Comparison of a Posterior versus Anterior Approach for Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery Based on Relative Value Units.

INTRODUCTION: The current value-driven healthcare system encourages physicians to continuously optimize the value of the services they provide. Relative value units (RVUs) serve as the basis of a reimbursement model linking the concept that as the effort and value of services provided to patient's increases, physician reimbursement should increase proportionately. Spine surgery is particularly affected by these factors as there are multiple ways to achieve similar outcomes, some of which require more time, effort, and risk. Specifically, as the trend of spinal interbody fusion has increased over the past decade, the optimal approach to use-posterior versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF vs. ALIF)-has been a source of controversy. Due to potential discrepancies in effort, one factor to consider is the correlation between RVUs and the time needed to perform a procedure. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare: 1) mean RVUs; 2) mean operative time; and 3) mean RVUs per unit of time between PLIF and ALIF with the utilization of a national surgical database. We also performed an individual surgeon cost benefit analysis for performing PLIF versus ALIF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database was utilized to identify 6,834 patients who underwent PLIF (CPT code: 22630) and 6,985 patients who underwent ALIF (CPT code: 22558) between 2008 and 2015. The mean operative times (in minutes), mean RVUs, and RVUs per minute were calculated and compared using the Student's t-tests. In addition, the reimbursement amount (in dollars) per minute, case, day, and year for an individual surgeon performing PLIF versus ALIF were also calculated and compared. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance. RESULTS: Compared to ALIF cases, PLIF cases had longer mean operative times (203 vs. 212 minutes, p<0.001). However, PLIF cases were assigned lower mean RVUs than ALIF cases (22.08 vs. 23.52, p<0.001). Furthermore, PLIF had a lower mean RVU/minutes than ALIF cases (0.126 vs. 0.154, p<0.001). The reimbursement amounts calculated for PLIF versus ALIF were: $4.52 versus $5.53 per minute, $958.66 versus $1,121.95 per case, and $2,875.98 versus $3,365.86 per day. The annual cost difference was $78,380.92. CONCLUSION: The data from this study indicates a potentially greater annual compensation of nearly $80,000 for performing ALIF as opposed to PLIF due to a higher "hourly rate" for ALIF as is noted by the significantly greater RVU per minute (0.154 vs. 0.126 RVU/minutes). These results can be used by spine surgeons to design more appropriate compensation effective practices while still providing quality care.

Utilization of Time-driven Activity-based Costing to Determine the True Cost of a Single or 2-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective case series. OBJECTIVE: To determine the actual cost of performing 1- or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using actual patient data and the time-driven activity-based cost methodology. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As health care shifts to use value-based reimbursement, it is imperative to determine the true cost of surgical procedures. Time-driven activity-based costing determines the cost of care by determining the actual resources used in each step of the care cycle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 30 patients who underwent a 1- or 2-level ACDF by 3 surgeons at a specialty hospital were prospectively enrolled. To build an accurate process map, a research assistant accompanied the patient to every step in the care cycle including the preoperative visit, the preadmission testing, the surgery, and the postoperative visits for the first 90 days. All resources utilized and the time spent with every member of the care team was recorded. RESULTS: In total, 27 patients were analyzed. Eleven patients underwent a single-level ACDF and 16 underwent a 2-level fusion. The total cost for the episode of care was $29,299±$5048. The overwhelming cost driver was the hospital disposable costs ($13,920±$6325) which includes every item used during the hospital stay. Intraoperative personnel costs including fees for the surgeon, resident/fellow, anesthesia, nursing, surgical technician, neuromonitoring, radiology technician and orderlies, accounted for the second largest cost at $6066±$1540. The total cost excluding hospital overhead and disposables was $9071±$1939. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement for a bundle of care surrounding a 1- or 2-level ACDF should be no less than $29,299 to cover the true costs of the care for the entire care cycle. However, this cost may not include the true cost of all capital expenditures, and therefore may underestimate the cost.

The Risks of Hepatitis C in Association With Cervical Spinal Surgery: Analysis of Radiculopathy and Myelopathy Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: To investigate rates of in-hospital postsurgical complications among hepatitis C-infected patients after cervical spinal surgery in comparison with uninfected patients and determine independent risk factors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studying hepatitis C virus (HCV) as a possible risk factor for cervical spine postoperative complications is prudent, given the high prevalence of cervical spondylosis and HCV in older patients. Spine literature is limited with respect to the impact of chronic HCV upon complications after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent cervical spine surgery for cervical radiculopathy (CR) or cervical myelopathy (CM) from 2005 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Patients were divided into CR and CM groups, with comparative subgroup analysis of HCV and no-HCV patients. Univariate analysis compared demographics and complications. Binary logistic stepwise regression modeling identified any independent outcome predictors (covariates: age, sex, Deyo score, and surgical approach). RESULTS: In total, 227,310 patients (HCV: n=2542; no-HCV: n=224,764) were included. From 2005 to 2013, HCV infection prevalence among all cervical spinal fusion cases increased from 0.8% to 1.2%. HCV patients were more likely to be African American or Hispanic and have Medicare and/or Medicaid (all P<0.001). Overall complication rates among HCV patients with CR or CM increased, specifically related to device (CR: 3.1% vs. 1.9%; CM: 2.9% vs. 1.3%), hematoma/seroma (CR: 1.1% vs. 0.4%; CM: 1.8% vs. 0.8%), and sepsis (CR: 0.4% vs. 0.1%; CM: 1.1% vs. 0.5%) (all P≤0.001). Among CR and CM patients, HCV significantly predicted increased complication rates [odds ratio (OR): 1.268; OR: 1.194], hospital stay (OR: 1.738; OR: 1.861), and hospital charges (OR: 1.516; OR: 1.732; all P≤0.044). CONCLUSIONS: HCV patients undergoing cervical spinal surgery were found to have increased risks of postoperative complications and increased risk associated with surgical approach. These findings should augment preoperative risk stratification and counseling for HCV patients and their spine surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

The Effect of Postoperative Spinal Infections on Patient Mortality.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, matched cohort study. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the association between surgical site infection (SSI) and mortality and ascertain any factors that predict mortality in those diagnosed with SSI. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite significant efforts toward mitigation, SSI, including deep infection, remains a common complication following spine surgery, Considerable morbidity may be associated with infection, including hospital readmission, revision surgery, and delayed rehabilitation. However, it is not known whether this increase in morbidity is associated with increased mortality. METHODS: Patients from a single center requiring reoperation for SSI following elective spine surgery between 2005 and 2013 were identified in a retrospective fashion. These patients were then matched one-to-three with patients undergoing elective spine surgery without SSI. Patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), Charlson comorbidity index, year of surgery, spine region, and approach. The Social Security Death Index was utilized to identify deceased patients and their time of death. Univariate statistics were then utilized to compare mortality rates between the two groups. In addition, the SSI cohort was evaluated for predictors of mortality following SSI. RESULTS: One-hundred ninety-five patients developed SSI at a mean of 27.4 (range: 1-467) days from the index surgery. Ninety-day, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year mortality rates were 1.54% versus 1.03% (P = 0.70), 4.62% versus 1.2% (P = 0.006), 7.73% versus 2.25% (P = 0.001), and 15.45% versus 3.43% (P = 0.0002) for SSI versus control patients, respectively. Predictors of 2-year mortality in the SSI cohort were increased age (P = 0.02) and increased Charlson Comorbidity Index (P < 0.001). Region and approach of surgery, days to infection, and reason for elective surgery did not influence mortality. CONCLUSION: SSI results in significant morbidity in the postoperative period, with the risk of reoperation, prolonged hospitalization, and need for other invasive procedures. In addition, this study provides evidence that SSI is associated with an increased mortality following elective spine surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

The Economic Implications of an Incidental Durotomy.

STUDY DESIGN: Case-control. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the economic impact of an incidental durotomy in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An incidental durotomy during spine surgery does not affect long-term outcomes, but as reimbursement moves toward bundled payments, it may substantially affect the profitability of spine surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected morbidity and mortality database identified all patients with an incidental durotomy between January 1, 2012, and January 11, 2013. Subjects with a dural tear were matched to controls (1 : 2) without a dural tear, and the total charges for one year were collected. Controls were required to meet the following criteria: Age ±5 years; Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ±1; Date of surgery ±2 years; Exact region of the spine, but not the exact level (i.e., lumbar → lumbar); Exact type of fusion (i.e., approach, instrumentation); Exact number of levels fused; Use of rhBMP-2; Number of levels decompressed ±1. RESULTS: Two controls without a dural tear could be identified for 57 patients who sustained an incidental durotomy. No difference in demographic data, emergency room visits, hospital readmissions, or revision surgeries between the groups was identified. Patients with an incidental durotomy had a longer operative time by 30.6 ±â€Š8.5 minutes (P < 0.01), longer length of stay by 0.89 ±â€Š0.27 days (P = 0.0001), and an increase in their average initial hospital charge by 18%. No increase in surgeon-based charges or hospital-based charges after the initial visit was identified. CONCLUSION: An incidental durotomy significantly increases the initial hospital charges for patients undergoing spine surgery; however, in this study it has no effect on surgeon-based charges or on hospital-based charges after discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.