Search

Background: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common condition that can be characterized with disabling pain. While most patients recover without surgery, some still require operative intervention. The epidemiology and trends of laminotomy for LDH have not been recently studied, and current practice patterns might be different from historical norms. This study aimed to investigate the trends of inpatient and outpatient laminotomies for LDH and compare complication rates between these two sites of service. Methods: A large, national database was utilized to identify patients >8 years old who underwent a laminotomy for LDH between 2009 and 2019. Two cohorts were created based on site of surgery: inpatient versus outpatient. The outpatient cohort was defined as patients who had a length of stay less than 1 day without any associated hospitalization. Epidemiologic analyses for these cohorts were performed by demographics. Patients in both groups were then 1:1 propensity-score matched based on age, sex, insurance type, geographic region, and comorbidities. Ninety-day postoperative complications were compared between cohorts utilizing multivariate logistic regressions. Results: The average incidence of laminotomy for LDH was 13.0 per 10,000 persons-years. Although the national trend in incidence had not changed from 2009 to 2019, the proportion of outpatient laminotomies significantly increased in this time period (p=.02). Outpatient laminotomies were more common among younger and healthier patients. Patients with inpatient laminotomies had significantly higher rates of surgical site infections (odds ratio [OR] 1.61, p

Background Regulators increasingly rely on registries for decision making related to high‐risk medical devices in the United States. However, the limited uniform standards for registries may create substantial variability in registry implementation and utility to regulators. We surveyed the current landscape of US cardiovascular device registries and chart the extent of inconsistency in goals, administration, enrollment procedures, and approach to data access. Methods and Results A systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines identified studies (1995–2017) referencing cardiovascular device registries with a US‐based institution. Registries were then evaluated by reviewing associated articles and websites. Extracted data included device type, primary scientific aim(s), funding, stewardship (eg, administration of registry procedures), enrollment procedures, informed consent process, and mechanisms to access data for research. The 138 cardiovascular device registries in the cohort covered devices addressing interventional cardiology (65.9%), arrhythmias (15.2%), heart failure (10.1%), and valvular disease (10.1%). While the majority (55.8%) were industry‐funded, stewardship was predominantly overseen by academic centers (74.0%). Most registry participation was voluntary (77.5%), but a substantial minority (19.7%) were required as a condition of device implantation. Informed consent requirements varied widely, with written consent required in only 55.1% of registries. Registry data were primarily accessible only to stewards (84.1%), with 13.8% providing pathways for external applications. Conclusions The majority of cardiovascular device registries were funded privately under the auspices of academic institutions, which set the rules for data access. The substantial variation between cardiovascular device registries suggests a role for regulators to further strengthen guidelines to improve quality, consistency, and ethical standards.