Disparities in indications and outcomes reporting for pediatric tethered cord surgery: The need for a standardized outcome assessment tool.

PURPOSE: Tethered cord syndrome (TCS) is characterized by abnormal attachment of the spinal cord neural elements to surrounding tissues. The most common symptoms include pain, motor or sensory dysfunction, and urologic deficits. Although TCS is common in children, there is a significant heterogeneity in outcomes reporting. We systematically reviewed surgical indications and postoperative outcomes to assess the need for a grading/classification system. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE searches identified pediatric TCS literature published between 1950 and 2023. Studies reporting surgical interventions, ≥ 6-month follow-up, and ≥ 5 patients were included. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies representing 3798 patients were included. The most commonly reported non-urologic symptoms were nonspecific lower-extremity motor disturbances (36.4% of studies), lower-extremity/back pain (32.7%), nonspecific lower-extremity sensory disturbances (29.1%), gait abnormalities (29.1%), and nonspecific bowel dysfunction/fecal incontinence (25.5%). Urologic symptoms were most commonly reported as nonspecific complaints (40.0%). After detethering surgery, retethering was the most widely reported non-urologic outcome (40.0%), followed by other nonspecific findings: motor deficits (32.7%), lower-extremity/back/perianal pain (18.2%), gait/ambulation function (18.2%), sensory deficits (12.7%), and bowel deficits/fecal incontinence (12.7%). Commonly reported urologic outcomes included nonspecific bladder/urinary deficits (27.3%), bladder capacity (20.0%), bladder compliance (18.2%), urinary incontinence/enuresis/neurogenic bladder (18.2%), and nonspecific urodynamics/urodynamics score change (16.4%). CONCLUSION: TCS surgical literature is highly variable regarding surgical indications and reporting of postsurgical outcomes. The lack of common data elements and consistent quantitative measures inhibits higher-level analysis. The development and validation of a standardized outcomes measurement tool-ideally encompassing both patient-reported outcome and objective measures-would significantly benefit future TCS research and surgical management.

Hospital cost differences between open and endoscopic lumbar spine decompression surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, fully endoscopic decompression surgery for degenerative spine disease has become increasingly popular in the US. Although an endoscopic approach has demonstrated some benefits compared with open procedures in randomized controlled trials, the cost of advanced technologies remains contested. The authors evaluated the differences in costs and cost drivers between open and endoscopic decompression surgical procedures performed at a single institution. METHODS: Using associated Current Procedural Terminology codes, the authors identified all open and endoscopic decompression lumbar surgical procedures performed from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2022. Preoperative comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were captured. The costs of index surgery-related readmission for revision, washout, or other complications were included in the index surgery expenses. Associated in-hospital costs were collected; these were reported in comparative percentages with open surgical procedures as the baseline because of an institutional agreement. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: The retrospective search identified 633 open surgical procedures and 195 endoscopic surgical procedures for inclusion. The two patient cohorts were similar, with clinically nonrelevant but statistically significant differences in mean age (open 55.7 years vs endoscopic 59.4 years, p = 0.01) and mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class (open 2.3 vs endoscopic 2.4, p = 0.03). Postoperatively, patients who underwent open surgical procedures had significantly longer mean hospital stays (open 1.4 days vs endoscopic 0.7, p < 0.01) and more perioperative complications (open 7.9% of patients vs endoscopic 3.1%, p = 0.02), and they required washout surgical procedures in some cases (open 1.3% vs endoscopic 0%, p = 0.12). The largest cost difference between open and endoscopic surgical procedures was the significantly greater cost of disposable supplies for endoscopic cases (10.1% vs 31.7% of the total cost of open procedures, p < 0.01), and open surgical procedures were generally less costly in total (100.0% vs 115.1%, p < 0.01). In multivariate linear regression, endoscopic surgery was independently associated with greater total costs (standardized beta 15.9%, p < 0.01), although length of hospital stay (standardized beta 34.0%) and readmissions (standardized beta 30.0%, p < 0.01) had larger effects on cost. CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopic approach was associated with greater total in-hospital costs compared with open procedures. The findings of further cost evaluations, including those of patient-reported outcomes, social cost, and capital costs per procedure type, need to be included in operational and clinical decisions.

Analysis of treatment cost differences in patients undergoing femoral versus radial access in outpatient diagnostic cerebral arteriograms.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient diagnostic cerebral arteriograms are the most common procedure in neuroendovascular surgery, and the use of transradial access for these studies is growing. Although transradial access has been associated with lower hospital costs for elective diagnostic and interventional neuroendovascular procedures, no study has compared transfemoral access and transradial access costs for a homogenous population of patients undergoing outpatient diagnostic cerebral arteriogram. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, the Value Driven Outcomes database was used to evaluate treatment costs for patients who underwent outpatient diagnostic cerebral arteriogram from January 2019 to December 2022. Propensity-score matching was performed to reduce confounders. Costs from each encounter were subcategorized into imaging, supplies, pharmacy, procedures, labs, and facility costs. RESULTS: After matching, 337 patients each for transradial access and transfemoral access were available for analysis. A total of 118,992 cost data points were associated with all encounters. Overall, per-visit costs were 15.2% cheaper for patients who underwent transradial access versus transfemoral access (p < 0.001). Most of the cost difference was due to supplies (35.2% cost difference, p < 0.001) and procedure costs (9.3% cost difference, p < 0.001). No statistical differences were observed between the two approaches in imaging, pharmacy, labs, and facility costs (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Costs for outpatient diagnostic cerebral arteriogram were lower in patients who underwent transradial access versus transfemoral access because of supply and procedure costs. Understanding reasons for cost differences in common procedures is important for creating strategies to reduce overall healthcare costs. Additionally, addressing the cost differences of newer techniques may increase the likelihood that they are more readily implemented by hospitals and providers.

A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched Assessment of Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Approaches in the Management of Pituitary Adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is considerable controversy as to which of the 2 operating modalities (microsurgical or endoscopic transnasal surgery) currently used to resect pituitary adenomas (PAs) is the safest and most effective intervention. We compared rates of clinical outcomes of patients with PAs who underwent resection by either microsurgical or endoscopic transnasal surgery. METHODS: To independently assess the outcomes of each modality type, we sought to isolate endoscopic and microscopic PA surgeries with a 1:1 tight-caliper (0.01) propensity score-matched analysis using a multicenter, neurosurgery-specific database. Surgeries were performed between 2017 and 2020, with data collected retrospectively from 12 international institutions on 4 continents. Matching was based on age, previous neurological deficit, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor functionality, tumor size, and Knosp score. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among a pool of 2826 patients, propensity score matching resulted in 600 patients from 9 surgery centers being analyzed. Multivariate analysis showed that microscopic surgery had a 1.91 odds ratio (OR) ( P = .03) of gross total resection (GTR) and shorter operative duration ( P < .01). However, microscopic surgery also had a 7.82 OR ( P < .01) for intensive care unit stay, 2.08 OR ( P < .01) for intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, 2.47 OR ( P = .02) for postoperative syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH), and was an independent predictor for longer postoperative stay (ß = 2.01, P < .01). Overall, no differences in postoperative complications or 3- to 6-month outcomes were seen by surgical approach. CONCLUSION: Our international, multicenter matched analysis suggests microscopic approaches for pituitary tumor resection may offer better GTR rates, albeit with increased intensive care unit stay, CSF leak, SIADH, and hospital utilization. Better prospective studies can further validate these findings as matching patients for outcome analysis remains challenging. These results may provide insight into surgical benchmarks at different centers, offer room for further registry studies, and identify best practices.

Are There Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Among Outcomes After Anterior Cranial Fossa Surgery? A Propensity Score-Matched American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study.

BACKGROUND: Race-based health care outcomes remain to be described in anterior cranial fossa (ACF) surgery. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether race predicts worse outcomes after ACF surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data for 2005 to 2020. Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases-9 codes were used to identify ACF tumor cases. Propensity score matching was performed to compare White and minority patients to assess the robustness of unmatched findings. A subanalysis of pituitary adenoma (PA) resections was also performed. RESULTS: In an unmatched analysis of 1370 patients who underwent ACF surgery (67.9% White, 17.4% Black, 6.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 6.3% Hispanic), minority groups had higher rates of comorbidities. Unmatched multivariate analysis found Hispanic patients bore a 1.86 odds ratio (OR) of minor complications, Black and Asian and Pacific Islander patients bore 1.49 and 1.71 ORs, respectively, for extended length of stay, and Black patients bore a 3.78 OR for urinary tract infection (UTI). Matched analysis found that minority patients had higher UTI rates ( P = .02) and a 4.11 OR of UTI. In PA cases specifically, minority groups had higher comorbidities and length of stay in addition to extended length of stay odds (1.84 OR). CONCLUSION: Although most ACF surgery outcomes were unaffected by race, minority groups had more minor postoperative complications than White patients, particularly UTI. Similar disparities were observed among PA cases. Higher rates of comorbidities may also have led to longer hospital stays. Further study is needed to understand what actions might be necessary to address any race-associated health disparities in ACF surgery.