Healthcare burden changes by restricted physical activities in lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis: a retrospective large cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and spondylolisthesis (SPL) are characterized as degenerative spinal pathologies and share considerable similarities. However, opinions vary on whether to recommend exercise or restrict it for these diseases. Few studies have objectively compared the effects of daily physical activity on LSS and SPL because it is impossible to restrict activities ethnically and practically. We investigated the effect of restricting physical activity due to social distancing (SoD) on LSS and SPL, focusing on the aspect of healthcare burden changes during the pandemic period. METHODS: We included first-visit patients diagnosed exclusively with LSS and SPL in 2017 and followed them up for two years before and after the implementation of the SoD policy. As controls, patients who first visited in 2015 and were followed for four years without SoD were analyzed. The common data model was employed to analyze each patient's diagnostic codes and treatments. Hospital visits and medical costs were analyzed by regression discontinuity in time to control for temporal effects on dependent variables. RESULTS: Among 33,484 patients, 2,615 with LSS and 446 with SPL were included. A significant decrease in hospital visits was observed in the LSS (difference, -3.94 times/month·100 patients; p = 0.023) and SPL (difference, -3.44 times/month·100 patients; p = 0.026) groups after SoD. This decrease was not observed in the data from the control group. Concerning medical costs, the LSS group showed a statistically significant reduction in median copayment (difference, -$45/month·patient; p < 0.001) after SoD, whereas a significant change was not observed in the SPL group (difference, -$19/month·patient; p = 0.160). CONCLUSION: Restricted physical activity during the SoD period decreased the healthcare burden for patients with LSS or, conversely, it did not significantly affect patients with SPL. Under circumstances of physical inactivity, patients with LSS may underrate their symptoms, while maintaining an appropriate activity level may be beneficial for patients with SPL.

The iterative implementation of a comprehensive enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in all spinal surgery in Korea: a comparative analysis of clinical outcomes and medical costs between primary spinal tumors and degenerative spinal diseases.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies on the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in spine surgery have focused on patients with degenerative spinal diseases (DSDs), resulting in a lack of evidence for a comprehensive ERAS protocol applicable to patients with primary spine tumors (PSTs) and other spinal diseases. The authors had developed and gradually adopted components of the comprehensive ERAS protocol for all spine surgical procedures from 2003 to 2011, and then the current ERAS protocol was fully implemented in 2012. This study aimed to evaluate the impact and the applicability of the comprehensive ERAS protocol across all spine surgical procedures and to compare outcomes between the PST and DSD groups. METHODS: Adult spine surgical procedures were conducted from 2003 to 2021 at the Seoul National University Hospital Spine Center and data were retrospectively reviewed. The author divided the study periods into the developing ERAS (2003-2011) and post-current ERAS (2012-2021) periods, and outcomes were compared between the two periods. Surgical procedures for metastatic cancer, infection, and trauma were excluded. Interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) was used to assess the impact of the ERAS protocol on medical costs and clinical outcomes, including length of stay (LOS) and rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, and surgical site infection (SSI). Subgroup analyses were conducted on the PST and DSD groups in terms of LOS and medical costs. RESULTS: The study included 7143 surgical procedures, comprising 1494 for PSTs, 5340 for DSDs, and 309 for other spinal diseases. After ERAS protocol implementation, spine surgical procedures showed significant reductions in LOS and medical costs by 22% (p = 0.008) and 22% (p < 0.001), respectively. The DSD group demonstrated a 16% (p < 0.001) reduction in LOS, whereas the PST group achieved a 28% (p < 0.001) reduction, noting a more pronounced LOS reduction in PST surgical procedures (p = 0.003). Medical costs decreased by 23% (p < 0.001) in the DSD group and 12% (p = 0.054) in the PST group, with a larger cost reduction for DSD surgical procedures (p = 0.021). No statistically significant differences were found in the rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, and SSI between the developing and post-current ERAS implementation periods (p = 0.65, p = 0.59, and p = 0.52, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive ERAS protocol implementation significantly reduced LOS and medical costs in all spine surgical procedures, while maintaining comparable 30-day readmission, reoperation, and SSI rates. These findings suggest that the ERAS protocol is equally applicable to all spine surgical procedures, with a more pronounced effect on reducing LOS in the PST group and on reducing medical costs in the DSD group.

Cost-utility analysis of endoscopic lumbar discectomy following a uniform clinical pathway in the Korean national health insurance system.

INTRODUCTION: Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is a type of minimally invasive spinal surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Sufficient evidence exists to recommend FELD as an alternative to standard open microdiscectomy, and some patients prefer FELD due to its minimally invasive nature. However, in the Republic of Korea, the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) controls the reimbursement and use of supplies for FELD, but FELD is not currently reimbursed by the NHIS. Nonetheless, FELD has been performed upon patients' request, but providing FELD for patients' sake is inherently an unstable arrangement in the absence of a practical reimbursement system. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of FELD to suggest appropriate reimbursements. METHOD: This study was a subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data including 28 patients who underwent FELD. All patients were NHIS beneficiaries and followed a uniform clinical pathway. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed with a utility score using the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument. The costs included direct medical costs incurred at the hospital for 2 years and the price of the electrode ($700), although it was not reimbursed. The costs and QALYs gained were used to calculate the cost per QALY gained. RESULT: Patients' mean age was 43 years and one-third (32%) were women. L4-5 was the most common surgical level (20/28, 71%) and extrusion was the most common type of LDH (14, 50%). Half of the patients (15, 54%) had jobs with an intermediate level of activity. The preoperative EQ-5D utility score was 0.48±0.19. Pain, disability, and the utility score significantly improved starting 1 month postoperatively. The average EQ-5D utility score during 2 years after FELD was estimated as 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.85). For 2 years, the mean direct costs were $3,459 and the cost per QALY gained was $5,241. CONCLUSION: The cost-utility analysis showed a quite reasonable cost per QALY gained for FELD. A comprehensive range of surgical options should be provided to patients, for which a practical reimbursement system is a prerequisite.

A cost-utility analysis between decompression only and fusion surgery for elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and sagittal imbalance.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and sagittal imbalance are relatively common in elderly patients. Although the goals of surgery include both functional and radiological improvements, the criteria of correction may be too strict for elderly patients. If the main symptom of patients is not forward-stooping but neurogenic claudication or pain, lumbar decompression without adding fusion procedure may be a surgical option. We performed cost-utility analysis between lumbar decompression and lumbar fusion surgery for those patients. Elderly patients (age > 60 years) who underwent 1-2 levels lumbar fusion surgery (F-group, n = 31) or decompression surgery (D-group, n = 40) for LSS with sagittal imbalance (C7 sagittal vertical axis, C7-SVA > 40 mm) with follow-up ≥ 2 years were included. Clinical outcomes (Euro-Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, EQ-5D; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; numerical rating score of pain on the back and leg, NRS-B and NRS-L) and radiological parameters (C7-SVA; lumbar lordosis, LL; the difference between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis, PI-LL; pelvic tilt, PT) were assessed. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) were calculated from a utility score of EQ-5D. Postoperatively, both groups attained clinical and radiological improvement in all parameters, but NRS-L was more improved in the F-group (p = 0.048). ICER of F-group over D-group was 49,833 US dollars/QALY. Cost-effective lumbar decompression may be a recommendable surgical option for certain elderly patients, despite less improvement of leg pain than with fusion surgery.

Direct medical costs after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal disease: A nationwide matched cohort study with a 10-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The demand for treating degenerative lumbar spinal disease has been increasing, leading to increased utilization of medical resources. Thus, we need to understand how the budget of insurance is currently used. The objective of the present study is to overview the utilization of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) by providing the direct insured cost between patients receiving surgery and patients receiving nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS: The NHIS-National Sample Cohort was utilized to select patients with lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or spondylolysis. A matched cohort study design was used to show direct medical costs of surgery (n = 2,698) and nonsurgical (n = 2,698) cohorts. Non-surgical treatment included medication, physiotherapy, injection, and chiropractic. The monthly costs of the surgery cohort and nonsurgical cohort were presented at initial treatment, posttreatment 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and yearly thereafter for 10 years. RESULTS: The characteristics and matching factors were well-balanced between the matched cohorts. Overall, surgery cohort spent $50.84/patient/month, while the nonsurgical cohort spent $29.34/patient/month (p<0.01). Initially, surgery treatment led to more charge to NHIS ($2,762) than nonsurgical treatment ($180.4) (p<0.01). Compared with the non-surgical cohort, the surgery cohort charged $33/month more for the first 3 months, charged less at 12 months, and charged approximately the same over the course of 10 years. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment initially led to more government reimbursement than nonsurgical treatment, but the charges during follow-up period were not different. The results of the present study should be interpreted in light of the costs of medical services, indirect costs, societal cost, quality of life and societal willingness to pay in each country. The monetary figures are implied to be actual economic costs but those in the reimbursement system instead reflect reimbursement charges from the government.

Increased Volume of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Changes in Surgical Methods and Outcomes: A Nationwide Cohort Study with a 5-Year Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVE: Examining spine surgery patterns over time is crucial to provide insights into variations and changes in clinical decision making. Changes in the number of surgeries, surgical methods, reoperation rates, and cost-effectiveness were analyzed for all patients who underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis in 2003 (2003 cohort) and 2008 (2008 cohort). METHODS: The national health insurance database was used to create the 2003 cohort (n = 10,990) and 2008 cohort (n = 27,942). The surgical methods were classified into decompression and fusion surgery. The cumulative reoperation probability between those surgeries was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method in the 2003 cohort and 2008 cohort. Comparison of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed the additional direct cost of a 1% change in the reoperation probability. RESULTS: The surgical volume increased 2.54-fold in the 2008 cohort. The age-adjusted number of surgeries per 1 million people increased 2.6-fold (from 154 in the 2003 cohort to 399 in the 2008 cohort) in aged patients and 1.9-fold (from 154 in the 2003 cohort to 291 in the 2008 cohort) in patients 20-59 years old in the 2008 cohort. The proportion of fusion surgeries increased from 20.3% in the 2003 cohort to 37.0% in the 2008 cohort. In total, the 5-year reoperation probabilities increased from 8.1% in the 2003 cohort to 11.2% in the 2008 cohort. Fusion decreased the reoperation probability by 1% at the cost of 1,711 U.S. dollars. CONCLUSIONS: The increased numbers of spinal surgeries, fusion surgeries, and surgeries in older patients in a recent cohort were noteworthy. However, the increased surgical volume and fusion surgeries did not reduce the reoperation rate.

Increased Volume of Lumbar Surgeries for Herniated Intervertebral Disc Disease and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of a nationwide database. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to summarize the use of surgical methods for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc disease (HIVD) at two different time periods under the national health insurance system. The secondary objective was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis by utilizing incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The selection of surgical method for HIVD may or may not be consistent with cost effectiveness under national health insurance system, but this issue has rarely been analyzed. METHODS: The data of all patients who underwent surgeries for HIVD in 2003 (n = 17,997) and 2008 (n = 38,264) were retrieved. The surgical methods included open discectomy (OD), fusion surgery, laminectomy, and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). The hospitals were classified as tertiary-referral hospitals (≥300 beds), medium-sized hospitals (30-300 beds), or clinics (<30 beds). ICER showed the difference in the mean total cost per 1% decrease in the reoperation probability among surgical methods. The total cost included the costs of the index surgery and the reoperation. RESULTS: In 2008, the number of surgeries increased by 2.13-fold. The number of hospitals increased by 34.75% (731 in 2003 and 985 in 2008). The proportion of medium-sized hospitals increased from 62.79% to 70.86%, but the proportion of surgeries performed at those hospitals increased from 61.31% to 85.08%. The probability of reoperation was highest after laminectomy (10.77%), followed by OD (10.50%), PELD (9.20%), and fusion surgery (7.56%). The ICERs indicated that PELD was a cost-effective surgical method. The proportion of OD increased from 71.21% to 84.12%, but that of PELD decreased from 16.68% to 4.57%. CONCLUSION: The choice of surgical method might not always be consistent with cost-effectiveness strategies, and a high proportion of medium-sized hospitals may be responsible for this change. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc disease: nationwide cohort study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using national health insurance data. OBJECTIVE: To provide a longitudinal reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) disease, and to compare the reoperation rates of surgical methods. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Herniated intervertebral disc disease is the most common cause of lumbar spinal surgery. Despite improved surgical techniques and instrumentation, reoperation cannot be avoided. The reoperation rates were in the range of 6% to 24% in previous studies. A population-based study is less subject to bias; hence, a nationwide longitudinal analysis was warranted. METHODS: A national health insurance database was used to identify a cohort of patients who underwent first surgery for herniated intervertebral disc disease in 2003 and 18,590 patients were selected. Individual patients were followed for at least 5 years through their encrypted unique resident registration number. The primary endpoint was any type of second lumbar surgery. After adjusting for confounding factors, 5 surgical methods (fusion, laminectomy, open discectomy, endoscopic discectomy, and nucleolysis [including mechanical nucleus decompression]) were compared. Open discectomy was used as the reference method. RESULTS: Open discectomy was the most common procedure (68.9%) followed by endoscopic discectomy (16.1%), laminectomy (7.9%), fusion (3.9%), and nucleolysis (3.2%). The cumulative reoperation rate was 5.4% at 3 months, 7.4% at 1 year, 9% at 2 years, 10.5% at 3 years, 12.1% at 4 years, and 13.4% at 5 years. The reoperation rates were 18.6%, 14.7%, 13.8%, 12.4%, and 11.8% after laminectomy, nucleolysis, open discectomy, endoscopic discectomy, and fusion, respectively. Compared with open discectomy, the reoperation rate was higher after laminectomy at 3 months, whereas the other surgical methods had similar rates. CONCLUSION: The cumulative reoperation rate after 5 years was 13.4% and half of the reoperations occurred during the first postoperative year. With the exception of laminectomy, the reoperation rates of the other procedures were not different from that of open discectomy.