cost per case and improved postoperative surgical site infection rates.Disclosures: None

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Inpatient Setting: A 1-Year Comparative Effectiveness Analysis.

Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as an alternative setting for surgical care as part of the national effort to lower health care costs. The literature regarding the safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in the ASC setting is limited to few small case series. To assess the safety and efficacy of MIS TLIF performed in the ASC vs inpatient hospital setting. A total of 775 patients prospectively enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database undergoing single-level MIS TLIF at a single ASC (100) or the inpatient hospital setting (675) were compared. Propensity matching generated 200 patients for analysis (100 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction were assessed. There were no significant differences regarding baseline demographic data, clinical history, or comorbidities after propensity matching. Only 1 patient required inpatient transfer from the ASC because of intractable pain. All other patients were discharged home within 23 hours of surgery. The rates of 90-day readmission (2.0%) and reoperation (0%) were equivalent between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, back pain, and leg pain) at 3 months that were maintained at 1 year. PROMs did not differ between groups at any time point. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery. In carefully selected patients, MIS TLIF may be performed safely in the ASC setting with no statistically significant difference in safety or efficacy in comparison with the inpatient setting.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A 1-Year Cost-Utility Analysis.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are the most common surgical approaches for medically refractory cervical radiculopathy. Rigorous cost-effectiveness studies comparing ACDF and PCF are lacking. To assess the cost-utility of ACDF vs PCF performed in the ambulatory surgery center setting for Medicare and privately insured patients at 1-year follow-up. A total of 323 patients who underwent 1-level ACDF (201) or PCF (122) at a single ambulatory surgery center were compared. Propensity matching generated 110 pairs (220 patients) for analysis. Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures, and quality-adjusted life-years were assessed. Direct costs (1-year resource use × unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts) and indirect costs (missed workdays × average US daily wage) were recorded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Perioperative safety, 90-day readmission, and 1-year reoperation rates were similar between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all patient-reported outcome measures at 3 months that was maintained at 12 months. The ACDF cohort had a significantly higher preoperative Neck Disability Index and a significantly greater improvement in health-state utility (ie, quality-adjusted life-years gained) at 12 months. ACDF was associated with significantly higher total costs at 1 year for both Medicare ($11 744) and privately insured ($21 228) patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ACDF was $184 654 and $333 774 for Medicare and privately insured patients, respectively, reflecting poor cost-utility. Single-level ACDF may not be cost-effective in comparison with PCF for surgical management of unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Inpatient Setting: One-Year Cost-Utility Analysis.

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Assess the cost-utility of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) performed in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) versus inpatient hospital setting for Medicare and privately insured patients at one-year follow-up. Outpatient ACDF has gained popularity due to improved safety and reduced costs. Formal cost-utility studies for ambulatory versus inpatient ACDF are lacking, precluding an accurate assessment of cost-effectiveness. A total of 6504 patients enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) undergoing one-level to two-level ACDF at a single ASC (520) or the inpatient hospital setting (5984) were compared. Propensity matching generated 748 patients for analysis (374 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed. Direct costs (1-year resource use×unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts) and indirect costs (missed workdays×average US daily wage) were recorded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Complication rates and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures and QALYs were similar between groups. Ambulatory ACDF was associated with significantly lower total costs at 1 year for Medicare ($5879.46) and privately insured ($12,873.97) patients, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for inpatient ACDF was $3,674,662 and $8,046,231 for Medicare and privately insured patients, respectively, reflecting unacceptably poor cost-utility. Inpatient ACDF is associated with significant increases in total costs compared to the ASC setting without a safety, outcome, or QALY benefit. The ASC setting is a dominant option from a health economy perspective for first-time one-l to two-level ACDF in select patients compared to the inpatient hospital setting.

Practice patterns surrounding the use of tibial interventions for claudication in the Medicare population

ObjectiveAt present, no data are available to support the use of tibial interventions in the treatment of claudication. We characterized the practice patterns surrounding tibial peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) for patients with claudication in the United States. MethodsUsing 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2017 to 2019, we conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent an index PVI for claudication. Patients with any previous PVI, acute limb ischemia, or chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the preceding 12 months were excluded. The primary outcome was the receipt or delivery of tibial revascularization during an index PVI for claudication, defined as tibial PVI with or without concomitant femoropopliteal PVI. Univariable comparisons and multivariable hierarchical logistic regression were used to assess the patient and physician characteristics associated with the use of tibial PVI for claudication. ResultsOf 59,930 Medicare patients who underwent an index PVI for claudication between 2017 and 2019, 16,594 (27.7%) underwent a tibial PVI (isolated tibial PVI, 38.5%; tibial PVI with concomitant femoropopliteal PVI, 61.5%). Of the 1542 physicians included in our analysis, the median physician-level tibial PVI rate was 20.0% (interquartile range, 9.1%-37.5%). Hierarchical logistic regression suggested that patient-level characteristics associated with tibial PVI for claudication included male sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.23), increasing age (aOR, 1.30-1.96), Black race (aOR, 1.47), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 1.86), diabetes (aOR, 1.36), no history of hypertension (aOR, 1.12), and never-smoking status (aOR, 1.64; P < .05 for all). Physician-level characteristics associated with tibial PVI for claudication included early-career status (aOR, 2.97), practice location in the West (aOR, 1.75), high-volume PVI practice (aOR, 1.87), majority of practice in an ambulatory surgery center or office-based laboratory setting (aOR, 2.37), and physician specialty. The odds of vascular surgeons performing tibial PVI were significantly lower compared with radiologists (aOR, 2.98) and cardiologists (aOR, 1.67; P < .05 for all). The average Medicare reimbursement per patient was dramatically higher for physicians performing high rates of tibial PVI (quartile 4 vs quartile 1-3, $12,023.96 vs $692.31 per patient; P < .001). ConclusionsTibial PVI for claudication was performed more often by nonvascular surgeons in high-volume practices and high-reimbursement settings. Thus, a critical need exists to reevaluate the indications, education, and reimbursement policies surrounding these procedures.

Patient Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Excision of Lumbar Synovial Cysts, With and Without a Spondylolisthesis, in an Ambulatory Care Center Setting.

Lumbar synovial cysts are thought to signal facet joint degeneration and possible instability, leading some surgeons to routinely add a fusion to the decompressive procedure. These recommendations were formulated before the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era. Here we describe our outcomes in surgical treatment of lumbar synovial cysts using MIS techniques. The charts of 117 patients who underwent MIS resection of a synovial cyst were retrospectively reviewed. All surgeries were carried out in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC). The preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected prospectively. Surgical variables and complications were also reviewed. The subset of 48 patients followed for over 1 year was analyzed, and the outcome of patients with and without a spondylolisthesis was compared. A total of 117 patients underwent MIS decompression of a synovial cyst. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. There were no perioperative complications or 30-day readmissions. Preoperative mean VAS and ODI were 6.2 and 46.7. The postoperative VAS and ODI declined by 3.0 and 22.0 over a mean of 125 days. There were 48 patients with a mean follow-up of 15 months, where the VAS and ODI declined by 2.8 and 22.5, respectively. In this subset, the 23 patients with a spondylolisthesis (all grade 1), were compared to the 25 patients without. The spondylolisthesis group VAS and ODI, preoperatively and postoperatively, declined by 3.3 and 26.1, respectively, while the nonspondylolisthesis group declined by 2.6 and 19.2. These results for each group in this study surpass the standard for a minimal clinically important difference. Patients with lumbar synovial cysts may safely undergo MIS decompression in an ASC setting, with a low risk of perioperative complications. The reduction in pain and disability is meaningful in the short term and sustained over the next 15 months. The presence of a grade 1 spondylolisthesis did not adversely impact patient outcomes over this time period. For patients undergoing MIS resection of a lumbar synovial cyst, with either the presence or absence of a grade 1 spondylolisthesis, the mandatory inclusion of a concomitant spinal fusion is brought into question. This work is among the largest series of synovial cysts published in which the MIS technique is applied. It demonstrates the efficacy of the procedure, along with its safety and appropriateness for performance in an ambulatory care setting. Moreover, it describes the outcomes using the patient-reported outcome measures VAS and ODI. Finally, the long-term outcomes of patients with and without spondylolisthesis are compared, further supporting the position that when performing a decompression of a synovial cyst with an associated grade 1 spondylolisthesis, a concomitant fusion may not always be necessary.

Poster 264: Ambulatory Surgery Centers Reduce Day-of-Surgery Expenditures for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Without Increasing Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenditure: A Breakdown and Comparison of Expenditures on 34,862 Patients

Objectives: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the most performed orthopedic procedures in the United States and the volume and cost are increasing annually. Patients are increasingly expected to share a larger economic burden with out-of-pocket expenditures. Recently, there has been a shift to perform more ACLR surgeries outside of the hospital setting to reduce costs. The purpose of this project is to understand the differences in costs between ACLR performed in ambulatory surgery center (ASC) versus outpatient hospital settings and if or how this affects the patient’s out-of-pocket expenditure. Methods: We identified patients who had undergone outpatient arthroscopic ACLR in the United States (U.S.) using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. The database was chosen for its large, national sample of privately insured patients. Patients who had Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 29888 between April 1, 2013 and June 30, 2017 were included. Revision ACL procedures and procedures with a concomitant microfracture, medial collateral ligament, lateral collateral ligament, or posterior cruciate ligament repair or reconstruction (CPT: 29879, 27405, 27409, 27427, 29889) were excluded. Day-of-surgery expenditure was identified by summing all claims billed with an “immediate-procedure-related code” in a 3-day window surrounding the date of the procedure (Procedure Date ± 1 Day). The day-of-surgery expenditure was broken down into implant, anesthesia services, regional anesthesia, operating room facility, surgical team, and other expenditures. Regional anesthesia is not included in anesthesia services expenditure. Median and interquartile range were calculated for each variable. The breakdown of day-of-surgery expenditure and patient out-of-pocket expenditure between the outpatient hospital and ASC settings were compared using two-tailed Mann Whitney U Tests. Spearman Rank Order Correlation was done for all variables to test for association between expenditure and year to determine trends over time. All values were inflation adjusted to 2017 dollars. Results: A total of 34,862 patients were identified. Our results indicated that ACLR performed in the outpatient hospital setting result in 60% greater day-of-surgery expenditure (p &lt; 0.001) than in the ASC setting. In the outpatient hospital setting, operating room facility cost was 36% greater (p &lt;0.001), anesthesia services was 7.1% greater (p&lt;0.001), implant was 28% greater (p&lt;0.001), but regional anesthesia was 22% lower (p&lt;0.001). Additionally, for ACLRs performed in the outpatient hospital setting, Spearman coefficients demonstrated that expenditure for anesthesia services decreased (rho = -0.037, p &lt; 0.001) and operating room facility cost increased (rho = 0.058, p &lt; 0.001) over our study period. For ACLRs performed in the ASC setting, expenditure for regional anesthesia decreased (rho = -0.039, p &lt; 0.001). Surgical team reimbursement decreased over time for ACLRs performed in both the ASC (rho = -0.156, p &lt; 0.001) and outpatient hospital (rho = -0.11, p &lt; 0.001) settings. Lastly, total patient out-of-pocket expenditure for ACLRs performed in the outpatient hospital setting vs. ASC setting was very similar though statistically different (p = 0.02, &lt;$10 difference). Conclusions: ACLR performed in an ASC setting results in significant cost savings for payers with no change in surgeon reimbursement. Most of the cost savings came from operating room facility expenditure. For patients, there is almost no financial difference regarding where the ACLR was performed, with the difference in patient out-of-pocket expenditure being less than $10. For the surgeon, surgical team reimbursements are essentially neutral between the ASC and outpatient hospital settings. However, the overall trend in surgical team reimbursement is downwards in both the ASC and outpatient hospital settings. For the two biggest stakeholders in the surgery (surgeon and patient), there are no financial incentives to do an ACLR at an outpatient hospital over an ASC. For a healthcare system, especially under a population health perspective, the incentive to perform ACLRs at an ASC is significant. The cost savings come from every breakdown category, with implant and operating room facility costs being significantly decreased in the ASC setting. Decreased implant costs were likely due to preferred vendor contracts for ASCs. The cost savings achieved per ACLR in an ASC vs. an outpatient hospital equals almost $6000. With nearly 100,000 ACLRs performed per year, the U.S. healthcare system could save a projected $600 million per year on ACLRs alone when the surgery is performed in an ASC. Thus, our study shows that there is a clear financial advantage to the healthcare system for ACLRs being done at ASCs, although the patient does not realize these cost savings. [Figure: see text][Table: see text][Table: see text][Table: see text]

Increasing Patient Age, Ambulatory Surgery Center Setting, and Surgeon Experience Are Associated With Shorter Operative Duration for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PurposeTo identify variables associated with operative duration and intraoperative or perioperative complications after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).MethodsSurgeons who performed a minimum of 20 arthroscopic cases per month were recruited for participation through the Arthroscopy Association of North America from 2011 through 2013. All participants agreed to voluntarily submit data for 6 months of consecutive knee and shoulder arthroscopy cases. Only subjects coded for ACLR were analyzed, whereas revision cases were excluded. ACLRs were subdivided into isolated ACLR, ACLR with minor concomitant procedures, and ACLR with major concomitant procedures. Patient, surgeon, and surgical variables were analyzed for their effect on operative duration and complications.ResultsOne hundred thirty-five orthopaedic surgeons participated, providing 1,180 primary ACLRs (399 isolated ACLRs, 441 ACLRs plus minor procedures, and 340 ACLRs plus major procedures). Most surgeons were in private practice (72.8%). Most patients were male patients (58.8%), and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.2 ± 5.1. The overall mean operative duration was 95.9 ± 42.0 minutes (isolated ACLRs, 88.4 ± 36.8 minutes; ACLRs plus minor concomitant procedures, 90.1 ± 37.6 minutes; and ACLRs plus major concomitant procedures, 118.5 ± 112.4 minutes; P < .001). Patient age was inversely correlated with operative duration (ρ = –0.221, P < .001). Surgical procedures performed in an ambulatory surgery center had a shorter mean operative duration (91.5 ± 40.4 minutes) compared with those performed in a hospital setting (105.0 ± 43.8 minutes, P < .001). There were 22 intraoperative and 47 early postoperative complications, with the most common being deep vein thrombosis (n = 15). Surgical volume (knee arthroscopy cases per month) correlated inversely with operative time (ρ = –0.200, P = .001) and complication rate (ρ = –0.112, P < .001). Patient BMI was associated with increased odds of early postoperative complications on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 1.060; P = .044; 95% confidence interval, 1.002-1.121).ConclusionsIncreasing patient age, private practice, ambulatory surgery center setting, and surgeon experience are associated with a shorter operative duration for ACLR. Although an increasing number of arthroscopic knee procedures performed by surgeons correlated with fewer complications, only increasing patient BMI significantly predicted odds of complications.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, prognostic case series.

Pro-Con Debate: Are Patients With a Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Suitable to Receive Care in a Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center?

Migration of surgical and other procedures that require anesthesia care from a hospital to a free-standing ambulatory surgery center (ASC) continues to grow. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) might benefit from receiving their care in a free-standing ASC setting. However, these patients have cardiovascular comorbidities that can elevate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. CIEDs are also complex devices and perioperative management varies between devices marketed by various manufacturers and require consultation and ancillary services, which may not be available in a free-standing ASC. Thus, perioperative care of these patients can be challenging. Therefore, the suitability of this patient population in a free-standing ASC remains highly controversial. Although applicable advisories exist, considerable discussion continues with surgeons and other proceduralists about the concerns of anesthesiologists. In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the arguments for and against scheduling a patient with a CIED in a free-standing ASC.

The successful migration of total joint arthroplasty from the hospital inpatient to outpatient ASC setting

BackgroundThis study was undertaken to analyze the clinical results and complication rate of patients undergoing outpatient total joint arthroplasty by a single orthopedic group. All surgeries were performed in the practice-owned ambulatory surgery center (ASC). MethodsAll patients indicated for outpatient total joint arthroplasty from 2016-2019 with complete pre and post-operative patient reported outcomes were enrolled in the study including hip, knee and partial knee replacements. Patient reported outcomes including HOOS, KOOS and VR-12 were collected at six months. Patient complication and satisfaction data was also collected. ResultsThere were 1007 patients enrolled in the study. At six months, THA HOOS and VR-12 scores improved to 82.2 and 54.5/45. TKA KOOS and VR-12 scores improved to an average of 74.3 and 54.0/43.6. At six months, UKA scores improved to an average of 73.6 and 55.1/41.2. All HOOS, KOOS and VR-12 PCS scores improvements were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and met MCID thresholds. A separate cohort of 1898 regionally tracked cases with comprehensive global complication data exhibited 111 complications (unplanned post-operative events generating a medical expense) including manipulation 13 (0.68%), DVT/PE 4 (0.2%), medical 45 (2.4%), wound 8 (0.4%), infection 8 (0.4%). Sixty-six outpatient cases (3.5%) experienced clinical complications requiring some form of additional treatment. ConclusionOutpatient joint arthroplasty performed in the ASC is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients with complication rates that compares favorably to inpatient procedures.