Assessment of surgeons' attitude towards awake spine surgery under spinal anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: General anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) have been adopted for lumbar spine surgery (LSS), but GA is used far more widely. We conducted a survey of spine surgeons to explore their attitudes and preferences regarding awake spine surgery under SA. METHODS: A survey was emailed to 150 spine surgeons. Exposure and attitudes towards spine surgery under SA were elicited. A five-point Likert scale of agreement examined perceptions of SA, while attitudes towards SA were recorded by categorizing free text into themes. RESULTS: Seventy-five surgeons completed the survey, 50 % response rate. Only 27 % said they perform LSS under SA. Most surgeons, 83 %, would recommend GA to a healthy patient undergoing lumbar laminectomy. Only 41 % believes SA to be as safe as GA, and only 30 % believes SA is associated with better postoperative pain control. The most common reasons why SA is not favored was lack of proven benefits over GA (65 %). When asked if a randomized trial finds SA to lead to less postoperative fatigue, 50 % said they would be more likely to offer SA, a significant increase from the baseline response of 27 % (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey indicates that the low adoption of SA for LSS is due to lack of surgeons' belief in the benefits of SA over GA, and that a randomized patient-centered trial has the potential of changing surgeons' perspective and increasing adoption of SA for LSS.

Assessment of Patients' Willingness to Participate in a Randomized Trial of Spinal versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prospective nonrandomized studies have found less postoperative fatigue and improved quality of life in patients undergoing awake spine surgery under spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively investigate patients' willingness to enroll in randomized trials of lumbar spine surgery under spinal versus general anesthesia and identify any potential barriers. METHODS: We recruited patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease. We described a randomized trial of spine surgery under spinal versus general anesthesia and assessed patients' willingness to participate in such trial. We elicited preferences for treatment along with demographics. The association between these factors and willingness to participate in the trial was examined. RESULTS: Fifty patients completed interviews; 58% were female, mean age of 60.9 ± 12.5 years. A total of 52% patients stated that they were definitely willing to participate in the hypothetical randomized trial, and 8% probably willing. Only 16% of patients were aware of spinal anesthesia as an option for low back surgery, and 60% indicated no strong preference for the anesthesia techniques. Patients without strong preferences stated a greater willingness to participate than those with strong preferences (80% vs. 10% definitely willing, P < 0.0001). Age, sex, education, work status, and race were not significantly associated with willingness to participate. CONCLUSION: Sixty percent of patients stated that they were either definitely or probably willing to participate in the randomized trial. Subjects lacking strong preferences for the anesthesia technique stated a greater willingness to enroll than those with strong preference.

Robotic-Assisted vs Nonrobotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management of degenerative disease of the spine has evolved to favor minimally invasive techniques, including nonrobotic-assisted and robotic-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Value-based spending is being increasingly implemented to control rising costs in the US healthcare system. With an aging population, it is fundamental to understand which procedure(s) may be most cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To compare robotic and nonrobotic MIS-TLIF through a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We considered direct medical costs related to surgical intervention and to the hospital stay, as well as 1-yr utilities. We estimated costs by assessing all cases involving adults undergoing robotic surgery at a single institution and an equal number of patients undergoing nonrobotic surgery, matched by demographic and clinical characteristics. We adopted a willingness to pay of $50 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Uncertainty was addressed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Costs were estimated based on a total of 76 patients, including 38 undergoing robot-assisted and 38 matched patients undergoing nonrobot MIS-TLIF. Using point estimates, robotic surgery was projected to cost $21 546.80 and to be associated with 0.68 QALY, and nonrobotic surgery was projected to cost $22 398.98 and to be associated with 0.67 QALY. Robotic surgery was found to be more cost-effective strategy, with cost-effectiveness being sensitive operating room/materials and room costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified robotic surgery as cost-effective in 63% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that at a willingness to pay of $50 000/QALY, robotic-assisted MIS-TLIF was cost-effective in 63% of simulations. Cost-effectiveness depends on operating room and room (admission) costs, with potentially different results under distinct neurosurgical practices.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Cost of a Surgeon's Learning Curve.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion has become an increasingly common approach in adult degenerative spine disease but is associated with a steep learning curve. We sought to evaluate the impact of the learning experience on mean procedure time and mean cost associated with each procedure. METHODS: We studied the first 100 consecutive minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion procedures of a single surgeon. We performed multivariable linear regression models, modeling operating time, and costs in function of the procedure order adjusted for patients' age, sex, and number of surgical levels. The number of procedures necessary to attain proficiency was determined through a k-means cluster analysis. Finally, the total excess operative time and total excess cost until obtaining proficiency was evaluated. RESULTS: Procedure order was found to impact procedure time and mean costs, with each successive case being associated with progressively less procedure time and cost. On average, each successive case was associated with a reduction in procedure time of 0.97 minutes (95% confidence interval 0.54-1.40; P < 0.001) and an average adjusted reduction in overall costs of $82.75 (95% confidence interval $35.93-129.57; P < 0.001). An estimated 58 procedures were needed to attain proficiency, translating into an excess procedure time of 2604.2 minutes (average of 45 minutes per case), overall costs associated with the learning experience of $226,563.8 (average of $3974.80 per case), and excess surgical cost of $125,836.6 (average of $2207.66 per case). CONCLUSIONS: Successive cases were associated with progressively less procedure time and mean overall and surgical costs, until a proficiency threshold was attained.

Risk factors for surgical site infections and assessment of vancomycin powder as a preventive measure in patients undergoing first-time cranioplasty.

OBJECTIVE Craniectomy is often performed to decrease intracranial pressure following trauma and vascular injuries. The subsequent cranioplasty procedures may be complicated by surgical site infections (SSIs) due to prior trauma, foreign implants, and multiple surgeries through a common incision. Several studies have found that intrawound vancomycin powder (VP) is associated with decreased risk of SSIs after spine operations. However, no previously published study has evaluated the effectiveness of VP in cranioplasty procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine whether intrawound VP is associated with decreased risk of SSIs, to evaluate VP's safety, and to identify risk factors for SSIs after cranioplasty among patients undergoing first-time cranioplasty. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing first-time cranioplasty for indications other than infections from January 1, 2008, to July 31, 2014, at an academic health center. Data on demographics, possible risk factors for SSIs, and treatment with VP were collected from the patients' electronic health records. RESULTS During the study period, 258 patients underwent first-time cranioplasties, and 15 (5.8%) of these patients acquired SSIs. Ninety-two patients (35.7%) received intrawound VP (VP group) and 166 (64.3%) did not (no-VP group). Patients in the VP group and the no-VP group were similar with respect to age, sex, smoking history, body mass index, and SSI rates (VP group 6.5%, no-VP group 5.4%, p = 0.72). Patients in the VP group were less likely than those in the no-VP group to have undergone craniectomy for tumors and were more likely to have an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score > 2. Intrawound VP was not associated with other postoperative complications. Risk factors for SSI from the bivariable analyses were diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 3.65, 95% CI 1.07-12.44), multiple craniotomy procedures before the cranioplasty (OR 4.39, 95% CI 1.47-13.18), prior same-side craniotomy (OR 4.73, 95% CI 1.57-14.24), and prosthetic implants (OR 4.51, 95% CI 1.40-14.59). The multivariable analysis identified prior same-side craniotomy (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.06-10.79) and prosthetic implants (OR 3.93, 95% CI 1.15-13.40) as significant risk factors for SSIs. After adjusting for potential confounders, patients with SSIs were more likely than those without SSIs to be readmitted (OR 7.28, 95% CI 2.07-25.60). CONCLUSIONS In this study, intrawound VP was not associated with a decreased risk of SSIs or with an increased risk of complications. Prior same-side craniotomy and prosthetic implants were risk factors for SSI after first-time cranioplasty.

Nonoperative Management in Neurologically Intact Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The identification of factors that lead to the failure of nonoperative management in neurologically intact thoracolumbar burst fractures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBF) can be controversial, particularly in the neurologically intact. Surgery for intact burst fractures has been advocated for early mobilization and a shorter hospital stay. These goals, however, have not always been achieved, rejuvenating an interest in nonoperative treatment. METHODS: Sixty-eight neurologically intact patients with burst fractures of the thoracolumbar junction (T11-L2), and a thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score (TLICS) of 2, were treated at our institution. Based on CT scans, patients were scored based on the load-sharing classification (LSC) scale. Initial treatment consisted of bracing in clamshell thoracolumbar orthosis and gradual mobilization. RESULTS: Owing to pain limiting mobilization, 18 patients failed nonoperative management and required instrumentation. Those who failed nonsurgical management were significantly more kyphotic (8° ± 10) and stenotic (52% ± 14%) than those successfully treated nonoperatively (3° ± 7 and 63 ± 12%, respectively). The LSC score of those undergoing surgery (6.9 ± 1.1) was also greater than those successfully treated nonoperatively (5.8 ± 1.3, P = 0.006). Length of hospitalization was longer, and hospital charges higher in those requiring surgery compared to the nonoperative group. At follow-up there was no difference between groups in the visual analog score for pain (VAS) or the Oswestry disability index. CONCLUSION: Owing to pain limiting mobilization, a quarter of neurologically intact patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures and a TLICS score of 2 failed nonsurgical management. The greater the kyphosis, stenosis, and fragmentation of the fracture, the more likely patients required surgery. In addition to the TLICS classification, other radiographic and clinical parameters should be included in selecting appropriate treatment strategy. The cost savings with nonoperative treatment of intact burst fractures, when appropriate, are significant.

Cervical decompression and reconstruction without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring.

OBJECT: The primary goal of this study was to review the immediate postoperative neurological function in patients surgically treated for symptomatic cervical spine disease without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The secondary goal was to assess the economic impact of intraoperative monitoring (IOM) in this patient population. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 720 consecutively treated patients who underwent cervical spine procedures. The patients were identified and the data were collected by individuals who were not involved in their care. RESULTS: A total of 1534 cervical spine levels were treated in 720 patients using anterior, posterior, and combined (360°) approaches. Myelopathy was present preoperatively in 308 patients. There were 185 patients with increased signal intensity within the spinal cord on preoperative T2-weighted MR images, of whom 43 patients had no clinical evidence of myelopathy. Three patients (0.4%) exhibited a new neurological deficit postoperatively. Of these patients, 1 had a preoperative diagnosis of radiculopathy, while the other 2 were treated for myelopathy. The new postoperative deficits completely resolved in all 3 patients and did not require additional treatment. The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for IOM during cervical decompression include 95925 and 95926 for somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of the upper and lower extremities, respectively, as well as 95928 and 95929 for motor evoked potential monitoring of the upper and lower extremities. In addition to the charge for the baseline [monitoring] study, patients are charged hourly for ongoing electrophysiology testing and monitoring using the CPT code 95920. Based on these codes and assuming an average of 4 hours of monitoring time per surgical case, the savings realized in this group of patients was estimated to be $1,024,754. CONCLUSIONS: With the continuing increase in health care costs, it is our responsibility as providers to minimize expenses when possible. This should be accomplished without compromising the quality of care to patients. This study demonstrates that decompression and reconstruction for symptomatic cervical spine disease without IOM may reduce the cost of treatment without adversely impacting patient safety.