The first lumbar artificial disc replacement at the surgery center did not feel like a first to Philip Saville, MD. He had already performed the procedure in outpatient settings. The operation itself was familiar. What mattered was everything built around it.
The anesthesia team had to prepare the patient to awaken comfortably and recover quickly. The approach surgeon had to reach the lumbar spine while minimizing trauma to the surrounding tissue. Dr. Saville had to complete his portion efficiently enough to limit the patient’s time under anesthesia. Each part of the episode had to work.
“All those things mean the patient can recover quicker and go home the same day rather than having to spend one, two or three days in the hospital,” Dr. Saville, founder of the Saville Spine Institute and minimally invasive spine surgeon at DISC Surgery Center at Palm Beach (Fla.), told Becker’s.
The milestone was not evidence that lumbar disc replacement had suddenly become simple. It showed that the system surrounding the surgery had become specialized enough to make a hospital stay unnecessary for the right patient.
That distinction captures a larger shift in spine care. Procedures once defined by hospitalization are moving into outpatient centers. Fusion is no longer the automatic answer for every damaged disc. Robotics is beginning to influence not only how implants are placed, but who can reproduce the best outcomes.
The future Dr. Saville sees is not built around one transformative device. It is built around concentration: the right operation, the right patient and a team that performs little else.
The operation did not shrink on its own
Moving a spine procedure outpatient requires more than a smaller incision. The patient has to be medically appropriate. Pain and nausea must be controlled without relying on an inpatient floor. The operation must be efficient enough that prolonged anesthesia does not erase the benefits of leaving sooner.
Lumbar disc replacement adds another layer because surgeons generally approach the spine from the front, moving around major blood vessels and abdominal structures to reach the damaged disc. Dr. Saville emphasized the importance of respecting the soft tissues during that exposure. Less disruption can mean less inflammation and pain after surgery. But no single surgeon determines whether the patient goes home.
“It’s a team approach,” he said. That team includes anesthesia clinicians, nurses, surgical staff and the physician performing the approach. Each contributes to whether the procedure feels like a major hospitalization or a defined episode that ends in the patient’s own bedroom.
The outpatient movement is often described as a surgical innovation. In practice, it is an operational one. The technique may make the operation possible. The surrounding system makes same-day discharge realistic.
Fusion is no longer the assumed destination
Disc replacement has existed for decades, but it has become a larger part of Dr. Saville’s practice over the past seven years. In the cervical spine, he estimated that he now performs disc replacement rather than fusion in more than 80% of appropriate cases, and possibly closer to 90%.
His use of lumbar disc replacement is more selective, but he still favors preserving motion when the patient and anatomy allow it.
The shift has been gradual. Early clinical trials used narrow criteria. The ideal candidate was generally young, with a soft-disc herniation and little degenerative change. As surgeons gained experience and followed patients over time, some began expanding those boundaries.
“We started to push the boundaries for that,” Dr. Saville said. “And we see those patients do well too.” He now performs cervical disc replacements in some patients older than 65, an age group he said would have been considered much less frequently five years ago.
The change does not mean every fusion candidate should instead receive an artificial disc. It means fusion has lost its status as the unquestioned default.
The candidate matters. So does the surgeon.
Motion preservation depends heavily on patient selection. An artificial disc allows the operated segment to continue moving. That is its central benefit, and the reason it can fail in the wrong anatomy.
Patients with instability or substantial arthritis in the facet joints behind the spine may fare better with fusion. If those joints are already painful, preserving movement can preserve the pain. Severe bony central canal stenosis may also make anterior cervical fusion or a posterior motion-preserving procedure, such as laminoplasty, more appropriate.
“You’re going to have a bad outcome, and no one wants that,” Dr. Saville said. Yet he believes some patients are told they require fusion when disc replacement remains feasible. The difference may come down to surgical technique.
In the cervical spine, bone spurs can narrow the openings where nerves exit. A surgeon who does not fully decompress those areas may leave the patient with persistent symptoms and conclude the artificial disc failed. Dr. Saville said he has become more aggressive in addressing that compression as his experience has grown.
“A lot of the failed disc replacements in the arthritic necks are due to not releasing all of the stenosis,” he said. “Once you address that, they do very well.”
That introduces a complication into the broader motion-preservation debate. The outcome is not determined only by whether the patient was a candidate. It may also depend on whether the surgeon has performed enough of the procedure to recognize where the conventional boundaries can safely move. A poor result can reflect the wrong operation. It can also reflect the right operation incompletely performed.
The robot is still mostly placing screws
Robotics is the technology Dr. Saville believes could most significantly change spine surgery during the next decade.
Its current role, however, remains limited. Today’s systems are particularly effective at helping surgeons place pedicle screws according to a preoperative plan. That improves precision, but Dr. Saville considers screw placement only one portion of an operation.
The next leap, Dr. Saville said, will come when robots move beyond screw placement to perform decompressions and position implants, including artificial discs, with greater consistency. “Those next iterations are going to be what transforms outcomes,” he said.
The technology could also narrow the variation among surgeons and institutions. Today, patients may receive excellent outcomes at high-volume centers while experiencing less predictable results elsewhere. Part of that difference comes from judgment and experience that cannot be easily transferred.
Robotic guidance may make portions of that expertise more reproducible. Dr. Saville expects the technology to “level the field,” helping more surgeons reach similar technical outcomes rather than concentrating the best results in a small number of practices.
That does not mean the robot will replace judgment. It means fewer outcomes may depend on whether the patient happened to find the surgeon with the most refined manual technique.
The hospital’s breadth can become a disadvantage
Dr. Saville trained at New York City-based Hospital for Special Surgery, an institution dedicated to orthopedics and related specialties.
He views that concentration as one of its defining strengths. A nurse in an orthopedic operating room understands the procedures, equipment and workflow because that is the environment in which the nurse works every day.
The same principle guides the outpatient center where Dr. Saville operates. The facility is focused on spine and orthopedics. Its staff has experience with outpatient musculoskeletal care rather than moving among unrelated surgical specialties.
In a general hospital, a nurse who regularly works in colorectal surgery may be assigned to help in a spine room. The operation can still be completed safely, Dr. Saville said, but the unfamiliarity introduces an additional layer of difficulty.
Specialization removes that friction. The team knows what the surgeon will need. The turnover process is familiar. The recovery staff understands the expectations for an outpatient spine patient.
A general hospital’s advantage is its ability to handle almost anything. For a carefully selected patient undergoing a defined procedure, that breadth may provide little additional value.
Dr. Saville also believes orthopedic-only facilities may ultimately demonstrate lower infection rates because they do not perform contaminated procedures involving the bowel or actively infected tissue in adjacent operating rooms. That expectation would need to be evaluated through outcomes data, but it reflects the logic behind purpose-built centers: remove services the patient does not need and concentrate the people and resources they do.
The concierge model is not only about convenience
Dr. Saville built his practice around another scarce resource: time. Concierge medicine is often associated with faster appointments, direct communication and a more polished patient experience.
For Dr. Saville, the additional time has a clinical purpose. A patient may describe the problem as back pain, but pain may not be the outcome that matters most. The central concern could be declining mobility, inability to work, loss of athletic function or fear of becoming dependent on others.
The procedure should address the patient’s actual goal. The concierge model allows Dr. Saville to spend longer identifying that goal and building a more individualized plan.
“We can really find out what their main problem is, whether it’s pain, lack of mobility or lack of function, and address that,” he said.
That becomes particularly important in a field where imaging findings are common and treatment choices are multiplying. A surgeon may be able to offer fusion, disc replacement or another motion-preserving procedure. The presence of more options does not make the choice easier. It creates a greater need to understand what the patient is trying to regain.
A destination center must earn the trip
The word “destination” is increasingly attached to orthopedic programs. A building alone does not create one. The model works only when the expertise, staffing and patient experience are sufficiently different from what is available in a conventional setting.
For Dr. Saville, the outpatient center combines those elements. The facility is modern and focused. The staff is familiar with spine and orthopedic procedures. The patient receives care from a team designed around same-day recovery rather than being fitted into a hospital built for far broader needs.
Patients can return home and sleep in their own beds. Insurers and patients may face lower costs than they would for the same procedure in a hospital. Dr. Saville said the early response from patients has been overwhelmingly positive. But the model depends on maintaining discipline around selection.
The outpatient center is not the right setting for every patient or operation. Medical complexity, surgical risk and the need for broader hospital resources can make inpatient care necessary. The success of the model lies partly in knowing who should not enter it.
The next frontier is not a smaller incision
The spine field has spent years competing over what qualifies as minimally invasive. One surgeon may use a slightly shorter incision. Another may perform the procedure through a narrow tube. A third may use an endoscope.
Those differences matter, but they can distract from the larger measure of invasiveness. How long was the patient under anesthesia? How much tissue was disrupted? How much pain followed? Did the patient need to remain in the hospital? How quickly did function return?
Dr. Saville’s vision joins those questions together. A procedure is not less invasive simply because the incision is small. An outpatient operation is not better simply because the patient went home.
The entire episode has to improve. That is why the first lumbar artificial disc replacement at the center mattered. It was not a demonstration that every major spine surgery belongs outside the hospital. It was evidence that, with the right patient and a team built for the procedure, the hospital no longer has to be the default.
The next phase of spine surgery may therefore look less dramatic than a new robot or implant. It may look like a patient arriving at a smaller facility, receiving a motion-preserving operation from a specialized team and leaving hours later.
“It’s safe to do these outpatient,” Dr. Saville said. “It’s cheaper for the insurance. It’s cheaper for the patient. They go home and sleep in their bed. It’s better outcomes.”
He added one important caveat: “There doesn’t seem like a huge downside if, at the end of the day, it’s the right patient.”
At the Becker’s 32nd Annual Meeting: The Business and Operations of ASCs, taking place October 29-31 in Chicago, ASC leaders, surgeons and healthcare executives will explore strategies to drive growth, enhance operational performance, navigate reimbursement challenges and prepare for the future of ambulatory surgery. Apply for complimentary registration now.