Factors Associated with the Maintenance of Cost-Effectiveness at 5 Years in Adult Spinal Deformity Corrective Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with the long-term durability of cost-effectiveness (CE) in ASD patients. BACKGROUND: A substantial increase in costs associated with the surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) has given precedence to scrutinize the value and utility it provides. METHODS: We included 327 operative ASD patients with 5-year (5 Y) follow-up. Published methods were used to determine costs based on CMS.gov definitions and were based on the average DRG reimbursement rates. Utility was calculated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) utilizing the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) converted to Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D), with a 3% discount applied for its decline with life expectancy. The CE threshold of $150,000 was used for primary analysis. RESULTS: Major and minor complication rates were 11% and 47% respectively, with 26% undergoing reoperation by 5 Y. The mean cost associated with surgery was $91,095±$47,003, with a utility gain of 0.091±0.086 at 1Y, QALY gained at 2 Y of 0.171±0.183, and at 5 Y of 0.42±0.43. The cost per QALY at 2 Y was $414,885, which decreased to $142,058 at 5 Y.With the threshold of $150,000 for CE, 19% met CE at 2 Y and 56% at 5 Y. In those in which revision was avoided, 87% met cumulative CE till life expectancy. Controlling analysis depicted higher baseline CCI and pelvic tilt (PT) to be the strongest predictors for not maintaining durable CE to 5 Y (CCI OR: 1.821 [1.159-2.862], P=0.009) (PT OR: 1.079 [1.007-1.155], P=0.030). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients achieved cost-effectiveness after four years postoperatively, with 56% meeting at five years postoperatively. When revision was avoided, 87% of patients met cumulative cost-effectiveness till life expectancy. Mechanical complications were predictive of failure to achieve cost-effectiveness at 2 Y, while comorbidity burden and medical complications were at 5 Y.

Cost Benefit of Implementation of Risk Stratification Models for Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Assess the extent to which defined risk factors of adverse events are drivers of cost-utility in spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. METHODS: ASD patients with 2-year (2Y) data were included. Tertiles were used to define high degrees of frailty, sagittal deformity, blood loss, and surgical time. Cost was calculated using the Pearl Diver registry and cost-utility at 2Y was compared between cohorts based on the number of risk factors present. Statistically significant differences in cost-utility by number of baseline risk factors were determined using ANOVA, followed by a generalized linear model, adjusting for clinical site and surgeon, to assess the effects of increasing risk score on overall cost-utility. RESULTS: By 2 years, 31% experienced a major complication and 23% underwent reoperation. Patients with ≤2 risk factors had significantly less major complications. Patients with 2 risk factors improved the most from baseline to 2Y in ODI. Average cost increased by $8234 per risk factor (R2 = .981). Cost-per-QALY at 2Y increased by $122,650 per risk factor (R2 = .794). Adjusted generalized linear model demonstrated a significant trend between increasing risk score and increasing cost-utility (r2 = .408, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The number of defined patient-specific and surgical risk factors, especially those with greater than two, were associated with increased index surgical costs and diminished cost-utility. Efforts to optimize patient physiology and minimize surgical risk would likely reduce healthcare expenditures and improve the overall cost-utility profile for ASD interventions.Level of evidence: III.

Improvements in Outcomes and Cost After Adult Spinal Deformity Corrective Surgery Between 2008 and 2019.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery have improved over the past decade. BACKGROUND: Surgery for ASD is an effective intervention, but one that is also associated with large initial healthcare expenditures. Changes in the cost profile for ASD surgery over the last decade has not been evaluated previously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASD patients who received surgery between 2008 and 2019 were included. Analysis of covariance was used to establish estimated marginal means for outcome measures [complication rates, reoperations, health-related quality of life, total cost, utility gained, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), cost-efficiency (cost per QALY)] by year of initial surgery. Cost was calculated using the PearlDiver database and represented national averages of Medicare reimbursement for services within a 30-day window including length of stay and death differentiated by complication/comorbidity, revision, and surgical approach. Internal cost data was based on individual patient diagnosis-related group codes, limiting revisions to those within two years (2Y) of the initial surgery. Cost per QALY over the course of 2008-2019 were then calculated. RESULTS: There were 1236 patients included. There was an overall decrease in rates of any complication (0.78 vs . 0.61), any reoperation (0.25 vs . 0.10), and minor complication (0.54 vs . 0.37) between 2009 and 2018 (all P <0.05). National average 2Y cost decreased at an annual rate of $3194 ( R2 =0.6602), 2Y utility gained increased at an annual rate of 0.0041 ( R2 =0.57), 2Y QALYs gained increased annually by 0.008 ( R2 =0.57), and 2Y cost per QALY decreased per year by $39,953 ( R2 =0.6778). CONCLUSION: Between 2008 and 2019, rates of complications have decreased concurrently with improvements in patient reported outcomes, resulting in improved cost effectiveness according to national Medicare average and individual patient cost data. The value of ASD surgery has improved substantially over the course of the last decade.

The Additional Economic Burden of Frailty in Adult Cervical Deformity Patients Undergoing Surgical Intervention.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The influence of frailty on economic burden following corrective surgery for the adult cervical deformity (CD) is understudied and may provide valuable insights for preoperative planning. OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of baseline frailty status on the economic burden of CD surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CD patients with frailty scores and baseline and two-year Neck Disability Index data were included. Frailty score was categorized patients by modified CD frailty index into not frail (NF) and frail (F). Analysis of covariance was used to estimate marginal means adjusting for age, sex, surgical approach, and baseline sacral slope, T1 slope minus cervical lordosis, C2-C7 angle, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis. Costs were derived from PearlDiver registry data. Reimbursement consisted of a standardized estimate using regression analysis of Medicare payscales for services within a 30-day window including length of stay and death. This data is representative of the national average Medicare cost differentiated by complication/comorbidity outcome, surgical approach, and revision status. Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at two years was calculated for NF and F patients. RESULTS: There were 126 patients included. There were 68 NF patients and 58 classified as F. Frailty groups did not differ by overall complications, instance of distal junctional kyphosis, or reoperations (all P >0.05). These groups had similar rates of radiographic and clinical improvement by two years. NF and F had similar overall cost ($36,731.03 vs. $37,356.75, P =0.793), resulting in equivocal costs per QALYs for both patients at two years ($90,113.79 vs. $80,866.66, P =0.097). CONCLUSION: F and NF patients experienced similar complication rates and upfront costs, with equivocal utility gained, leading to comparative cost-effectiveness with NF patients based on cost per QALYs at two years. Surgical correction for CD is an economical healthcare investment for F patients when accounting for anticipated utility gained and cost-effectiveness following the procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Category Risk Adjustment Model Satisfactory for Quantifying Risk After Spine Surgery?

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) hierarchical condition category (HCC) coding is a risk adjustment model that allows for the estimation of risk-and cost-associated with health care provision. Current models may not include key factors that fully delineate the risk associated with spine surgery. OBJECTIVE: To augment CMS HCC risk adjustment methodology with socioeconomic data to improve its predictive capabilities for spine surgery. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried for spinal fusion, and the data was merged with county-level coverage and socioeconomic status variables obtained from the Brookings Institute. We predicted outcomes (death, nonroutine discharge, length of stay [LOS], total charges, and perioperative complication) with pairs of hierarchical, mixed effects logistic regression models-one using CMS HCC score alone and another augmenting CMS HCC scores with demographic and socioeconomic status variables. Models were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves. Variable importance was assessed in conjunction with Wald testing for model optimization. RESULTS: We analyzed 653 815 patients. Expanded models outperformed models using CMS HCC score alone for mortality, nonroutine discharge, LOS, total charges, and complications. For expanded models, variable importance analyses demonstrated that CMS HCC score was of chief importance for models of mortality, LOS, total charges, and complications. For the model of nonroutine discharge, age was the most important variable. For the model of total charges, unemployment rate was nearly as important as CMS HCC score. CONCLUSION: The addition of key demographic and socioeconomic characteristics substantially improves the CMS HCC risk-adjustment models when modeling spinal fusion outcomes. This finding may have important implications for payers, hospitals, and policymakers.

Do social determinants of health impact access to neurosurgical care in the United States? A workforce perspective.

OBJECTIVE: This study attempts to use neurosurgical workforce distribution to uncover the social determinants of health that are associated with disparate access to neurosurgical care. METHODS: Data were compiled from public sources and aggregated at the county level. Socioeconomic data were provided by the Brookings Institute. Racial and ethnicity data were gathered from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research. Physician density was retrieved from the Health Resources and Services Administration Area Health Resources Files. Catchment areas were constructed based on the 628 counties with neurosurgical coverage, with counties lacking neurosurgical coverage being integrated with the nearest covered county based on distances from the National Bureau of Economic Research's County Distance Database. Catchment areas form a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive breakdown of the entire US population and licensed neurosurgeons. Socioeconomic factors, race, and ethnicity were chosen as independent variables for analysis. Characteristics for each catchment area were calculated as the population-weighted average across all contained counties. Linear regression analysis modeled two outcomes of interest: neurosurgeon density per capita and average distance to neurosurgical care. Coefficient estimates (CEs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and scaled by 1 SD to allow for comparison between variables. RESULTS: Catchment areas with higher poverty (CE = 0.64, 95% CI 0.34-0.93) and higher prime age employment (CE = 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.76) were significantly associated with greater neurosurgeon density. Among categories of race and ethnicity, catchment areas with higher proportions of Black residents (CE = 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.35) were associated with greater neurosurgeon density. Meanwhile, catchment areas with higher proportions of Hispanic residents displayed lower neurosurgeon density (CE = -0.17, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.03). Residents of catchment areas with higher housing vacancy rates (CE = 2.37, 95% CI 1.31-3.43), higher proportions of Native American residents (CE = 4.97, 95% CI 3.99-5.95), and higher proportions of Hispanic residents (CE = 2.31, 95% CI 1.26-3.37) must travel farther, on average, to receive neurosurgical care, whereas people living in areas with a lower income (CE = -2.28, 95% CI -4.48 to -0.09) or higher proportion of Black residents (CE = -3.81, 95% CI -4.93 to -2.68) travel a shorter distance. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors demonstrate a significant correlation with neurosurgical workforce distribution in the US, most notably with Hispanic and Native American populations being associated with greater distances to care. Additionally, higher proportions of Hispanic residents correlated with fewer neurosurgeons per capita. These findings highlight the interwoven associations among socioeconomics, race, ethnicity, and access to neurosurgical care nationwide.

Scoring System to Triage Patients for Spine Surgery in the Setting of Limited Resources: Application to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic and Beyond.

BACKGROUND: As of May 4, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected >3.5 million people and touched every inhabited continent. Accordingly, it has stressed health systems worldwide, leading to the cancellation of elective surgical cases and discussions regarding health care resource rationing. It is expected that rationing of surgical resources will continue even after the pandemic peak and may recur with future pandemics, creating a need for a means of triaging patients for emergent and elective spine surgery. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi technique, a cohort of 16 fellowship-trained spine surgeons from 10 academic medical centers constructed a scoring system for the triage and prioritization of emergent and elective spine surgeries. Three separate rounds of videoconferencing and written correspondence were used to reach a final scoring system. Sixteen test cases were used to optimize the scoring system so that it could categorize cases as requiring emergent, urgent, high-priority elective, or low-priority elective scheduling. RESULTS: The devised scoring system included 8 independent components: neurologic status, underlying spine stability, presentation of a high-risk postoperative complication, patient medical comorbidities, expected hospital course, expected discharge disposition, facility resource limitations, and local disease burden. The resultant calculator was deployed as a freely available Web-based calculator (https://jhuspine3.shinyapps.io/SpineUrgencyCalculator/). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first quantitative urgency scoring system for the triage and prioritizing of spine surgery cases in resource-limited settings. We believe that our scoring system, although not all encompassing, has potential value as a guide for triaging spine surgical cases during the COVID pandemic and post-COVID period.

Cost Analysis of Single-Level Lumbar Fusions.

STUDY DESIGN: Cost analysis of a retrospectively identified cohort of patients who had undergone primary single-level lumbar fusion at a single institution's orthopedic or neurosurgery department. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to analyze the determinants of direct costs for single-level lumbar fusions and identify potential areas for cost reduction. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent primary single-level lumbar fusion from fiscal years 2008 to 2012 were identified via administrative and departmental databases and were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they underwent multiple surgeries, had previous surgery at the same anatomic region, underwent corpectomy, kyphectomy, disc replacement, surgery for tumor or infection, or had incomplete cost data. Demographic data, surgical data, and direct cost data in the categories of supplies, services, room and care, and pharmacy, was collected for each patient. RESULTS: The cohort included 532 patients. Direct costs ranged from $8286 to $73 727 (median = $21 781; mean = $22 890 ± $6323). Surgical approach was an important determinant of cost. The mean direct cost was highest for the circumferential approach and lowest for posterior instrumented spinal fusions without an interbody cage. The difference in mean direct cost between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions, anterior lumbar interbody fusions, and lateral transpsoas fusions was not statistically significant. Surgical supplies accounted for 44% of direct costs. Spinal implants were the primary component of supply costs (84.9%). Services accounted for 38% of direct costs and were highly dependent on operative time. Comorbidities were an important contributor to variance in the cost of care as evidenced by high variance in pharmacy costs and length of stay related to their management. CONCLUSION: The costs of spinal surgeries are highly variable. Important cost drivers in our analysis included surgical approach, implants, operating room time, and length of hospital stay. Areas of high cost and high variance offer potential targets for cost savings and quality improvements.

Impact of case type, length of stay, institution type, and comorbidities on Medicare diagnosis-related group reimbursement for adult spinal deformity surgery.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to educate medical professionals about potential financial impacts of improper diagnosis-related group (DRG) coding in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. METHODS Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System PC Pricer database was used to collect 2015 reimbursement data for ASD procedures from 12 hospitals. Case type, hospital type/location, number of operative levels, proper coding, length of stay, and complications/comorbidities (CCs) were analyzed for effects on reimbursement. DRGs were used to categorize cases into 3 types: 1) anterior or posterior only fusion, 2) anterior fusion with posterior percutaneous fixation with no dorsal fusion, and 3) combined anterior and posterior fixation and fusion. RESULTS Pooling institutions, cases were reimbursed the same for single-level and multilevel ASD surgery. Longer stay, from 3 to 8 days, resulted in an additional $1400 per stay. Posterior fusion was an additional $6588, while CCs increased reimbursement by approximately $13,000. Academic institutions received higher reimbursement than private institutions, i.e., approximately $14,000 (Case Types 1 and 2) and approximately $16,000 (Case Type 3). Urban institutions received higher reimbursement than suburban institutions, i.e., approximately $3000 (Case Types 1 and 2) and approximately $3500 (Case Type 3). Longer stay, from 3 to 8 days, increased reimbursement between $208 and $494 for private institutions and between $1397 and $1879 for academic institutions per stay. CONCLUSIONS Reimbursement is based on many factors not controlled by surgeons or hospitals, but proper DRG coding can significantly impact the financial health of hospitals and availability of quality patient care.

Comparison of Patient Outcomes and Cost of Overlapping Versus Nonoverlapping Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Overlapping surgery recently has gained significant media attention, but there are limited data on its safety and efficacy. To date, there has been no analysis of overlapping surgery in the field of spine. Our goal was to compare overlapping versus nonoverlapping spine surgery patient outcomes and cost. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of 2319 spine surgeries (n = 848 overlapping; 1471 nonoverlapping) performed by 3 neurosurgery attendings from 2012 to 2015 at the University of California San Francisco. Collected variables included patient age, sex, insurance, American Society of Anesthesiology score, severity of illness, risk of mortality, procedure type, surgeon, day of surgery, source of transfer, admission type, overlapping versus nonoverlapping surgery (≥1 minute of overlapping procedure time), Medicare-Severity Diagnosis-Related Group, osteotomy, and presence of another attending/fellow/resident. Univariate, then multivariate mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the effect of the collected variables on the following outcomes: procedure time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, discharge status, 30-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission, unplanned return to OR, and total hospital cost. RESULTS: Urgent spine cases were more likely to be done in an overlapping fashion (all P < 0.01). After we adjusted for patient demographics, clinical indicators, and procedure characteristics, overlapping surgeries had longer procedure times (estimate = 26.17; P < 0.001) and lower rates of discharge to home (odds ratio 0.65; P < 0.001), but equivalent rates of 30-day mortality, readmission, return to the operating room, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and total hospital cost (all P = ns). CONCLUSIONS: Overlapping spine surgery may be performed safely at our institution, although continued monitoring of patient outcomes is necessary. Overlapping surgery does not lead to greater hospital costs.

Costs and readmission rates for the resection of primary and metastatic spinal tumors: a comparative analysis of 181 patients.

OBJECTIVE Because the surgical strategies for primary and metastatic spinal tumors are different, the respective associated costs and morbidities associated with those treatments likely vary. This study compares the direct costs and 90-day readmission rates between the resection of extradural metastatic and primary spinal tumors. The factors associated with cost and readmission are identified. METHODS Adults (age 18 years or older) who underwent the resection of spinal tumors between 2008 and 2013 were included in the study. Patients with intradural tumors were excluded. The direct costs of index hospitalization and 90-day readmission hospitalization were evaluated. The direct costs were compared between patients who were treated surgically for primary and metastatic spinal tumors. The independent factors associated with costs and readmissions were identified using multivariate analysis. RESULTS A total of 181 patients with spinal tumors were included (63 primary and 118 metastatic tumors). Overall, the mean index hospital admission cost for the surgical management of spinal tumors was $52,083. There was no significant difference in the cost of hospitalization between primary ($55,801) and metastatic ($50,098) tumors (p = 0.426). The independent factors associated with higher cost were male sex (p = 0.032), preoperative inability to ambulate (p = 0.002), having more than 3 comorbidities (p = 0.037), undergoing corpectomy (p = 0.021), instrumentation greater than 7 levels (p < 0.001), combined anterior-posterior approach (p < 0.001), presence of a perioperative complication (p < 0.001), and longer hospital stay (p < 0.001). The perioperative complication rate was 21.0%. Of this cohort, 11.6% of patients were readmitted within 90 days, and the mean hospitalization cost of that readmission was $20,078. Readmission rates after surgical treatment for primary and metastatic tumors were similar (11.1% vs 11.9%, respectively) (p = 0.880). Prior hospital stay greater than 15 days (OR 6.62, p = 0.016) and diagnosis of lung metastasis (OR 52.99, p = 0.007) were independent predictors of readmission. CONCLUSIONS Primary and metastatic spinal tumors are comparable with regard to the direct costs of the index surgical hospitalization and readmission rate within 90 days. The factors independently associated with costs are related to preoperative health status, type and complexity of surgery, and postoperative course.

Economic Impact of Revision Surgery for Proximal Junctional Failure After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Cost Analysis of 57 Operations in a 10-year Experience at a Major Deformity Center.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic impact of revision surgery for proximal junctional failures (PJF) after thoracolumbar fusions for adult spinal deformity (ASD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PJF after fusions for ASD is a major cause of disability. Although clinical sequelae are described, PJF-revision operation costs are incompletely defined. METHODS: Consecutive adults who underwent thoracolumbar fusions for ASD (August, 2003 to January, 2013) were evaluated. Inclusion criteria include construct from pelvis to L2 or above and minimum 6 months follow-up after the index ASD operation. Direct costs (surgical supplies/implants, room/care, pharmacy, services) were identified from medical billing data and calculated for index ASD operations and subsequent surgeries for PJF. Not included in direct cost data were indirect costs, charges, surgeon fees, or revision operations for indications other than PJF (i.e., pseudarthrosis). Patients were compared based on the construct's upper-instrumented vertebra: upper thoracic (UT: T1-6) versus thoracolumbar junction (TLjxn: T9-L2). RESULTS: Of 501 patients, 382 met inclusion criteria. Fifty-one patients [UT:14; TLjxn: 40 at index; average follow-up 32.6 months (6-92 months)] had revisions for PJF, which summed to $3.2 million total direct cost. Average direct cost of index operations for the cohort ($68,294) was significantly greater than PJF-revisions ($55,547). Compared with TLjxn, UT had a significantly higher average cost for index operations ($79,860 vs. $65,868). However, PJF-revision cases were similar in average cost (UT:$60,103; TLjxn:$53,920; P = 0.09). Costs of PJF amounted to an additional 12.1% of the total index surgical cost in 382 patients. CONCLUSION: Revision operations for PJF after long thoracolumbar fusions for ASD are associated with an average direct cost of $55,547 per case. Revision costs for PJF are similar based on the index procedure's upper-instrumented vertebra level. At a major tertiary center over a 10-year period, PJF came at a very significant economic expense amounting to $3.2 million for 57 cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Pitfalls of calculating hospital readmission rates based on nonvalidated administrative data sets: : presented at the 2012 Joint Spine Section Meeting: clinical article.

OBJECT: Administrative databases are increasingly being used to establish benchmarks for quality of care and to compare performance across peer hospitals. As proposals for accountable care organizations are being developed, readmission rates will be increasingly scrutinized. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether the all-cause readmissions rate appropriately reflects the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Center hospital's clinically relevant readmission rate for spine surgery patients and to identify predictors of readmission. METHODS: Data for 5780 consecutive patient encounters managed by 10 spine surgeons at UCSF Medical Center from October 2007 to June 2011 were abstracted from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) using the Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager. Of these 5780 patient encounters, 281 patients (4.9%) were rehospitalized within 30 days of the previous discharge date. The authors performed an independent chart review to determine clinically relevant reasons for readmission and extracted hospital administrative data to calculate direct costs. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate possible predictors of readmission. The two-sample t-test was used to examine the difference in direct cost between readmission and nonreadmission cases. RESULTS: The main reasons for readmission were infection (39.8%), nonoperative management (13.4%), and planned staged surgery (12.4%). The current all-cause readmission algorithm resulted in an artificially high readmission rate from the clinician's point of view. Based on the authors' manual chart review, 69 cases (25% of the 281 total readmissions) should be excluded because 39 cases (13.9%) were planned staged procedures; 16 cases (5.7%) were unrelated to spine surgery; and 14 surgical cases (5.0%) were cancelled or rescheduled at index admission due to unpredictable reasons. When these 69 cases are excluded, the direct cost of readmission is reduced by 29%. The cost variance is in excess of $3 million. Predictors of readmission were admission status (p < 0.0001), length of stay (p = 0.0001), risk of death (p < 0.0001), and age (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The authors' findings identify the potential pitfalls in the calculation of readmission rates from administrative data sets. Benchmarking algorithms for defining hospitals' readmission rates must take into account planned staged surgery and eliminate unrelated reasons for readmission. When this is implemented in the calculation method, the readmission rate will be more accurate. Current tools overestimate the clinically relevant readmission rate and cost.

Surgical site infection in spinal surgery: description of surgical and patient-based risk factors for postoperative infection using administrative claims data.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy of using an automated approach to administrative claims data to assess the rate and risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) in spinal procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SSI is a major indicator of health care quality. A wide range of SSI rates have been proposed in the literature depending on clinical setting and procedure type. METHODS: All spinal surgeries performed at a university-affiliated tertiary-care center from July 2005 to December 2010 were identified using diagnosis-related group, current procedural terminology, and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes and were validated through chart review. Rates of SSI and associated risk factors were calculated using univariate regression analysis. Odds ratios were calculated through multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 6628 hospital visits were identified. The cumulative incidence of SSI was 2.9%. Procedural risk factors associated with a statistically significant increase in rates of infection were the following: sacral involvement (9.6%), fusions greater than 7 levels (7.8%), fusions greater than 12 levels (10.4%), cases with an osteotomy (6.5%), operative time longer than 5 hours (5.1%), transfusions of red blood cells (5.0%), serum (7.4%), and autologous blood (4.1%). Patient-based risk factors included anemia (4.3%), diabetes mellitus (4.2%), coronary artery disease (4.7%), diagnosis of coagulopathy (7.8%), and bone or connective tissue neoplasm (5.0%). CONCLUSION: Used individually, diagnosis-related group, current procedural terminology, and ICD-9 codes cannot completely capture a patient population. Using an algorithm combining all 3 coding systems to generate both inclusion and exclusion criteria, we were able to analyze a specific population of spinal surgery patients within a high-volume medical center. Within that group, risk factors found to increase infection rates were isolated and can serve to focus hospital-wide efforts to decrease surgery-related morbidity and improve patient outcomes.