Do Busier Surgeons Have Lower Intraoperative Costs? An Analysis of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

STUDY DESIGN: The present study is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing neurosurgical anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to use time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology to determine whether surgeons' case volume influenced the true intraoperative costs of ACDFs performed at our institution. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Successful participation in emerging reimbursement models, such as bundled payments, requires an understanding of true intraoperative costs, as well as the modifiable drivers of those costs. Certain surgeons may have cost profiles that are favorable for these "at-risk" reimbursement models, while other surgeons may not. METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation, electronic medical records, and through querying multiple departments (business operations, sterile processing, plant operations, and pharmacy). Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. All surgeons performing ACDFs at our primary and affiliated hospital sites from 2017 to 2022 were divided into four volume-based cohorts: 1-9 cases (n=10 surgeons, 38 cases), 10-29 cases (n=7 surgeons, 126 cases), 30-100 cases (n=3 surgeons, 234 cases), and > 100 cases (n=2 surgeons, 561 cases). RESULTS: The average total intraoperative cost per case was $7,116 +/- $2,945. The major cost contributors were supply cost ($4,444, 62.5%) and personnel cost ($2,417, 34.0%). A generalized linear mixed model utilizing Poisson distribution was performed with the surgeon as a random effect. Surgeons performing 1-9 total cases, 10-29 cases, and 30-100 cases had increased total cost of surgery (P < 0.001; P < 0.001; and P<0.001, respectively) compared to high-volume surgeons (> 100 cases). Among all volume cohorts, high-volume surgeons also had the lowest mean supply cost, personnel cost, and operative times, while the opposite was true for the lowest-volume surgeons (1-9 cases). CONCLUSION: It is becoming increasingly important for hospitals to identify modifiable sources of variation in cost. We demonstrate a novel use of TDABC for this purpose. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-III.

Lumbar Synovial Cysts-Should You Fuse or Not?

BACKGROUND: Spinal synovial cysts are lesions that most commonly occur in the lumbar region. The need for an instrumented spinal fusion in addition to lumbar decompression with removal of the synovial cyst is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that select patients who underwent decompression with instrumented fusion for lumbar synovial cysts would be less likely to have subsequent surgery (SS) in a 2-year period than patients treated with laminectomy alone. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed using IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Patients who had a lumbar synovial cyst diagnosis and laminectomy surgery with or without fusion surgery were included in this study. Patients were tracked for SS 2 years after surgery. Laminectomy patients were propensity score-matched to laminectomy with fusion (LF) patients using a 2:1 ratio. The log-rank test and Cox regression were used to compare the cumulative incidence of SS between groups. RESULTS: There were 7664 and 1631 patients treated with laminectomy and LF before matching. After matching, there were 2212 laminectomy and 1631 LF patients and patient characteristics were balanced. The 2-year incidence of recurrent SS was 3.1% ([CI]: 2.2%, 4.0%) and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.9%, 2.5%) laminectomy and LF, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, LF had a statistically significant lower risk of recurrent SS (hazard ratio: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.32-0.97]; P -value: .04). CONCLUSION: All patients who had concomitant lumbar fusion showed decreased chance of having a cyst- or noncyst-related recurrence SS when compared with all patients undergoing laminectomy alone, regardless of diagnosis at the time of SS.

Does Preoperative Opiate Choice Increase Risk of Postoperative Infection and Subsequent Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Opioids are commonly prescribed for chronic pain before spinal surgery and research has shown an increased rate of postoperative adverse events in these patients. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the incidence of 2-year subsequent surgical procedures and postoperative adverse events in patients undergoing lumbar fusion with or without 90-day preoperative opioid use. We hypothesized that patients using preoperative opioids would have a higher incidence of subsequent surgery and adverse outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Optum Pan-Therapeutic Electronic Health Records database including adult patients who had their first lumbar fusion between 2015 and 2018. The daily average preoperative opioid dosage 90 days before fusion was determined as morphine equivalent dose and further categorized into high dose (morphine equivalent dose >100 mg/day) and low dose (1-100 mg/day). Clinical outcomes were compared after adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 23,275 patients were included, with 2112 patients (10%) using opioids preoperatively. There was a significantly higher incidence of infection compared with nonusers (12.3% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.01). There was no association between subsequent fusion surgery (7.9% vs. 7.5%; P = 0.52) and subsequent decompression surgery (4.1% vs. 3.6%; P = 0.3) between opioid users and nonusers. Regarding postoperative infection risk, low-dose users showed significantly higher incidence (12.7% vs. 10.1%; P < 0.01), but high-dose users did not show higher incidence than nonusers (7.5% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous studies, opioid use was significantly associated with a higher incidence of 2-year postoperative infection compared with nonuse. Low-dose opioid users had higher postoperative infection rates than did nonusers.

Does the Number of Levels of Decompression Have an Impact on the Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Study in Single-Level Fused Patients.

Introduction The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) 2014 lumbar fusion guidelines for stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) support surgical decompression and fusion as an effective treatment option for symptomatic stenosis associated with DS. The association between the number of levels decompressed in patients with single-level fusion and clinical outcomes has never been published. Methods A retrospective analysis of a single-center, prospectively collected database was performed on 77 patients to compare the effect of the number of decompression levels in patients that received single-level fusion surgery. A total of 77 patients met the criteria. Group one had one level decompressed, group two had two levels decompressed, and group three had three or four levels decompressed. All patients received lumbar fusion surgery at a single spinal level. Outcomes at six months included: Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) (ΔODI ≥ 10 points); Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) (ΔODI ≥ 5); no MCID (ΔODI <5 points). Student's t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc comparison using unpaired two-tailed student's t-test with Holm-Bonferroni correction were performed. p -values were ranked from smallest to largest, and alpha level adjustments were made.  Results A sub-analysis of each group's clinical outcomes showed that patients with two levels decompressed reached greater clinical outcomes. SCB was obtained by approximately 60% (group one: 12.5% vs. group three: 40%) of the patients. A total of 77.6% (38/49) achieved MCID (group one: 62.5% vs. group three: 55%). Single-level fused patients with two levels of decompression showed an improvement of 48% from baseline ODI, as opposed to group one: 17.85% and group three: 21.1%. Patients belonging to group two showed the lowest rate of no improvement. Baseline ODI scores were similar upon presentation (p=0.46), and the difference was found among groups after six months of follow-up (p=0.009). Post hoc comparison showed statistical significance in the comparison between group two and group three (p=0.009, alpha value: 0.017). Conclusion The addition of more than two levels of decompression to single-level fused patients might be associated with poor clinical outcomes and spinal instability.

Incidence of Pseudarthrosis and Subsequent Surgery After Cervical Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Review of a National Health Care Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Cervical pseudarthrosis is a postoperative adverse event that occurs when a surgically induced fusion fails to establish bone growth connecting the 2 regions. It has both clinical and financial implications and may result in significant patient morbidity; it continues to be one of the leading causes of pain after surgery. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study was performed. Patients in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) database, 18-64 years old, who underwent elective cervical fusions during 2015-2019 were included. Patients with trauma, infection, or neoplasm were excluded. Patients were followed for 2 years from surgical fusion for occurrence of pseudarthrosis. After pseudarthrosis, subsequent surgery was documented, and cumulative incidence curves, adjusted for patient/procedure characteristics, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated. Risk factors were evaluated with multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 45,584 patients. The 1-year and 2-year incidence of pseudarthrosis was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.9%-2.2%) and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-3.5%), respectively. Factors significantly associated with increased risk of pseudarthrosis were female gender, current/previous substance abuse, previous spinal pain in the cervical/thoracic/lumbar spine, and Elixhauser score ≥5. Factors significantly associated with decreased risk of pseudarthrosis were anterior cervical approach, use of an interbody cage, and 2-level or 3-level anterior instrumentation. The 1-year and 2-year incidence of subsequent surgery in patients with pseudarthrosis was 11.7% (95% CI, 9.6%-13.7%) and 13.8% (95% CI, 11.5%-16.2%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical pseudarthrosis and subsequent surgery still occur at a low rate. Surgical factors such as anterior approach, interbody cage use, and anterior instrumentation may reduce pseudarthrosis risk.