Affiliation:
1. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Abstract
Study Design.
Retrospective cohort study.
Objective.
Characterize physical therapy (PT) utilization following single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF).
Summary of Background Data.
PLF is a common procedure that is increasing in frequency. After such surgeries, PT may be considered to facilitate mobilization and return to activities. However, the usage of such therapy has not been well-characterized in the literature.
Materials and Methods.
Patients undergoing single-level PLF were identified from the 2010 to 2021 PearlDiver administrative database. These patients were stratified based on usage of therapy, home versus outpatient therapy, and timing of therapy within the year after surgery. To determine predictors of therapy, patient characteristics were determined and multivariable regressions were performed.
Results.
A total of 213,240 patients undergoing single-level PLF were identified, of which therapy was done in the year after surgery for 63,231 (29.0%, of which home therapy accounted for 16.5% of therapy visits). Of those who utilized PT, the average number of visits was 10.6±10.6. Home therapy peaked within the first month after surgery and outpatient therapy peaked at month two. Factors associated with any PT following PLF in decreasing odds ratio (OR) were having commercial insurance (OR: 1.68), being from the Northeast (OR: 1.41), age (OR: 1.13 for 70+ of age) female sex (OR: 1.09), and ECI (OR: 1.04 per point) (P<0.001 for all). Of those who received therapy, factors associated with home PT utilization were being from the Northeast (OR: 2.55), age (OR: 1.91 for 70+ of age), Medicaid insurance (OR: 1.48), female sex (OR: 1.39), and interbody fusion (OR:1.07) (P<0.001 for all).
Conclusions.
After single-level PLF, the minority of patients received home or outpatient PT. Of those who did, there was significant variation in the number of visits, with nonmedical factors such as insurance plan and geographic region being strongly associated suggesting room for more consistent practice patterns.
Level of Evidence:
Level 3.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)