LAUSR

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database years 2010-2015. OBJECTIVE Investigate which short-term outcomes differ for cervical laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Conflicting reports exist in spine literature regarding short-term outcomes following cervical laminoplasty and posterior laminectomy and fusion. The objective of this study was to compare the 30-day outcomes for these two treatment groups for multilevel cervical pathology. METHODS Patients who underwent cervical laminoplasty or posterior laminectomy and fusion were identified in NSQIP based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code: Laminoplasty 63050 and 63051, Posterior cervical laminectomy 63015 and 63045, and instrumentation 22842. Propensity-adjusted multivariate regressions assessed differences in postoperative length of stay, adverse events, discharge disposition, and readmission. RESULTS 3796 patients were included: 2397 (63%) underwent cervical laminectomy and fusion and 1399 (37%) underwent cervical laminoplasty. Both groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, ASA, CCI and had similar rates of malnutrition, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and history for steroid use. Age > 70 and age <50 were not associated with one treatment group over the other (P>0.05). Compared with laminoplasty patients, laminectomy and fusion patients had increased lengths of stay (LOS) (4.5 vs 3.7 days, P<0.01) and increased rates of adverse events (41.7 vs 35.9%, P < 0.01), discharge to rehab (16.4 vs 8.6%, P < 0.01) and skilled nursing facilities (12.2 vs 9.7%, P = 0.02), and readmission (6.2 vs 4.5%, P = 0.05). Both groups experienced similar rates of death, pulmonary embolus, deep vein thrombosis, deep and superficial surgical site infection, and reoperation (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS Posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion patients were found to have increased LOS, readmissions, and complications despite having similar pre-op demographics and comorbidities. Patients and surgeons should consider these risks when considering surgical treatment for cervical pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.