• The Effect of Two Attending Surgeons on Patients with Large Curve Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Undergoing Posterior Spinal Fusion

      Bosch, Liam Christian; The University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix; Shrader, Wade (The University of Arizona., 2017-06-01)
      Surgical correction of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) carries a substantial risk of complication. The literature supports improved perioperative outcomes through the two surgeon strategy in other complex orthopedic procedures. Does the presence of 2 versus 1 attending surgeons affect the perioperative morbidity of posterior spinal fusion (PSF) in patients with AIS curves greater than 70°? We reviewed the database from a large regional children’s hospital of all patients with AIS curves greater than 70° who underwent PSF from 2009‐2014 and divided the cohort into single versus 2‐surgeon groups (28 vs. 19 cases, respectively). We analyzed cases for length of surgery, estimated blood loss, and length of stay. The groups were identical when comparing age, gender, spinal levels fused, and average ASA score. However, the average Cobb angle in the single surgeon group was significantly less than in the 2 surgeon group at 78.4 vs 84.0 degrees, respectively (p=0.049). Mean operative time for single versus 2 surgeons was 238 (SD 48) vs 212 (SD 46) minutes (p=0.078). Mean percent estimated blood loss was 26% (SD 14.1) for single surgeon vs 31% (SD 14.9) for 2 surgeons (p=0.236), and mean estimated blood loss for single surgeon vs 2 surgeons was 830ml (SD 361) vs 1045ml (SD 346) (p=0.052). Mean length of stay was significantly decreased in the 2 surgeon group at 5.16 days (SD 1.7) versus the single surgeon group at 6.82 days (SD 6.82) (p=0.002). The use of 2 surgeons in AIS deformity correction at an experienced regional children’s hospital did not improve clinical outcomes. The average length of stay was reduced in the two‐surgeon group, but there was no significant impact on blood loss or operative time. However, this study does not rule out the potential for positive impact with a two‐surgeon strategy, and given previous supportive data in the literature, this approach should further evaluated to determine its effect on improving perioperative outcomes.