Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy With Fusion in Patients With Cervical Spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate preoperative differences in racial and socioeconomic factors in patients undergoing laminoplasty (LP) versus laminectomy and fusion (LF) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DCM is prevalent in the United States, requiring surgical intervention to prevent neurological degeneration. While LF is utilized more frequently, LP is an emerging alternative. Previous studies have demonstrated similar neurological outcomes for both procedures. However, treatment selection is primarily at the discretion of the surgeon and may be influenced by social determinants of health that impact surgical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Quality Outcome Database (QOD), a national spine registry, was queried for adult patients who underwent either LP or LF for the management of DCM. Covariates associated with socioeconomic status, pain and disability, and demographic and medical history were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess patient factors associated with undergoing LP versus LF. RESULTS: Of 1673 DCM patients, 157 (9.4%) underwent LP and 1516 (90.6%) underwent LF. A significantly greater proportion of LP patients had private insurance (P<0.001), a greater than high school level education (P<0.001), were employed (P<0.001), and underwent primary surgery (P<0.001). LP patients reported significantly lower baseline neck/arm pain and Neck Disability Index (P<0.001). In the multivariate regression model, lower baseline neck pain [odds ratio (OR)=0.915, P=0.001], identifying as non-Caucasian (OR=2.082, P<0.032), being employed (OR=1.592, P=0.023), and having a greater than high school level education (OR=1.845, P<0.001) were associated with undergoing LP rather than LF. CONCLUSIONS: In DCM patients undergoing surgery, factors associated with patients undergoing LP versus LF included lower baseline neck pain, non-Caucasian race, higher education, and employment. While symptomatology may influence the decision to choose LP over LF, there may also be socioeconomic factors at play. The trend of more educated and employed patients undergoing LP warrants further investigation.

Impact of Racial/Ethnic Disparities on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cervical Spine Surgery: QOD Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from the cervical module of a National Spine Registry, the Quality Outcomes Database. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of race and ethnicity with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at one year after cervical spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence suggests that Black individuals are 39% to 44% more likely to have postoperative complications and a prolonged length of stay after cervical spine surgery compared with Whites. The long-term recovery assessed with PROMs after cervical spine surgery among Black, Hispanic, and other non-Hispanic groups ( i.e . Asian) remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROMs were used to assess disability (neck disability index) and neck/arm pain preoperatively and one-year postoperative. Primary outcomes were disability and pain, and not being satisfied from preoperative to 12 months after surgery. Multivariable logistic and proportional odds regression analyses were used to determine the association of racial/ethnic groups [Hispanic, non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and non-Hispanic Asian (NHA)] with outcomes after covariate adjustment and to compute the odds of each racial/ethnic group achieving a minimal clinically important difference one-year postoperatively. RESULTS: On average, the sample of 14,429 participants had significant reductions in pain and disability, and 87% were satisfied at one-year follow-up. Hispanic and NHB patients had higher odds of not being satisfied (40% and 80%) and having worse pain outcomes (30%-70%) compared with NHW. NHB had 50% higher odds of worse disability scores compared with NHW. NHA reported similar disability and neck pain outcomes compared with NHW. CONCLUSIONS: Hispanic and NHB patients had worse patient-reported outcomes one year after cervical spine surgery compared with NHW individuals, even after adjusting for potential confounders, yet there was no difference in disability and neck pain outcomes reported for NHA patients. This study highlights the need to address inherent racial/ethnic disparities in recovery trajectories following cervical spine surgery.

Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Assessing the Insurance Deductible Effect on Outcomes After Elective Spinal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Private insurers use the calendar deductible system, placing pressure on patients and medical personnel to perform medical services before the end of the year to maximize patient savings. The impact of the deductible calendar on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after spine surgery is poorly understood. The objective of our study was to investigate if patients undergoing surgery in December had different PROs and demographics compared with all other months. METHODS: The Quality Outcome Database, a national spine registry, was queried for patients who underwent elective spine surgery between January 2012 and January 2021 for degenerative spine conditions. PROs and demographics were compared between the December and non-December groups using various statistical tests. RESULTS: A total of 978 patients (9.3%) underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in December versus 9548 (90.7%) in other months. There was a significantly higher percentage of patients in December who had private insurance and were employed. A total of 1104 patients (8.5%) underwent lumbar fusion in December versus 11,826 (91.5%) in other months. There was a significantly greater chance of undergoing surgery in December if patients had private insurance and were employed. Although some PROs were statistically significant for the lumbar and cervical cohorts between December and non-December patients, none were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery in December were more likely to have private insurance and be employed. PROs for ACDF and lumbar fusions were not affected by surgical timing (December yes/no). Other spinal procedures directed at more chronic diseases might be more susceptible to external influence of insurance deductibles.