Evaluation of perioperative care and drivers of cost in geriatric thoracolumbar trauma.

Introduction: As the population of elderly patients continues to rise, the number of these individuals presenting with thoracolumbar trauma is expected to increase. Research question: To investigate thoracolumbar fusion outcomes for patients with vertebral fractures as stratified by decade. Secondarily, we examined the variability of cost across age groups by identifying drivers of cost of care. Materials and methods: We queried the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample(NIS) for adult patients undergoing spinal fusion for thoracolumbar fractures between 2012 and 2017. Patients were stratified by decade 60-69(sexagenarians), 70-79(septuagenarians) and 80-89(octogenarians). Bivariable analysis followed by multivariable regression was performed to assess independent predictors of length of stay(LOS), hospital cost, and discharge disposition. Results: A total of 2767 patients were included, of which 46%(N = 1268) were sexagenarians, 36% septuagenarians and 18%(N = 502) octogenarians. Septuagenarians and octogenarians had shorter LOS compared to sexagenarians(ß = -0.88 days; p = 0.012) and(ß = -1.78; p < 0.001), respectively. LOS was reduced with posterior approach(-2.46 days[95% CI: 3.73-1.19]; p < 0.001), while Hispanic patients had longer LOS(+1.97 [95% CI: 0.81-3.13]; p < 0.001). Septuagenarians had lower total charges $12,185.70(p = 0.040), while the decrease in charges in octogenarians was more significant, with a decrease of $26,016.30(p < 0.001) as compared to sexagenarians. Posterior approach was associated with a decrease of $24,337.90 in total charges(p = 0.026). Septuagenarians and octogenarians had 1.72 higher odds(p < 0.001) and 4.16 higher odds(p < 0.001), respectively, of discharge to a skilled nursing facility. Discussion and conclusions: Healthcare utilization in geriatric thoracolumbar trauma is complex. Cost reductions in the acute hospital setting may be offset by unaccounted costs after discharge. Further research into this phenomenon and observed racial/ethnic disparities must be pursued.

Implementation of a Private Payer Bundled Payment Model While Maintaining High-Value Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-institution cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of a commercial bundled payment model in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: BPCI-A caused significant losses for many physician practices, prompting private payers to establish their own bundled payment models. The feasibility of these private bundles has yet to be evaluated in spine fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar fusion from October to December 2018 in BPCI-A before our institution's departure were included for BPCI-A analysis. Private bundle data was collected from 2018 to 2020. Analysis of the transition was conducted among Medicare-aged beneficiaries. Private bundles were grouped by calendar year (Y1, Y2, Y3). Stepwise multivariate linear regression was performed to measure independent predictors of net deficit. RESULTS: The net surplus was the lowest in Y1 ($2,395, P =0.03) but did not differ between our final year in BPCI-A and subsequent years in private bundles (all, P >0.05). AIR and SNF patient discharges decreased significantly in all private bundle years compared with BPCI. Readmissions fell from 10.7% (N=37) in BPCI-A to 4.4% (N=6) in Y2 and 4.5% (N=3) Y3 of private bundles ( P <0.001). Being in Y2 or Y3 was independently associated with a net surplus in comparison to the Y1 (ß: $11,728, P =0.001; ß: $11,643, P =0.002). Postoperatively, length of stay in days (ß: $-2,982, P <0.001), any readmission (ß: -$18,825, P =0.001), and discharge to AIR (ß: $-61,256, P <0.001) or SNF (ß: $-10,497, P =0.058) were all associated with a net deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Nongovernmental bundled payment models can be successfully implemented in lumbar spinal fusion patients. Constant price adjustment is necessary so bundled payments remain financially beneficial to both parties and systems overcome early losses. Private insurers who have more competition than the government may be more willing to provide mutually beneficial situations where cost is reduced for payers and health systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Gender disparities among speakers at major spine conferences.

PURPOSE: To examine ten-year trends in gender representation in speaking roles at major spine conferences. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Medical conferences play an important role in career opportunities. There is little analysis on gender representation of major spine conferences despite several studies demonstrating gender disparities within spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. SAMPLE: A total of 20,181 abstract speakers across 10 years of academic conferences for six spine societies. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percent of female abstract presenters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collated the annual meeting programs of six major spine conferences (North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Global Spine Congress (GSC), American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS) Spine Summit, and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS)) dating from 2013 to 2022. Departmental websites, society webpages, or personal social media were identified for images or the use of gendered pronouns in order to determine speaker gender for each speaker type. All categorical variables were compared using Pearson chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Women constituted 1,816 (9.0%) of all 20,181 identified conference speakers. Female representation was highest at NASS (N=680, 12.2%) but lowest at CSRS (6.6%) and GSC (7.1%). Spine Summit (7.4%), IMAST (9.92%), and GSC (9.87%) demonstrated the largest annual percent increases in female representation. Institutions in Middle East and Africa (1.4%), and Central and South America (1.8%) supported the lowest percent of female speakers. Women were significantly less likely to be speakers or moderators/course faculty than to be podium abstract presenters (p<.001). The percent of women as invited speakers (10.4% vs. 5.5%, p=.001) and moderators (11.4% vs. 3.7%, p<.001) increased significantly over the study period, with annual increases of 8.8% and 20.8%, respectively, from 2013 to 2022 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: While academic spine societies have made significant progress in promoting gender representation, especially among invited speakers and session moderators, women continue to be underrepresented compared to the percent of women in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery.

The Impact of Unexpected Billing in Spine Surgery and How the Price Calculator Can Improve Patient Care.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of unexpected in-network billing on the patient experience after spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The average American household faces difficulty paying unexpected medical bills. Although legislative efforts have targeted price transparency and rising costs, elective surgical costs continue to rise significantly. Patients are therefore sometimes still responsible for unexpected medical costs, the impact of which is unknown in spine surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective spine surgery patients from January 2021 to January 2022 at a single institution were surveyed regarding their experience with the billing process. Demographic characteristics associated with unexpected billing situations, patient satisfaction, and financial distress, along with utilization and evaluation of the online price estimator, were collected. RESULTS: Of 818 survey participants, 183 (22.4%) received an unexpected in-network bill, and these patients were younger (56.7 vs. 63.4 y, P <0.001). Patients who received an unexpected bill were more likely to feel uninformed about billing (41.2% vs. 21.7%, P <0.001) and to report that billing impacted surgical satisfaction (53.8% vs. 19.1%, P <0.001). However, both groups reported similar satisfaction postoperatively (Likert >3/5: 86.0% vs. 85.5%, P =0.856). Only 35 (4.3%) patients knew of the price estimator's existence. The price estimator was reported to be very easy or easy (N=18, 78.2%) to understand and very accurate (N=6, 35.3%) or somewhat accurate (N=8, 47.1%) in predicting costs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite new regulations, a significant portion of patients received unexpected bills leading to financial distress and affecting their surgical experience. Although most patients were unaware of the price estimator, almost all patients who did know of it found it to be easy to use and accurate in cost prediction. Patients may benefit from targeted education efforts, including information on the price estimator to alleviate unexpected financial burden.

Assessment of a Private Payer Bundled Payment Model for Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Although bundled payment models are well-established in Medicare-aged individuals, private insurers are now developing bundled payment plans. The role of these plans in spine surgery has not been evaluated. Our objective was to analyze the performance of a private insurance bundled payment program for lumbar decompression and microdiskectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all lumbar decompressions in a private payer bundled payment model at a single institution from October 2018 to December 2020. 120-day episode of care cost data were collected and reported as net profit or loss regarding set target prices. A stepwise multivariable linear regression model was developed to measure the effect of patient and surgical factors on net surplus or deficit. RESULTS: Overall, 151 of 468 (32.2%) resulted in a deficit. Older patients (58.6 vs. 50.9 years, P < 0.001) with diabetes (25.2% vs. 13.9%, P = 0.004), hypertension (38.4% vs. 28.4%, P = 0.038), heart disease (13.9% vs. 7.57%, P = 0.030), and hyperlipidemia (51.7% vs. 35.6%, P = 0.001) were more likely to experience a loss. Surgically, decompression of more levels (1.91 vs. 1.19, P < 0.001), posterior lumbar decompression (86.8% vs. 56.5%, P < 0.001), and performing surgery at a tertiary hospital (84.8% vs. 70.3%, P < 0.001) were more likely to result in loss. All readmissions resulted in a loss (4.64% vs. 0.0%, P < 0.001). On multivariable regression, microdiskectomy (ß: $2,398, P = 0.012) and surgery in a specialty hospital (ß: $1,729, P = 0.096) or ambulatory surgery center (ß: $3,534, P = 0.055) were associated with cost savings. Increasing number of levels, longer length of stay, active smoking, and history of cancer, dementia, or congestive heart failure were all associated with degree of deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively optimizing comorbidities and using risk stratification to identify those patients who may safely undergo surgery at a facility other than an inpatient hospital may help increase cost savings in a bundled payment model of working-age and Medicare-age individuals.

Procedures employing interbody devices and multi-level fusion require target price adjustment to build a sustainable lumbar fusion bundled payment model.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Bundled payment models require risk adjustment to ensure appropriate targets are set. While this may be standardized for many services, spine fusions demonstrate significant variability in approach, invasiveness, and use of implants, that may require further risk adjustment. PURPOSE: To evaluate variability in costs of spinal fusion episodes in a private insurer bundle payment program and identify whether current procedural terminology (CPT) code modifications are necessary for sustainable implementation. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective single-institution cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 542 lumbar fusion episodes in a private insurer bundled payment program from October 2018 to December 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: A total of 120-day episode of care net surplus/deficit, 90-day readmissions, discharge disposition, and length of hospital stay. METHODS: A review was conducted of all lumbar fusions in a single institution's payer database. Surgical characteristics (approach [posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and circumferential fusion], levels fused, and primary vs revision) were collected from manual chart review. Episode of care cost data were collected as net surplus or deficit with respect to target prices. A multivariate linear regression model was constructed to measure the independent effects of primary versus revision, levels fused, and approach on the net cost savings. RESULTS: Most procedures were PLDFs (N=312, 57.6%), single-level (N=416, 76.8%) and primary fusions (N=477, 88.0%). Overall, 197 (36.3%) resulted in a deficit, and were more likely to be three levels (7.11% vs 2.03%, p=.005), revisions (18.8% vs 8.12%, p<.001), and TLIF (47.7% vs 35.1%, p<.001) or circumferential fusions (p<.001). One-level PLDFs resulted in the greatest cost savings per episode ($6,883). Across both PLDFs and TLIFs, 3-level procedures resulted in significant deficit of -$23,040 and -$18,887, respectively. For circumferential fusions, 1-level fusions resulted in deficit of -$17,169 per case which rose to -$64,485 and -$49,222 for 2- and 3-level fusions. All 2- and 3-level circumferential spinal fusions resulted in a deficit. On multivariable regression, TLIF and circumferential fusions were independently associated with a deficit of -$7,378 (p=.004) and -$42,185 (p<.001), respectively. Three-level fusions were independently associated with an additional -$26,003 deficit compared to single-level fusions (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interbody fusions, especially circumferential fusions, and multi-level procedures are not adequately risk adjusted by current bundled payment models. Health systems may not be able to financially support these alternative payment models with improved procedure-specific risk adjustment.

The role of socioeconomic factors as barriers to patient reported outcome measure completion following lumbar spine fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although incorporating patient reported outcomes (PROMs) into practice allows healthcare systems to evaluate the value of care provided, research and policy reflecting PROMs can only be valid if they represent all patients. Few studies have evaluated socioeconomic barriers to PROM completion, and none have done so in a spine patient population. PURPOSE: To identify patient barriers to PROM completion one year following lumbar spine fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective single-institution cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 2,984 patients undergoing lumbar fusion between 2014 and 2020 OUTCOME MEASURES: Completion of Mental Component Score (MCS-12) and Physical Component Score (PCS-12) of Short Form-12 questionnaire 1 year postoperatively. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients undergoing 1-3-level lumbar fusion at a single urban tertiary center. PROMs were queried from our prospectively managed electronic outcomes database. Patients were considered to have complete PROMs if 1-year outcomes were available. Community-level characteristics were collected from patients' zip codes using the Economic Innovation Group Distressed Communities Index. Bivariate analyses were performed to assess factors associated with PROM incompletion along with multivariate logistic regression to control for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 1,968 (66.0%) had incomplete 1-year PROMs. Patients with incomplete PROMs were more likely to be Black (14.5% vs 9.3%, p<.001), Hispanic (2.9% vs 1.6%, p=.027), reside in a distressed community (14.7% vs 8.5%, p<.001), and be active smokers (22.4% vs 15.5%, p<.001). On multivariate regression, Black race (OR: 1.46, p=.014, Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 2.19, p=.027), distressed community status (OR: 1.47, p=.024), workers' compensation status (OR: 2.82, p=.001), and active smoking (OR:1.31, p=.034) all were independently associated with PROM incompletion. Surgical characteristics, including primary surgeon, revision status, approach, and levels fused were not associated with PROM incompletion. CONCLUSIONS: Social determinants of health impact completion of PROMs. Patients completing PROMs are overwhelmingly White, non-Hispanic, and reside in wealthier communities. Efforts should be taken to provide better education regarding PROMs and ensure closer follow-up of certain subgroups of patients to avoid furthering disparities in PROM research.

Patient-specific Risk Factors Increase Episode of Care Costs After Lumbar Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine, which patient-specific risk factors increase total episode of care (EOC) costs in a population of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries undergoing lumbar decompression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar decompression is an effective option for the treatment of central canal stenosis or radiculopathy in patients unresponsive to nonoperative management. Given that elderly Americans are more likely to have one or more chronic medical conditions, there is a need to determine, which, if any, patient-specific risk factors increase health care costs after lumbar decompression. METHODS: Care episodes limited to lumbar decompression surgeries were retrospectively reviewed on a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service reimbursement database at our academic institution between 2014 and 2019. The 90-day total EOC reimbursement payments were collected. Patient electronic medical records were then matched to the selected care episodes for the collection of patient demographics, medical comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and clinical outcomes. A stepwise multivariate linear regression model was developed to predict patient-specific risk factors that increased total EOC costs after lumbar decompression. Significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients were included for analysis. Risk factors associated with increased total EOC cost included increased age (per year) (ß = $324.70, P < 0.001), comorbid depression (ß = $4368.30, P = 0.037), revision procedures (ß = $6538.43, P =0.012), increased hospital length of stay (per day) (ß = $2995.43, P < 0.001), discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (ß = $14,417.42, P = 0.001), incidence of a complication (ß = $8178.07, P < 0.001), and readmission (ß = $18,734.24, P < 0.001) within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Increased age, comorbid depression, revision decompression procedures, increased hospital length of stay, discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility, and incidence of a complication and readmission within 90 days were all associated with increased total episodes of care costs.

Evaluation of Hospital Compliance With Federal Price Transparency Regulations and Variability of Negotiated Rates for Spinal Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: To improve price transparency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires hospitals to post accessible pricing data for common elective procedures along with all third-party-negotiated rates. We aimed to evaluate hospital compliance with CMS regulations for both price estimators and machine-readable files for spinal fusions and to evaluate factors contributing to variability in hospital-negotiated pricing. METHODS: We reviewed the top 100 orthopaedic hospitals ranked by US News & World Report to assess compliance with CMS price transparency regulations for all spine diagnosis-related groups. We recorded gross inpatient charge, cash price, and deidentified maximum and minimum rates for the 11 spine diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Variability was compared with geographic practice costs (GPCI), expected Medicare reimbursements, and poverty rate and median income ratio. RESULTS: Only 72% of hospitals were fully compliant in reporting spinal fusions on their price estimator, and 39% were fully compliant in reporting all mandatory rates for spinal fusions. The overall estimated cash price was $96,979 ± $56,262 and $62,595 ± $40,307 for noncervical and cervical fusion, respectively. Cash prices at top 50 hospitals were higher for both noncervical and cervical fusions ( P = 0.0461 and P = 0.0341, respectively). The average minimum negotiated rates ranged from 0.88 to 1.15 times the expected Medicare reimbursement, while maximum and cash prices were 3.41 to 3.90 and 2.53 to 4.08 times greater than Medicare reimbursement. GPCI demonstrated little to no correlation with DRG pricing. However, minimum negotiated rates and cash prices demonstrated weak positive correlations with the median income ratio and weak negative correlations with the poverty rate. DISCUSSION: Most US hospitals are not fully compliant with CMS price transparency regulations for spinal fusions despite increased overall utilization of price estimators and machine-readable files. Although higher ranked hospitals charged more for spinal fusions, DRG prices remain widely variable with little to no correlation with practice cost or socioeconomic parameters.

Predictors of Academic Productivity Among Spine Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between research productivity in training and future productivity as an attending spine surgeon is not well-established in the literature nor has the effect of geographic location of training institutions on future academic success been investigated. The aim of our study was to (1) summarize characteristics of academically productive spine surgeons, (2) assess predictors of long-term academic productivity, and (3) establish the effect of geographic location on long-term academic productivity. METHODS: A query was conducted of the 2021 to 2022 North American Spine Society Spine Fellowship Directory of all orthopaedic and neurosurgical spine fellowship selection committee members for each institution participating in the spine fellowship match. The attending publication rate and h- index were determined. A multivariate linear regression model was developed. P value was set to <0.05. RESULTS: We identified 310 orthopaedic and neurosurgical spine surgeons, representing 76 fellowship programs. Multivariate linear regression analysis identified that the publications during residency ( P < 0.001) and during fellowship ( P < 0.001) were significant predictors of an increased publication rate as an attending surgeon. By contrast, the preresidency publication rate ( P = 0.729) was not significantly predictive of the attending publication rate. Multivariate analysis of h- index found that residency publication rate had a positive correlation ( P = 0.031) compared with preresidency ( P = 0.579) or fellowship ( P = 0.257) rates. Attendings who had attended residency in the Northeast and currently practicing in the Northeast had a higher publication rate ( P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). DISCUSSION: A higher number of publications in residency and fellowship were markedly predictive of an increased publication rate as an attending spine surgeon. By contrast, preresidency publications may not be indicative of future academic productivity as an attending. Location may also contribute to attending publication rate and favor those who undergo residency training and ultimately practice in the Northeast.

Risk stratification of patients undergoing outpatient lumbar decompression surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Reimbursement has slowly transitioned from a fee-for-service model to a bundled payment model after introduction of the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services bundled payment program. To minimize healthcare costs, some surgeons are trying to minimize healthcare expenditures by transitioning appropriately selected lumbar decompression patients to outpatient procedure centers. PURPOSE: To prepare a risk stratification calculator based on machine learning algorithms to improve surgeon's preoperative predictive capability of determining whether a patient undergoing lumbar decompression will meet inpatient vs. outpatient criteria. Inpatient criteria was defined as any overnight hospital stay. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective single-institution cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1656 patients undergoing primary lumbar decompression. OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative outcomes analyzed for inclusion into the risk calculator included length of stay. METHODS: Patients were split 80-20 into a training model and a predictive model. This resulted in 1,325 patients in the training model and 331 into the predictive model. A logistic regression analysis ensured proper variable inclusion into the model. C-statistics were used to understand model effectiveness. An odds ratio and nomogram were created once the optimal model was identified. RESULTS: A total of 1,656 patients were included in our cohort with 1,078 dischared on day of surgery and 578 patients spending ≥ 1 midnight in the hospital. Our model determined older patients (OR=1.06, p<.001) with a higher BMI (OR=1.04, p<0.001), higher back pain (OR=1.06, p=.019), increasing American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (OR=1.39, p=.012), and patients with more levels decompressed (OR=3.66, p<0.001) all had increased risks of staying overnight. Patients who were female (OR=0.59, p=.009) and those with private insurance (OR=0.64, p=.023) were less likely to be admitted overnight. Further, weighted scores based on training data were then created and patients with a cumulative score over 118 points had a 82.9% likelihood of overnight. Analysis of the 331 patients in the test data demonstrated using a cut-off of 118 points accurately predicted 64.8% of patients meeting inpatient criteria compared to 23.0% meeting outpatient criteria (p<0.001). Area under the curve analysis showed a score greater than 118 predicted admission 81.4% of the time. The algorithm was incorporated into an open access digital application available here: https://rothmanstatisticscalculators.shinyapps.io/Inpatient_Calculator/?_ga=2.171493472.1789252330.1671633274-469992803.1671633274 CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing machine-learning algorithms we created a highly reliable predictive calculator to determine if patients undergoing outpatient lumbar decompression would require admission. Patients who were younger, had lower BMI, lower preoperative back pain, lower ASA score, less levels decompressed, private insurance, lived with someone at home, and with minimal comorbidities were ideal candidates for outpatient surgery.

Demographics and Medical Comorbidities as Risk Factors for Increased Episode of Care Costs Following Lumbar Fusion in Medicare Patients.

The objective was to evaluate medical comorbidities and surgical variables as independent risk factors for increased health care costs in Medicare patients undergoing lumbar fusion. Care episodes limited to lumbar fusions were retrospectively reviewed on the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) reimbursement database at a single academic institution. Total episode of care cost was also collected. A multivariable linear regression model was developed to identify independent risk factors for increased total episode of care cost, and logistic models for surgical complications and readmission. A total of 500 Medicare patients were included. Risk factors associated with increased total episode of care cost included transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) (ß = $5,399, P < 0.001) and ALIF+PLF (AP) fusions (ß = $24,488, P < 0.001), levels fused (ß = $3,989, P < 0.001), congestive heart failure (ß = $6,161, P = 0.022), hypertension with end-organ damage (ß = $10,138, P < 0.001), liver disease (ß = $16,682, P < 0.001), inpatient complications (ß = $4,548, P = 0.001), 90-day complications (ß = $10,012, P = 0.001), and 90-day readmissions (ß = $15,677, P < 0.001). The most common surgical complication was postoperative anemia, which was associated with significantly increased costs (ß = $18,478, P < 0.001). Female sex (OR = 2.27, P = 0.001), AP fusion (OR = 2.59, P = 0.002), levels fused (OR = 1.45, P = 0.005), cerebrovascular disease (OR = 4.19, P = 0.003), cardiac arrhythmias (OR = 2.32, P = 0.002), and fluid electrolyte disorders (OR = 4.24, P = 0.002) were independent predictors of surgical complications. Body mass index (OR = 1.07, P = 0.029) and AP fusions (OR = 2.87, P = 0.049) were independent predictors of surgical readmission. Among medical comorbidities, congestive heart failure, hypertension with end-organ damage, and liver disease were independently associated with a significant increase in total episode of care cost. Interbody devices were associated with increased admission cost.

Patients From Socioeconomically Distressed Communities Experience Similar Clinical Improvements Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when categorizing patients based on socioeconomic status. Secondarily, we sought to compare PROMs based on race. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Social determinants of health are believed to affect outcomes following spine surgery, but there is limited literature on how combined socioeconomic status metrics affect PROMs following ACDF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors identified patients who underwent primary elective one-level to four-level ACDF from 2014 to 2020. Patients were grouped based on their distressed community index (DCI) quintile (Distressed, At-Risk, Mid-tier, Comfortable, and Prosperous) and then race (White or Black). Multivariate regression for ∆PROMs was performed based on DCI group and race while controlling for baseline demographics and surgical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 1204 patients included in the study, all DCI groups improved across all PROMs, except mental health component score (MCS-12) for the Mid-tier group ( P =0.091). Patients in the Distressed/At-Risk group had worse baseline MCS-12, visual analog scale (VAS) Neck, and neck disability index (NDI). There were no differences in magnitude of improvement between DCI groups. Black patients had significantly worse baseline VAS Neck ( P =0.002) and Arm ( P =0.012) as well as worse postoperative MCS-12 ( P =0.016), PCS-12 ( P =0.03), VAS Neck ( P <0.001), VAS Arm ( P =0.004), and NDI ( P <0.001). Multivariable regression analysis did not identify any of the DCI groupings to be significant independent predictors of ∆PROMs, but being White was an independent predictor of greater improvement in ∆PCS-12 (ß=3.09, P =0.036) and ∆NDI (ß=-7.32, P =0.003). CONCLUSIONS: All patients experienced clinical improvements regardless of DCI or race despite patients in Distressed communities and Black patients having worse preoperative PROMs. Being from a distressed community was not an independent predictor of worse improvement in any PROMs, but Black patients had worse improvement in NDI compared with White patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

A Short-Term Assessment of Lumbar Sagittal Alignment Parameters in Patients Undergoing Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine if intraoperative on-table lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL) coincide with perioperative change in lordosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Improvements in sagittal alignment are believed to correlate with improvements in clinical outcomes. Thus, it is important to establish whether intraoperative radiographs predict postoperative improvements in LL or SL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥18 years old who underwent single-level and two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation between 2016 and 2020. LL, SL, and the lordosis distribution index were compared between preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative radiographs using paired t tests. A linear regression determined the effect of subsidence on SL and LL. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those, 75 patients had one-level fusions and 43 had a two-level fusion. LL significantly increased following on-table positioning [delta (Δ): 5.7°, P <0.001]. However, LL significantly decreased between the intraoperative to postoperative radiographs at two to six weeks (Δ: -3.4°, P =0.001), while no change was identified between the intraoperative and more than three-month postoperative radiographs (Δ: -1.6°, P =0.143). SL was found to significantly increase from the preoperative to intraoperative radiographs (Δ: 10.9°, P <0.001), but it subsequently decreased at the two to six weeks follow up (Δ: -2.7, P <0.001) and at the final follow up (Δ: -4.1, P <0.001). On linear regression, cage subsidence/allograft resorption was predictive of the Δ SL (ß=0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.94; P =0.006), but not LL (ß=0.10; 95% confidence interval: -0.44 to 0.65; P =0.708). CONCLUSION: Early postoperative radiographs may not accurately reflect the improvement in LL seen on intraoperative radiographic imaging, but they are predictive of long-term lumbar sagittal alignment. Each millimeter of cage subsidence or allograft resorption reduces SL by 0.55°, but subsidence does not significantly affect LL. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Effect of Fellow Involvement and Experience on Patient Outcomes in Spine Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Investigations in spine surgery have demonstrated that trainee involvement correlates with increased surgical time, readmissions, and revision surgeries; however, the specific effects of spine fellow involvement remain unelucidated. This study aims to investigate the isolated effect of fellow involvement on surgical timing and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) after spine surgery and evaluate how surgical outcomes differ by fellow experience. METHODS: All patients aged 18 years or older who underwent primary or revision decompression or fusion for degenerative diseases and/or spinal deformity between 2017 and 2019 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics, surgical factors, intraoperative timing, transfusion status, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, revision rate, and preoperative and postoperative PROMs were recorded. Surgeries were divided based on spine fellow participation status and occurrence in the start or end of fellowship training. Univariate and multivariate analyses compared outcomes across fellow involvement and fellow experience groups. RESULTS: A total of 1,108 patients were included. Age, preoperative diagnoses, number of fusion levels, and surgical approach differed markedly by fellow involvement. Fellow training experience groups differed by patient smoking status, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical approach. On univariate analysis, spine fellow involvement was associated with extended total theater time, induction start to cut time, cut to close time, and LOS. Increased spine fellow training was associated with reduced cut to close time and LOS. On regression, fellow involvement predicted cut to close extension while increased fellow training experience predicted reduction in cut to close time, both independent of surgical factors and assisting residents or physician assistants. Transfusions, readmissions, revision rate, and PROMs did not differ markedly by fellow involvement or experience. CONCLUSION: Spine fellow participation predicted extended procedural duration. However, the presence of a spine fellow did not affect long-term postoperative outcomes. Furthermore, increased fellow training experience predicted decreased procedural time, underscoring a learning effect. AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIAL: The data sets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Workers' Compensation Status and Outcomes Following Lumbar Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of preoperative workers' compensation (WC) status on patient-reported outcome measures following lumbar decompression with or without fusion. METHODS: All patients undergoing lumbar decompression with or without fusion at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2017 were identified. Patients were split into groups based on WC status: no workers' compensation (NWC), WC), or retired. Intragroup analysis used paired t tests. Outcomes between groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis H test. Multiple linear regression analysis determined if WC status was a predictor of change in patient-reported outcome measures. Subgroup analysis was conducted for WC patients who returned to work. RESULTS: Of 571 included patients, 242 (43.4%) had NWC, 83 (14.5%) had WC, and 246 (43.1%) were retired. Comparing within groups, WC patients showed significant improvement in Short Form-12 Health Survey Physical Component Score, Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, and VAS leg pain (all P < 0.001) after surgery. However, WC patients improved less than NWC or retired patients in Short Form-12 Health Survey Physical Component Score (P = 0.010), VAS back pain (P = 0.028), and VAS leg pain (P = 0.015). WC was an independent predictor of decreased improvement in Short Form-12 Health Survey Physical Component Score (ß = -4.31, P = 0.001), VAS back pain (ß = 0.90, P = 0.034), and VAS leg pain (ß = 1.50, P = 0.002) on multivariate analysis. WC patients who did not return to work was an independent predictor of decreased improvement in VAS back pain (ß = 1.39, P = 0.016) and VAS leg pain (ß = 2.11, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: WC patients improve less than NWC patients. However, WC patients who return to work have similar VAS back and neck pain improvements as NWC patients.

The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Outpatient Spine Trauma Consult Follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on spine trauma patient follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although damage to the spinal column accounts for a small proportion of all traumatic injuries, it results in a significant burden on the patient, provider, and health care system. Postoperative follow-up is essential to direct rehabilitation, prevent early deterioration, and manage complications early in the postoperative period. Previous studies have established the role of insurance coverage on follow-up compliance, however, the impact of the ACA on follow-up has been scant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed upon institutional review board approval of spine trauma patients consulted by orthopedic spine or neurosurgery from January 2013 to December 2013 (pre-ACA) and January 2015 to December 2015 (post-ACA). Patient demographics, surgical case characteristics, and follow-up compliance were assessed via manual chart review. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify predictors of follow-up in the overall cohort, as well as within nonoperative and operative patients. RESULTS: A total of 827 patients were included in the final analysis after inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, patient follow-up significantly increased after implementation of the ACA (P<0.001), with pre-ACA follow-up at 35.0% (144/411) and post-ACA follow-up at 50.0% (208/516). Multivariate regression analysis further corroborated these findings, showing post-ACA status associated with a 1.66-fold higher likelihood of follow-up. Among nonoperative patients, the ACA failed to make a significant difference in follow-up (P=0.56), however, patients treated operatively showed a significantly higher likelihood of follow-up (odds ratio=2.92, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative follow-up is an essential part of patient care, aiding in improving clinical outcomes and limiting the economic burden on the health care system. This study suggests that passage of the ACA significantly improved patient follow-up for operatively managed patients but not for nonoperatively managed patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Insurance Status of Spine Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been shown to broadly affect access to care, there is little data examining the change in insurance status with regard to nonelective spinal trauma, infection, and tumor patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the changes in insurance status before and after implementation of the ACA in patients who present to the emergency room of a single, level 1 trauma and regional spinal cord injury center. Patient demographic and hospital course information were derived from consult notes and electronic medical record review. Spinal consults between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, were initially included. Consults between January 1 and December 31, 2014, were subsequently removed to obtain two separate cohorts reflecting one calendar year prior to ("pre-ACA") and following ("post-ACA") the effective date of implementation of the ACA on January 1, 2014. Compared with the pre-ACA cohort, the post-ACA cohort had a significant increase in insurance coverage (95.0% versus 83.9%, P < 0.001). Post-ACA consults had a significantly shorter length of stay compared with pre-ACA consults (7.94 versus 9.19, P < 0.001). A significantly greater percentage of the post-ACA cohort appeared for clinical follow-up subsequent to their initial consultation compared to the pre-ACA cohort (49.5% versus 35.3%, P < 0.001). Spinal consultation after the implementation of the ACA was found to be a significant positive predictor of Medicaid coverage (odds ratio = 1.96 [1.05, 3.82], P = 0.04) and a significant negative predictor of uninsured status (odds ratio = 0.28 [0.16, 0.47], P < 0.001). Increase in overall insurance coverage, increase in patient follow-up after initial consultation, and decrease in hospital length of stay were all noted after the implementation of the ACA for spinal consultation patients presenting to the emergency department.

Reimbursement of Lumbar Decompression at an Orthopedic Specialty Hospital Versus Tertiary Referral Center.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in Medicare reimbursement for one- to three-level lumbar decompression procedures performed at a tertiary referral center versus an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar decompression surgery is one of the most commonly performed spinal procedures. Lumbar decompression also comprises the largest proportion of spinal surgery that has transitioned to the outpatient setting. METHODS: Patients who underwent a primary one- to three- level lumbar decompression were retrospectively identified. Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an OSH were compiled through Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Demographic data, surgical characteristics, and time cost data were collected through chart review. Multivariate regression models were used to determine independent factors associated with total episode of care cost, operating room (OR) time, procedure time, and length of stay (LOS), and to determine independent predictors of having the decompression performed at the OSH. RESULTS: Total episode of care, facility, and non-facility payments were significantly greater at the tertiary referral center than the OSH, as were OR time for one- to three-level procedures, procedure time of all pooled levels, and LOS for one- and two-level procedures. Three-level procedure was independently associated with increased OR time, procedure time, and LOS. Age and two-level procedure were also associated with increased LOS. Procedure at the OSH was associated with decreased OR time and LOS. Charlson Comorbidity Index was a negative predictor of decompression being performed in the OSH setting. CONCLUSION: Significant financial savings to health systems can be expected when performing lumbar decompression surgery at a specialty hospital as opposed to a tertiary referral center. Patients who are appropriate candidates for surgery in an OSH can in turn expect faster perioperative times and shorter LOS.Level of Evidence: 3.

Processing and Handling Cost of Single-use Versus Traditional Instrumentation for 1 Level Lumbar Fusions.

STUDY DESIGN: A single center, observational prospective clinical study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the instrumentation-related cost and efficiency of single-use instrumentation versus traditional reusable instrument trays. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Single-use instrumentation provides the opportunity to reduce costs associated with cleaning and sterilizing instrumentation after surgery. Although previous studies have shown single-use instrumentation is effective in other orthopedic specialties, it is unclear if single-use instrumentation could provide economic advantages in spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 (20 reusable instrumentation and 20 single-use instrumentation) lumbar decompression (1-3 level) and fusion (1 level) spine surgeries were collected. Instrument handling, opening, setup, re-stocking, cleaning, sterilization, inspection, packaging, and storage were recorded by direct observation for both reusable and single-use instrumentation. The rate of infection was noted for each group. RESULTS: Mean time of handling instruments by the scrub nurse was 11.6 (±3.9) minutes for reusable instrumentation and 2.1 (±0.5) minutes for single-use instrumentation. Mean cost of handling reusable instruments was estimated to be $8.52 (±$2.96) per case, and the average cost to reprocess a single tray by Sterilization Processing Department (SPD) was $58. Thus, the median cost for sterilizing 2 reusable trays per case was $116, resulting in an average total Costresuable of $124.52 (±$2.96). Mean cost of handling single-use instrumentation was estimated to be $1.57 ($0.38) per case. CONCLUSION: Single-use instrumentation provided greater cost savings and reduced time from the opening of instrumentation to use in surgery when compared with reusable instrumentation.