A retrospective cohort analysis was used for this investigation. The goal of this study was to compare surgical results and medical problems after 90 days for patients who had outpatient versus inpatient single-level and multiple-level cervical disk replacement (CDR). Cervical disc replacement is a popular choice for individuals undergoing cervical spine surgeries. 

In contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR preserves motion and has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of neighboring segment disease. There is no evidence in the existing literature to suggest any difference in safety between CDR patients treated in an outpatient setting and those treated in an inpatient setting. But most of these studies only follow their subjects for a short time and use tiny sample sizes. 

Between 2010 and 2019, researchers looked at data from the PearlDiver patient database to create a retrospective cohort study. Patients having at least 2 years of follow-up after single-level or multiple-level CDR were compiled. Both inpatients and outpatients were separated within each operation cohort. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. All told, 2,294 patients underwent single-level CDR, of which 1,788 inpatients and 506 outpatients underwent single-level CDR. Of the 236 patients that received multi-level CDR, 49 were treated as outpatients, while the remaining 187 were hospitalized. About a year after their initial CDR procedure, outpatient CDR patients in the single-level CDR cohort were less likely to require a decompressive laminectomy (odds ratio=0.471; 95% CI: 0.205-0.945; P=0.05). Multivariate analysis of outpatient versus inpatient multiple-level CDR did not reveal any significant differences in 1 and 2-year surgical complications or 90-day postoperative problems. 

The safety profile of patients who received single-level and multi-level CDR as outpatients were found to be comparable to that of patients who underwent these procedures while hospitalized.

Source: journals.lww.com/spinejournal/Abstract/2022/11150/No_Significant_Differences_in_Postoperative.4.aspx