How does spinopelvic alignment influence short-term clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion in patients with single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis?

Context: Studies on adult spinal deformity have shown spinopelvic malalignment results in worse outcomes. However, it is unclear if this relationship exists in patients with single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) receiving short-segment fusions. Aims: To determine if spinopelvic alignment affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF) with or without a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with L4-5 DS. Settings and Design: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients who underwent PLDF for L4-5 DS at a single tertiary referral academic medical center. Materials and Methods: Patients were divided into groups based on preoperative cutoff values of 20° for pelvic tilt (PT) and 11° for pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) with subsequent reclassification based on correction to <20° PT or 11° PI-LL. Radiographic outcomes and PROMs were compared between the groups. Statistical Analysis Used: Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to determine whether radiographic cutoff values served as the independent predictors of change in PROMs. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: A total of 188 patients with completed PROMs were included for the analysis. Preoperative PT >20° was associated with significantly greater reduction in PI-LL (-2.41° vs. 1.21°, P = 0.004) and increase in sacral slope (SS) (1.06° vs. -1.86°, P = 0.005) compared to patients with preoperative PT <20°. On univariate analysis, no significant differences were observed between any groups with regard to PROMs. Preoperative sagittal alignment measures and postoperative correction were not found to be independent predictors of improvement in clinical outcomes. Conclusion: A preoperative PT >20° is associated with improved PI-LL reduction and an increase in SS. However, no differences in clinical outcomes were found 1 year postoperatively for patients with preoperative PT >20° and PI-LL ≥11° compared to patients below this threshold.

Medicaid Reimbursement for Common Spine Procedures: Are Compensation Rates Consistent?

STUDY DESIGN: Health Services Research. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the variability of Medicaid (MCD) reimbursement for patients who require spine procedures, and to assess how this compares to regional Medicare (MCR) reimbursement as a marker of access to spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The current health care environment includes two major forms of government reimbursement: MCD and MCR, which are regulated and funded by the state and federal government, respectively. METHODS: MCD reimbursement rates from each state were obtained for eight spine procedures, utilizing online web searches: anterior cervical decompression and fusion, posterior cervical decompression and fusion, posterior lumbar decompression, single-level posterior lumbar fusion, posterior fusion for deformity (less than six levels; six to 12 levels; 13+ levels), and lumbar microdiscectomy. Discrepancy in reimbursement for these procedures on a state-to-state basis, as well as overall differences in MCD versus MCR reimbursement, was determined. Procedures were examined to identify whether certain surgical interventions have greater discrepancy in reimbursement. RESULTS: The average MCD reimbursement was 78.4% of that for MCR. However, there was significant variation between states (38.8%-140% of MCR for the combined eight procedures). On average, New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Rhode Island provided MCD reimbursements <50% of MCR reimbursements in the region. In total, 20 and 42 states provided <75% and 100% of MCR reimbursements, respectively. Based upon relative reimbursement, MCD appears to value microdiscectomy (84.1% of MCR; P = 0.10) over other elective spine procedures. Microdiscectomy also had the most interstate variation in MCD reimbursement: 39.0% to 207.0% of MCR. CONCLUSION: Large disparities were found between MCR and MCD when comparing identical procedures. Further research is necessary to fully understand the effect of these significant differences. However, it is likely that these discrepancies lead to suboptimal access to necessary spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.