Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 13, 2026
Novel Mini-open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Published on: June 6, 2025
Variability in Standard Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Fusion Determined by National Databases
Jacob R Joseph1, Brandon W Smith1, Paul Park1
1Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Objective:
National databases are used with increasing frequency in spine surgery literature to evaluate patient outcomes. The differences between individual databases in relationship to outcomes of lumbar fusion are not known. We evaluated the variability in standard outcomes of posterior lumbar fusion between the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (NIS).
Methods:
NIS and UHC databases were queried for all posterior lumbar fusions (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code 81.07) performed in 2012. Patient demographics, comorbidities (including obesity), length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, and complications such as urinary tract infection, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, durotomy, and surgical site infection were collected using specific International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes.
Results:
Analysis included 21,470 patients from the NIS database and 14,898 patients from the UHC database. Demographic data were not significantly different between databases. Obesity was more prevalent in UHC (P = 0.001). Mean LOS was 3.8 days in NIS and 4.55 in UHC (P < 0.0001). Complications were significantly higher in UHC, including urinary tract infection, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, surgical site infection, and durotomy. In-hospital mortality was similar between databases.
Conclusions:
NIS and UHC databases had similar demographic patient populations undergoing posterior lumbar fusion. However, the UHC database reported significantly higher complication rate and longer LOS. This difference may reflect academic institutions treating higher-risk patients; however, a definitive reason for the variability between databases is unknown. The inability to precisely determine the basis of the variability between databases highlights the limitations of using administrative databases for spinal outcome analysis.
