Impact of Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation awards on subsequent grant funding and career outcomes of neurosurgeon-scientists.

OBJECTIVE: The Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) provides diverse funding opportunities for in-training and early-career neurosurgeon-scientists. The authors analyzed the impact of NREF funding on the subsequent career success of neurosurgeons in obtaining research funding and academic achievements. METHODS: The NREF database was queried to identify NREF winners from 2000 to 2015. The award recipients were surveyed to obtain information about their demographic characteristics, academic career, and research funding. Only subsequent research support with an annual funding amount of $50,000 or greater was included. The primary outcome was the NREF impact ratio, defined as the ratio between NREF award research dollars and subsequent grant funding dollars. The secondary outcomes were time to subsequent grant funding as principal investigator (PI), clinical practice settings, and final academic position achieved. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2015, 158 neurosurgeons received 164 NREF awards totaling $8.3 million (M), with $1.7 M awarded to 46 Young Clinician Investigators (YCIs), $1.5 M to 18 Van Wagenen Fellows (VWFs), and $5.1 M to 100 resident Research Fellowship Grant (RFG) awardees. Of all awardees, 73% have current academic appointments, and the mean ± SD number of publications and H-index were 71 ± 82 and 20 ± 15, respectively. The overall response rate to our survey was 70%, and these respondents became the cohort for our analysis. In total, respondents cumulatively obtained $776 M in post-NREF award grant funding, with the most common sources of funding including the National Institutes of Health ($327 M) and foundational awards ($306 M). The NREF impact ratios for awardees were $1:$381 for YCI, $1:$113 for VWF, and $1:$41 for resident RFG. Awardees with NREF projects in functional neurosurgery, pediatric neurosurgery, and neuro-oncology had the highest NREF impact ratios of $1:$194, $1:$185, and $1:$162, respectively. Of respondents, 9% became department chairs, 26% became full professors, 82% received at least 1 subsequent research grant, and 66% served as PI on a subsequent research grant after receiving their NREF awards. CONCLUSIONS: In-training and early-career neurosurgeons who were awarded NREF funding had significant success in acquiring subsequent grant support, research productivity, and achievements of academic rank. NREF grants provide a tremendous return on investment across various career stages and subspecialities. They also appeared to have a broader impact on trajectory of research and innovation within the field of neurosurgery.

Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation funding conversion to National Institutes of Health funding.

OBJECTIVE: The Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) provides research support for in-training and early career neurosurgeon-scientists. To define the impact of this funding, the authors assessed the success of NREF awardees in obtaining subsequent National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. METHODS: NREF in-training (Research Fellowship [RF] for residents) and early career awards/awardees (Van Wagenen Fellowship [VW] and Young Clinician Investigator [YCI] award for neurosurgery faculty) were analyzed. NIH funding was defined by individual awardees using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool (1985-2014). RESULTS: Between 1985 and 2014, 207 unique awardees were supported by 218 NREF awards ($9.84 million [M] in funding), including 117 RF ($6.02 M), 32 VW ($1.68 M), and 69 YCI ($2.65 M) awards. Subspecialty funding included neuro-oncology (79 awards; 36% of RF, VW, and YCI awards), functional (53 awards; 24%), vascular (37 awards; 17%), spine (22 awards; 10%), pediatrics (18 awards; 8%), trauma/critical care (5 awards; 2%), and peripheral nerve (4 awards; 2%). These awardees went on to receive $353.90 M in NIH funding that resulted in an overall NREF/NIH funding ratio of 36.0:1 (in dollars). YCI awardees most frequently obtained later NIH funding (65%; $287.27 M), followed by VW (56%; $41.10 M) and RF (31%; $106.59 M) awardees. YCI awardees had the highest NREF/NIH funding ratio (108.6:1), followed by VW (24.4:1) and RF (17.7:1) awardees. Subspecialty awardees who went on to obtain NIH funding included vascular (19 awardees; 51% of vascular NREF awards), neuro-oncology (40 awardees; 51%), pediatrics (9 awardees; 50%), functional (25 awardees; 47%), peripheral nerve (1 awardees; 25%), trauma/critical care (2 awardees; 20%), and spine (2 awardees; 9%) awardees. Subspecialty NREF/NIH funding ratios were 56.2:1 for vascular, 53.0:1 for neuro-oncology, 47.6:1 for pediatrics, 34.1:1 for functional, 22.2:1 for trauma/critical care, 9.5:1 for peripheral nerve, and 0.4:1 for spine. Individuals with 2 NREF awards achieved a higher NREF/NIH funding ratio (83.3:1) compared to those with 1 award (29.1:1). CONCLUSIONS: In-training and early career NREF grant awardees are an excellent investment, as a significant portion of these awardees go on to obtain NIH funding. Moreover, there is a potent multiplicative impact of NREF funding converted to NIH funding that is related to award type and subspecialty.

Economic Evaluation of Extended Early Intervention Service vs Regular Care Following 2 Years of Early Intervention: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Cost-effectiveness studies of early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis have not included extension beyond the first 2 years. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a 3-year extension of EIS compared to regular care (RC) from the public health care payer's perspective. Following 2 years of EIS in a university setting in Montreal, Canada, patients were randomized to a 3-year extension of EIS (n = 110) or RC (n = 110). Months of total symptom remission served as the main outcome measure. Resource use and cost data for publicly covered health care services were derived mostly from administrative systems. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were produced. Relative cost-effectiveness was estimated for those with duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) of 12 weeks or less vs longer. Extended early intervention had higher costs for psychiatrist and nonphysician interventions, but total costs were not significantly different. The ICER was $1627 per month in total remission. For the intervention to have an 80% chance of being cost-effective, the decision-maker needs to be willing to pay $5942 per month of total symptom remission. DUP ≤ 12 weeks was associated with a reduction in costs of $12 276 even if no value is placed on additional months in total remission. Extending EIS for psychosis for people, such as those included in this study, may be cost-effective if the decision-maker is willing to pay a high price for additional months of total symptom remission, though one commensurate with currently funded interventions. Cost-effectiveness was much greater for people with DUP ≤12 weeks.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion.

Assessment of functional patient-reported outcome following lumbar spinal fusion continues to be essential for comparing the effectiveness of different treatments for patients presenting with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. When assessing functional outcome in patients being treated with lumbar spinal fusion, a reliable, valid, and responsive outcomes instrument such as the Oswestry Disability Index should be used. The SF-36 and the SF-12 have emerged as dominant measures of general health-related quality of life. Research has established the minimum clinically important difference for major functional outcomes measures, and this should be considered when assessing clinical outcome. The results of recent studies suggest that a patient's pretreatment psychological state is a major independent variable that affects the ability to detect change in functional outcome.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: assessment of economic outcome.

A comprehensive economic analysis generally involves the calculation of indirect and direct health costs from a societal perspective as opposed to simply reporting costs from a hospital or payer perspective. Hospital charges for a surgical procedure must be converted to cost data when performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. Once cost data has been calculated, quality-adjusted life year data from a surgical treatment are calculated by using a preference-based health-related quality-of-life instrument such as the EQ-5D. A recent cost-utility analysis from a single study has demonstrated the long-term (over an 8-year time period) benefits of circumferential fusions over stand-alone posterolateral fusions. In addition, economic analysis from a single study has found that lumbar fusion for selected patients with low-back pain can be recommended from an economic perspective. Recent economic analysis, from a single study, finds that femoral ring allograft might be more cost-effective compared with a specific titanium cage when performing an anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus posterolateral fusion.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion status.

The ability to identify a successful arthrodesis is an essential element in the management of patients undergoing lumbar fusion procedures. The hypothetical gold standard of intraoperative exploration to identify, under direct observation, a solid arthrodesis is an impractical alternative. Therefore, radiographic assessment remains the most viable instrument to evaluate for a successful arthrodesis. Static radiographs, particularly in the presence of instrumentation, are not recommended. In the absence of spinal instrumentation, lack of motion on flexion-extension radiographs is highly suggestive of a successful fusion; however, motion observed at the treated levels does not necessarily predict pseudarthrosis. The degree of motion on dynamic views that would distinguish between a successful arthrodesis and pseudarthrosis has not been clearly defined. Computed tomography with fine-cut axial images and multiplanar views is recommended and appears to be the most sensitive for assessing fusion following instrumented posterolateral and anterior lumbar interbody fusions. For suspected symptomatic pseudarthrosis, a combination of techniques including static and dynamic radiographs as well as CT images is recommended as an option. Lack of facet fusion is considered to be more suggestive of a pseudarthrosis compared with absence of bridging posterolateral bone. Studies exploring additional noninvasive modalities of fusion assessment have demonstrated either poor potential, such as with (99m)Tc bone scans, or provide insufficient information to formulate a definitive recommendation.

Outcomes for single-level lumbar fusion: the role of bone morphogenetic protein.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a population-based insurance claims data set. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of repeat fusion and total costs associated with bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) use in single-level lumbar fusion for degenerative spinal disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of BMP has been proposed to reduce overall costs of spinal fusion through prevention of repeat fusion procedures. Although radiographic fusion rates associated with BMP use have been examined in clinical trials, few data exist regarding outcomes associated with BMP use in the general population. METHODS: Using the MarketScan claims data set, 15,862 patients that underwent single-level lumbar fusion from 2003 to 2007 for degenerative disease were identified. Propensity scores were used to match 2372 patients who underwent fusion with BMP to patients who underwent fusion without BMP. Logistic regression models, Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine risk of repeat fusion, length of stay, and 30-day readmission by BMP use. Cost comparisons were evaluated with linear regression models using logarithmic transformed data. RESULTS: At 1 year from surgery, BMP was associated with a 1.1% absolute decrease in the risk of repeat fusion (2.3% with BMP vs. 3.4% without BMP, P = 0.03) and an odds ratio for repeat fusion of 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47-0.94) after multivariate adjustment. BMP was also associated with a decreased hazard ratio for long-term repeat fusion (adjusted hazards ratio = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.58-0.93). Cost analysis indicated that BMP was associated with initial increased costs for the surgical procedure (13.9% adjusted increase, 95% CI = 9.9%-17.9%) as well as total 1-year costs (10.1% adjusted increase, 95% CI = 6.2%-14.0%). CONCLUSION: At 1 year, BMP use was associated with a decreased risk of repeat fusion but also increased health care costs.

Radiographic assessment of cervical subaxial fusion.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to identify the best methodology for radiographic assessment of cervical subaxial fusion. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to cervical fusion. Abstracts were reviewed and studies meeting inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: Pseudarthrosis is best assessed through the absence of motion detected between the spinous processes on dynamic radiographs (Class II). The measurement of interspinous distance on dynamic radiographs of >or= 2 mm is a more reliable indicator for pseudarthrosis than angular motion of 2 degrees based on Cobb angle measurements (Class II). Similarly, it is also understood that the pseudarthrosis rate will increase as the threshold for allowable motion on dynamic radiographs decreases. The combination of interspinous distance measurements and identification of bone trabeculation is unreliable when performed by the treating surgeon (Class II). Identification of bone trabeculation on static radiographs should be considered a less reliable indicator of cervical arthrodesis than dynamic films (Class III). CONCLUSIONS: Consideration should be given to dynamic radiographs and interspinous distance when assessing for pseudarthrosis.

Functional outcomes assessment for cervical degenerative disease.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to identify valid, reliable, and responsive measures of functional outcome after treatment for cervical degenerative disease. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and key words relevant to functional outcomes. Abstracts were reviewed after which studies meeting inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: Myelopathy Disability Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and gait analysis were found to be valid and reliable measures (Class II) for assessing cervical spondylotic myelopathy. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale, the North American Spine Society scale, and the Neck Disability Index were found to be reliable, valid, and responsive (Class II) for assessing radiculopathy for nonoperative therapy. The Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire was a reliable and valid method (Class II) to assess operative therapy for cervical radiculopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Several functional outcome measures are available to assess cervical spondylotic myelopathy and cervical radiculopathy.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome.

Functional disability secondary to acute low-back pain, chronic low-back pain, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar disc disease may be reliably and validly assessed using functional outcome surveys that are valid, reliable, and responsive. Outcome instruments supported by Class I and Class II medical evidence for the evaluation of low-back pain include the Spinal Stenosis Survey of Stucki, Waddell-Main, RMDQ, DPQ, QPDS, SIP, Million Scale, LBPR Scale, ODI, and CBSQ. Many of these outcome measures have been applied to patients who have been treated with lumbar fusion for degenerative lumbar disease and have proven to be valid and responsive; however, the reliability of these instruments has never been specifically assessed in the lumbar fusion patient population. Patient satisfaction surveys have been used to measure outcome following lumbar fusion. Their usefulness resides in their insight into patient attitudes toward the treatment experience but is limited because of their inability to measure responsiveness and the lack of information on their reliability.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: assessment of economic outcome.

Lumbar fusion may be associated with a high short-term cost, especially if instrumentation is placed; however, there appear to be long-term economic benefits associated with lumbar fusion including resumption of employment. To describe the economic impact of lumbar fusion for degenerative disease adequately, it is important to define the patient population treated with fusion and to compare efficacy as well as the costs of other treatment alternatives. Any such analysis should include both short- and long-term costs and benefits.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion.

The assessment of fusion status with static plain radiography is accurate in approximately two thirds of patients treated with lumbar fusion when the radiographic results are compared with surgical exploration findings. Therefore, static plain radiography is not recommended as a stand-alone modality following lumbar fusion procedures. The addition of lateral flexion-extension radiography may improve accuracy because the lack of motion between fused lumbar segments on lateral views is highly suggestive of a solid fusion. Some degree of motion between segments may be present even when the spine has fused. The amount of motion allowable across fused segments is not clear, and the role of internal fixation in limiting motion has also not been adequately addressed. The addition of multiplanar CT scanning results in the detection of pseudarthrosis in some patients in whom fusion has been deemed successful based on plain radiographic criteria. Therefore, CT scanning may be more accurate in the determination of fusion status than plain radiography; however, a rigorous comparison of modern CT scanning and surgical exploration has not been performed. It appears that RSA is exquisitely sensitive for the detection of motion between vertebral bodies, and the loss of motion between treated vertebral segments does appear to indicate the presence of fusion. The modality, however, is invasive and not widely available. Furthermore, the only