Health Care Costs Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion or Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To describe the postoperative costs associated with both anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in the two-year period following surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDA has become an increasingly common alternative to ACDF for the treatment of cervical disc disorders. Although a number of studies have compared clinical outcomes between both procedures, much less is known about the postoperative economic burden of each procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By analyzing a commercial insurance claims database (Marketscan, Merative), patients who underwent one-level or two-level ACDF and CDA procedures between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 were identified and included in the study. The primary outcome was the cost of payments for postoperative management in the two-year period following ACDF or CDA. Identified postoperative interventions included in the study were: (i) physical therapy, (ii) pain medication, (iii) injections, (iv) psychological treatment, and (iv) subsequent spine surgeries. RESULTS: Totally, 2304 patients (age: 49.0±9.4 yr; male, 50.1%) were included in the study. In all, 1723 (74.8%) patients underwent ACDF, while 581 (25.2%) underwent CDA. The cost of surgery was similar between both groups (ACDF: $26,819±23,449; CDA: $25,954±20,620; P =0.429). Thirty-day, 90-day, and two-year global costs were all lower for patients who underwent CDA compared with ACDF ($31,024 vs. $34,411, $33,064 vs. $37,517, and $55,723 vs. $68,113, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lower two-year health care costs were found for patients undergoing CDA compared with ACDF. Further work is necessary to determine the drivers of these findings and the associated longer-term outcomes.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With Structural Allograft is Associated With Lower Postoperative Health Care Utilization and Reoperations Compared With Cage Implants.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Implants represent a large component of surgical cost, with several available options for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Rising ACDF volume highlights the need for accurate cost characterization among implant configurations to inform efficient utilization. METHODS: A cohort study of patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level ACDF in 2017 was conducted using the MarketScan national insurance databases, which contain deidentified clinical and financial data. Implant configurations included plate with cage, standalone cage, and plate with structural allograft. Patients who switched insurance providers within 2 years after surgery or underwent concurrent posterior cervical surgery, cervical disk arthroplasty, or cervical corpectomy were excluded. A combined plate/cage and standalone cage group was compared with the allograft group followed by the comparison of the plate/cage and standalone cage groups. In total, 30-day, 90-day, and 2-year aggregate costs; component costs of physical therapy, injections, medications, psychological treatment, and subsequent spine surgery; and reoperation rates were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 1723 patients identified, 360 (20.9%) underwent surgery with plate/cage, 184 (10.7%) with standalone cage, and 1179 (68.4%) with allograft. Aggregate costs were lower in the allograft group compared with the combined cage group at 90 days ($36 428 vs $39 875, P = .04) and 2 years ($64 951 vs $74 965, P = .005) postoperatively. There were no significant differences in aggregate costs between the plate/cage and standalone cage groups. The 2-year reoperation rate was higher in the combined cage compared with the allograft group (23.9% vs 10.9%, P < .001) and was also higher in the standalone cage compared with the plate/cage group (32.0% vs 19.7%, P = .002). CONCLUSION: Compared with alternative ACDF constructs, allograft is associated with lower postoperative costs and reoperation rates. Although costs are similar, reoperation rates are lower with plate/cage constructs compared with those of standalone cages. Surgeons should consider these financial and clinical differences when selecting implant configurations.

Clinical Significance of Lateral Pedicle Screw Malposition in Lumbar Spine Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine whether lateral pedicle screw breach affects fusion rates and patient-reported outcomes in lumbar fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although lateral pedicle screw malposition is considered relatively benign, few studies have focused specifically on clinical outcomes or fusion rates associated with lateral screw malposition. METHODS: Twelve-month postoperative computed tomography scans were reviewed for lateral breach, severity of breach, and fusion status. Patients with lateral breach were compared with patients with no breach. Outcome measures included Numerical Pain Rating Scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and SF-36 physical function (SF-36 PF). Multivariable linear and logistic regression and were adjusted for age, procedure, level, and/or baseline pain score. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (31%) demonstrated 1 or more lateral breaches as compared with 99 patients without breach. After adjusting for baseline scores and fusion level, patients with 2 or more screw breaches experienced SF-36 PF score improvements that were 3.43 points less ( P =0.016) than patients with no lateral breach. After adjusting for baseline Numerical Pain Rating Scale, there was also a significant decrease in the odds of achieving minimally clinical important difference in back pain relief in these patients. There was no observed effect of lateral breach on the odds of successful fusion. CONCLUSIONS: The current study did not observe an association between laterally malpositioned pedicle screws and nonunion. However, results are consistent with a negative effect on SF-36 PF scores and self-reported back pain at 12 months.

Surgical Treatment of Single-Level Lumbar Stenosis Is Associated with Lower 2-Year Mortality and Total Cost Compared with Nonsurgical Treatment: A Risk-Adjusted, Paired Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery has demonstrated cost-effectiveness in reducing pain and restoring function, but the impact of spine surgery relative to nonsurgical care on longer-term outcomes has been less well described. Our objective was to compare single-level surgical treatment for lumbar stenosis, with or without spondylolisthesis, and nonsurgical treatment with respect to patient mortality, resource utilization, and health-care payments over the first 2 years following initial treatment. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Medicare National Database Fee for Service Files from 2011 to 2017 was performed. A 2-year prediction of mortality risk (risk stratification index, RSI) was used as a measure of patient baseline health. Patients (88%) were matched by RSI and demographics. Mortality, spine-related health-care utilization, and 2-year total Medicare payments for patients undergoing surgical treatment were compared with matched patients undergoing nonsurgical treatment. RESULTS: We identified 61,534 patients with stenosis alone and 83,813 with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Surgical treatment was associated with 28% lower 2-year mortality compared with matched patients undergoing nonsurgical treatment. Total Medicare payments were significantly lower for patients with stenosis alone undergoing laminectomy alone and for patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis undergoing laminectomy with or without fusion compared with patients undergoing nonsurgical treatment. There was no significant difference in mortality when fusion or laminectomy was compared with combined fusion and laminectomy. However, laminectomy alone was associated with significantly lower 2-year payments when treating stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment for stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis within the Medicare population was associated with significantly lower mortality and total medical payments at 2 years compared with nonsurgical treatment, although residual confounding could have contributed to these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Drivers of Cost in Primary Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: Allocating cost is challenging with traditional hospital accounting. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is an efficient method to accurately assign cost. We sought to characterize the variation in direct total hospital cost (THC) among both lumbar fusion approaches and surgeons. METHODS: Patients were treated with single-level anterior interbody (ALIF), lateral interbody (LLIF), transforaminal interbody (TLIF), instrumented posterolateral (PLF) or in-situ fusion (ISF) for degenerative disease. Process maps were developed for preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative care. THC was composed of implant, medication, other supply, and personnel costs. Linear regression and descriptive statistics were used to analyze THC variation. RESULTS: A total of 696 patients underwent surgery by 8 surgeons. Approximately 50% of THC variation was associated with procedure choice while patient characteristics explained 10%. Implants (including biologics) accounted for 45% of cost. With reference to PLF, THC ranged from 0.6x (ISF) to 1.7x (LLIF). Implant cost ranged from 2.5x reference (LLIF) to 0.1x (ISF). There was a 1.7x difference between the highest THC surgeon and the lowest. The fusion type with the highest THC variation was TLIF. The surgeon with the highest TLIF THC was 1.5x more expensive than the surgeon with the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon-based choices have the greatest effect on THC variation and represent the largest opportunities for cost savings. Primary single-level lumbar fusion THC is driven primarily by fusion type. Implants, including biologics, account for nearly half this cost. Future work should incorporate outcomes data to characterize the differential value conferred by higher THC fusions.

Pedicle Screw-Associated Violation of the Adjacent Unfused Facet Joint: Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective randomized trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcome scores and fusion rates in patients with and without pedicle screw-associated facet joint violation (FJV) after a single-level lumbar fusion. METHODS: Clinical outcomes data and computed tomography (CT) imaging were reviewed for 157 patients participating in a multicenter prospective trial. Post-operative CT scans at 12-months follow-up were examined for fusion status and FJV. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg and low back pain. Chi-square test of independence was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures. Two-sample t-test was used to identify differences in mean patient outcome scores. Logistic regression models were performed to determine association between FJV and fusion rates. RESULTS: Of the 157 patients included, there were 18 (11.5%) with FJV (Group A) and 139 (88.5%) without FJV (Group B). Patients with FJV experienced less improvement in ODI (P = .004) and VAS back pain scores (P = .04) vs patients without FJV. There was no difference in mean VAS leg pain (P = .4997). The rate of fusion at 12-months for patients with FJV (27.8%) was lower compared to those without FJV (71.2%) (P = .0002). Patients with FJV were 76% less likely to have a successful fusion at 12-months. CONCLUSION: Pedicle screw-associated violation of the adjacent unfused facet joint during single-level lumbar fusion is associated with less improvement in back pain, back pain-associated disability, and a lower fusion rate at 1-year after surgery.

Comparing rates of early pedicle screw loosening in posterolateral lumbar fusion with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Addition of interbody fusion via a transforaminal approach (TLIF) has become a popular surgical option for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions. Although technically more complicated than posterolateral fusion surgery (PLF), it has been suggested that TLIF provides superior immediate stability and protects against early pedicle screw loosening. This theory has never been formally examined in a clinical study. PURPOSE: To determine the impact of TLIF on early pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion rates compared with PLF using pedicle screws alone in the treatment of single level lumbar degenerative conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective computed tomography (CT) based review. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred ninety-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF with local autograft bone or PLF alone with local autograft bone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic fusion rates and screw loosening were measured at 6 and 12 months using strict CT criteria. Patient self-reported outcome measures included Visual Analog Scale for low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index. METHODS: Postoperative thin-cut CTs were examined for pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion status. Early screw loosening rates were determined using 6-month postoperative CT, whereas radiographic fusion rates were determined using 12-month postoperative CT. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in mean outcome scores and other continuous measures between groups at baseline and follow-up. Chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF (Group A) and 115 patients underwent PLF alone (Group B). At 6-month follow-up, loosening was observed in 49 of 792 total screws (6.19%). Of Group A, 7.23% of patients demonstrated loosening of one or more screws compared with 18.3% of Group B (Chi-Square value 4.98; p=.0256). Six-month radiographic fusion rates were 36.1% in Group A versus 44.3% in Group B. Twelve-month radiographic fusion rates increased to 58.6% in Group A versus 73.1% in Group B. Among Group A patients not yet fused at 6 months, screw loosening was associated with a 0% rate of radiographic fusion at 12 months versus 41.2% without screw loosening. Rates for Group B were 6.25% and 70.3%, respectively. Patient age was a significant independent predictor of loosening (p=.0336). CONCLUSIONS: TLIF appears to have a protective effect, reducing rates of early screw loosening by approximately 60% versus PLF. However, this effect appears independent of actual overall radiographic fusion rates which may be approximately 20% lower with TLIF at 12 months. TLIF may have advantages in patients where early loosening is a particular concern, for example, in the setting of increased patient age.

Potential significance of facet joint fusion or posteromedial fusion observed on CT imaging following attempted posterolateral or posterior interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Radiologic evidence of successful lumbar fusion has traditionally been based on bridging bone spanning the intertransverse processes (posterolateral fusion or PLF) or disc space (interbody fusion, or IBF). Often, postoperative computed tomography (CT) of unsuccessful PLF and IBF demonstrates bridging bone across the facet joints or connecting the medial transverse process to the ipsilateral superior articular facet of the caudal vertebra. The significance of this finding in terms of implant stability and clinical outcomes has not previously been reported. PURPOSE: To determine rates of facet joint fusion (FJF)/posteromedial fusion (PMF) following single-level PLF surgery, with or without interbody. A secondary goal was to determine comparative outcomes associated with isolated FJF/PMF versus PLF and IBF. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective CT-based review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Two hundred-three patients underwent single-level PLF surgery with local autograft bone or PLF+IBF with local autograft bone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Fusion was assessed at 6-months and 12-months postoperatively using strict CT criteria. Patient reported outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-36. METHODS: Thin-cut CTs were examined to determine whether successful fusion had occurred in seven different anatomic locations. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in mean outcome scores and other continuous measures between groups at baseline and follow-up. Chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures. RESULTS: Two hundred-three patients and 157 patients completed 6- and 12 month follow-up, respectively. At 12 months, 35.1% of PLF patients demonstrated successful unilateral/bilateral PLF. Including unilateral or bilateral FJF/PMF, the fusion rate was 73.4%. Among PLF+IBF patients, 38.1% demonstrated successful IBF/PLF. Including unilateral or bilateral FJF/PMF, the fusion rate was 55.6%. All fusion groups demonstrated significant improvement in back pain and leg pain scores as well as ODI and SF-36 PF at 6- and 12 months compared with pre-op. No significant difference in any outcome measure, rates of implant loosening or reoperation was observed between successful PLF/IBF and FJF/PMF groups. CONCLUSIONS: FJF/PMF is often observed on postoperative CT evaluation following surgery originally performed to achieve PLF or IBF. Short-term follow-up suggests no significant difference in implant loosening rates or patient reported outcomes when FJF/PMF is observed versus PLF or IBF in such patients. Long-term clinical outcomes of FJF/PMF versus PLF or IBF remain unknown. These findings apply solely to single-level instrumented spinal fusion surgery utilizing pedicle screws with or without IBF.

Academic ranking score: a publication-based reproducible metric of thought leadership in urology.

BACKGROUND: Hospital rankings have become integral to the marketing strategies of many health care systems. Methodology used in compiling these lists appears highly flawed. OBJECTIVE: To improve on current hospital ranking systems and to develop a more meaningful measure of a urology department's contribution to the field, we developed an academic ranking score (ARS) based on publicly available data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An active faculty list was assembled for each department. A list of all publications from each department from 2005 to 2010 was then compiled. Only publications with faculty members as first or last author were considered. The ARS was then derived by identifying the number of publications within an institution, normalized by the impact factor of the peer-reviewed journal in which the publication appeared. MEASUREMENTS: The 2010 U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) urology list was reranked based on ARS and compared with the USNWR rank list. ARS was also calculated for several leading European urologic centers. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 6437 urologic publications were indexed to calculate the ARS. Two of the top three programs in the USNWR rankings dropped out of the top 10. The top 10 academically ranked programs increased or decreased an average of >5 positions (range: 0-17). No correlation was seen between programs ranked in the top 10 by USNWR and our objective ARS method (Spearman ρ: -0.1; p=0.75). Because ARS only includes first- or last-author publications for faculty with clinical duties, ARS likely excludes basic science contributions and contributions from nonclinical faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Ranking of urology departments through quantification of each program's recent academic contribution, as captured by the ARS, differs substantially from rankings developed by USNWR. Integration of such objective measures into an overall urology program ranking system would replace current subjective opinions marred by historical biases with up-to-date merit-based assessments.

Pain and disability related to osteoarthrosis of the trapeziometacarpal joint.

We investigated the relationship between trapeziometacarpal arthrosis, pain, and upper extremity specific disability by surveying patients from a prior prevalence study. The 456 adult (age 18 or greater) patients from a prior prevalence study were mailed a questionnaire consisting of the full DASH outcome measure as well as additional questions to identify sources of pain other than the thumb, pain in the thumb and whether the patient has received treatment for thumb arthritis. A response rate of 27% was achieved (122 responses). Thumb pain correlated with pain elsewhere in the arm (r = 0.354, p < 0.001), but not with higher grades of arthrosis. The average DASH score was 9.9 [range 0-60.0]. Higher grades of arthrosis (p = 0.013), pain in the thumb (r = 0.602, p < 0.001) and pain elsewhere in the arm (r = 0.665, p < 0.001) were found to be predictors of a higher DASH score. Arthrosis grade explained only 3% of the variation of DASH scores in linear regression modeling, but was included in the best multivariable model-along with thumb pain and pain elsewhere in the arm-which explained 52% of the variation in DASH scores. Higher grades of trapeziometacarpal arthrosis do not correlate with complaints of thumb pain and have a significant, but very limited affect on arm-specific disability, compared to pain elsewhere in the arm.

Compartment syndrome associated with distal radial fracture and ipsilateral elbow injury.

BACKGROUND: Forearm compartment syndrome is an uncommon sequela of distal radial fractures. This investigation tested the hypothesis that the risk of forearm compartment syndrome associated with an unstable, operatively treated fracture of the distal end of the radius is higher with a concomitant injury of the ipsilateral elbow. METHODS: All patients who sustained an unstable fracture of the distal end of the radius and/or injury to the elbow (a fracture of the proximal end of the radius and/or ulna, simple elbow dislocation, elbow fracture-dislocation, or distal humeral fracture) and were operatively treated at two level-I trauma centers over a five-year period were identified from a comprehensive database. The prevalence of compartment syndrome in a cohort with an isolated distal radial fracture and a cohort with a simultaneous distal radial fracture and elbow injury were compared. RESULTS: Nine (15%) of fifty-nine patients who sustained a simultaneous ipsilateral distal radial fracture and elbow injury had forearm compartment syndrome develop compared with three (0.3%) of 869 patients with an isolated unstable distal radial fracture (p < 0.001, relative risk = 50). The average time from presentation to the development of compartment syndrome and subsequent fasciotomy was twenty-seven hours. Three of the nine patients with injuries to both the elbow and the wrist had a compartment syndrome develop after initial operative treatment of the injuries, requiring a return to the operating room for fasciotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Forearm compartment syndrome is a frequent complication of simultaneous unstable injuries to the elbow and the distal end of the radius. Heightened vigilance for compartment syndrome is paramount in patients with this combination of injuries.

Brachial plexus palsy following proximal humerus fracture in patients who are skeletally immature.

From 1998 to 2006, 578 patients who were skeletally immature with proximal humerus fractures were treated at our institution. During that time period, 4 patients (0.7%) had associated brachial plexus and major peripheral nerve palsies. Average age at the time of injury was 12.3 years (range 10-14 years). Two fractures were physeal and 2 were metaphyseal. In all patients, the distal fracture fragment was displaced into the axilla, with resultant adduction and valgus malalignment at the time of injury. Two patients were treated with closed reduction and sling and swathe immobilization. One patient was treated with closed reduction and percutaneous pinning of the fracture. One patient was treated with sling immobilization without fracture reduction. All went on to bony healing with acceptable bony alignment. All patients were evaluated with serial physical examinations and radiographs to assess for neurologic recovery and bony healing. Average clinical and radiographic follow-up was 7.1 months (5-9 months). All patients demonstrated complete neurologic recovery by 5-9 months postinjury. All had neuropathic pain for at least 6 months after injury. No persistent neuropathic pain or functional limitations were seen at follow-up. Although rare, brachial plexus injury may accompany displaced proximal humeral fractures in patients who are skeletally immature. With careful attention to principles of fracture care, complete neurologic recovery may be expected within 9 months.

The business case for patient safety.

Recent trends have focused attention on improving patient safety in the United States healthcare system. Lapses in patient safety create undue, often preventable, morbidity. These include adverse drug events, adverse surgical events and nosocomial infections. From an organizational perspective, these events are both inefficient and expensive. Many safe practices and quality enhancing improvements, such as computer provider order entry, proper infection surveillance, telemedicine intensive care, and registered nurse staffing are in fact cost-effective. However, in order to fully achieve higher quality, better adverse event reporting and a culture of safety must first be developed. Increased provider recognition, models of success, public awareness and consumer demand are propelling improvements. As we will outline in this review of the current literature, the business case for patient safety is a compelling one, offering substantial economic incentives for achieving the necessary goal of improved patient outcomes.