Preoperative Behavioral Health, Opioid, and Antidepressant Utilization and 2-year Costs After Spinal Fusion-Revelations From Cluster Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective administrative claims database analysis. OBJECTIVE: Identify distinct presurgery health care resource utilization (HCRU) patterns among posterior lumbar spinal fusion patients and quantify their association with postsurgery costs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Presurgical HCRU may be predictive of postsurgical economic outcomes and help health care providers to identify patients who may benefit from innovation in care pathways and/or surgical approach. METHODS: Privately insured patients who received one- to two-level posterior lumbar spinal fusion between 2007 and 2016 were identified from a claims database. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (HC), an unsupervised machine learning technique, was used to cluster patients by presurgery HCRU across 90 resource categories. A generalized linear model was used to compare 2-year postoperative costs across clusters controlling for age, levels fused, spinal diagnosis, posterolateral/interbody approach, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Among 18,770 patients, 56.1% were female, mean age was 51.3, 79.4% had one-level fusion, and 89.6% had inpatient surgery. Three patient clusters were identified: Clust1 (n = 13,987 [74.5%]), Clust2 (n = 4270 [22.7%]), Clust3 (n = 513 [2.7%]). The largest between-cluster differences were found in mean days supplied for antidepressants (Clust1: 97.1 days, Clust2: 175.2 days, Clust3: 287.1 days), opioids (Clust1: 76.7 days, Clust2: 166.9 days, Clust3: 129.7 days), and anticonvulsants (Clust1: 35.1 days, Clust2: 67.8 days, Clust3: 98.7 days). For mean medical visits, the largest between-cluster differences were for behavioral health (Clust1: 0.14, Clust2: 0.88, Clust3: 16.3) and nonthoracolumbar office visits (Clust1: 7.8, Clust2: 13.4, Clust3: 13.8). Mean (95% confidence interval) adjusted 2-year all-cause postoperative costs were lower for Clust1 ($34,048 [$33,265-$34,84]) versus both Clust2 ($52,505 [$50,306-$54,800]) and Clust3 ($48,452 [$43,007-$54,790]), P < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: Distinct presurgery HCRU clusters were characterized by greater utilization of antidepressants, opioids, and behavioral health services and these clusters were associated with significantly higher 2-year postsurgical costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Reducing Radiation and Lowering Costs With a Standardized Care Pathway for Nonoperative Thoracolumbar Fractures.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: There is marked variation in the management of nonoperative thoracolumbar (TL) compression and burst fractures. This was a quality improvement study designed to establish a standardized care pathway for TL fractures treated with bracing, and to then evaluate differences in radiographs, length of stay (LOS), and cost before and after the pathway. METHODS: A standardized pathway was established for management of nonoperative TL burst and compression fractures (AOSpine classification type A1-A4 fractures). Bracing, radiographs, costs, complications, and LOS before and after pathway adoption were analyzed. Differences between the neurosurgery and orthopedic spine services were compared. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2015, 406 nonoperative burst and compression TL fractures were identified. A total of 183 (45.1%) were braced, 60.6% with a custom-made thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) and 39.4% with an off-the-shelf TLSO. The number of radiographs significantly reduced after initiation of the pathway (3.23 vs 2.63, P = .010). A total of 98.6% of braces were custom-made before the pathway; 69.6% were off-the-shelf after the pathway. The total cost for braced patients after pathway adoption decreased from $10 462.36 to $8928.58 (P = .078). Brace-associated costs were significantly less for off-the-shelf TSLO versus custom TLSO ($1352.41 vs $3719.53, respectively, P < .001). The mean LOS and complication rate did not change significantly following pathway adoption. The orthopedic spine service braced less frequently than the neurosurgery service (40.7% vs 52.2%, P = .023). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized care pathways can reduce cost and radiation exposure without increasing complication rates in nonoperative management of thoracolumbar compression and burst fractures.

A 5-Year Review of Hospital Costs and Reimbursement in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate charges, expenses, reimbursement, and hospital margins with noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in situ (PLF), posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws (PPS), and PPS with interbody device (PLIF) in degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed from 2010 to 2014 based on ICD-9 diagnoses of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis in patients undergoing single-level fusions. All charges, expenses, reimbursement, and margins were obtained through financial auditing. A multivariate linear regression model was used to compare demographics, charges, etc. A 1-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc analysis was used to analyze reimbursements and margins based upon insurances. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-three patients met inclusion criteria. The overall charges and expenses for PLF were significantly less compared to both types of instrumented fusions (P < .0001). Medicare and private insurance were the most common insurance types; Medicare and private insurance mean reimbursements for PLF were $36,903 and $47,086, respectively; for PPS, $37,450 and $53,851, and for PLIF $40,171 and $51,640. Hospital margins for PPS and PLIF in Medicaid patients were negative (-$3,702 and -$6,456). Hospital margins were largest for both worker's compensation and private insurance patients in all fusion groups. Hospital margins with Medicare for PLF, PPS, and PLIF were $24,347, $19,205, and $23,046, respectively. Hospital margins for private insurance for PLF, PPS, and PLIF were $37,569, $36,834, and $33,134, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As more instrumentation is used, the more it costs both the hospital and the insurance companies; hospital margins did not increase correspondingly. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Improved understanding of related costs and margins associated with lumbar fusions to help transition to more cost effective spine centers.

Early Effects of Medicare's Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Program for Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims linked to hospital participation in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's episode-based Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) program for lumbar fusion. OBJECTIVE: To describe the early effects of BPCI participation for lumbar fusion on 90-day reimbursement, procedure volume, reoperation, and readmission. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Initiated on January 1, 2013, BPCI's voluntary bundle payment program provides a predetermined payment for services related to a Diagnosis-Related Group-defined "triggering event" over a defined time period. As an alternative to fee-for-service, these reforms shift the financial risk of care on to hospitals. METHODS: We identified fee-for-service beneficiaries over age 65 undergoing a lumbar fusion in 2012 or 2013, corresponding to the years before and after BPCI initiation. Hospitals were grouped based on program participation status as nonparticipants, preparatory, or risk-bearing. Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for patient age, sex, race, comorbidity, and hospital size were used to compare changes in episode costs, procedure volume, and safety indicators based on hospital BPCI participation. RESULTS: We included 89,605 beneficiaries undergoing lumbar fusion, including 36% seen by a preparatory hospital and 7% from a risk-bearing hospital. The mean age of the cohort was 73.4 years, with 59% women, 92% White, and 22% with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2 or more. Participant hospitals had greater procedure volume, bed size, and total discharges. Relative to nonparticipants, risk-bearing hospitals had a slightly increased fusion procedure volume from 2012 to 2013 (3.4% increase vs. 1.6% decrease, P = 0.119), did not reduce 90-day episode of care costs (0.4% decrease vs. 2.9% decrease, P = 0.044), increased 90-day readmission rate (+2.7% vs. -10.7%, P = 0.043), and increased repeat surgery rates (+30.6% vs. +7.1% points, P = 0.043). CONCLUSION: These early, unintended trends suggest an imperative for continued monitoring of BPCI in lumbar fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Incremental Hospital Cost and Length-of-stay Associated With Treating Adverse Events Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Cervical Spinal Fusion During Fiscal Year 2013 and 2014.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: To report the incremental hospital resources consumed with treating adverse events experienced by Medicare beneficiaries undergoing a two or three vertebrae level cervical spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Hospitals are increasingly at financial risk for patients experiencing adverse events due "pay for performance." Little is known about incremental resources consumed when treating patients who experienced an adverse event after cervical spinal fusions. METHODS: Fiscal years 2013 and 2014 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file was used to identify 86,265 beneficiaries who underwent 2 or 3 vertebrae level cervical spinal fusion. International Classification of Diseases 9th Clinical Modification diagnostic and procedure codes were used to identify 10 adverse events. This study estimated both the observed and risk-adjusted incremental hospital resources consumed (cost [2014 US $] and length-of-stay) in treating beneficiaries experiencing each adverse event. RESULTS: Overall, 6.2% of beneficiaries undergoing cervical spinal fusion experienced at least one of the study's adverse events. Beneficiaries experiencing any complication consumed significantly more hospital resources (incremental cost of $28,638) and had longer length-of-stay (incremental stays of 9.1 days). After adjusting for patient demographics and comorbid conditions, incremental cost of treating adverse events ranged from $42,358 (infection) to $10,100 (dural tear). CONCLUSION: Adverse events frequently occur and add substantially to the hospital costs of patients undergoing cervical spinal fusion. Shared decision-making instruments should clearly provide these risk estimates to the patient before surgical consideration. Investment in activities that have been shown to reduce specific adverse events is warranted, and this study may allow health systems to prioritize performance improvement areas. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Predicting the Incremental Hospital Cost of Adverse Events Among Medicare Beneficiaries in the Comprehensive Joint Replacement Program During Fiscal Year 2014.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare program's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) payment model places hospitals at financial risk for the treatment cost of Medicare beneficiaries (MBs) undergoing lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR). METHODS: This study uses Medicare Provider Analysis and Review File and identified 674,777 MBs with LEJR procedure during fiscal year 2014. Adverse events (death, acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, sepsis or shock, surgical site bleeding, pulmonary embolism, mechanical complications, and periprosthetic joint infection) were studied. Multivariable regressions were modeled to estimate the incremental hospital cost of treating each adverse event. RESULTS: The risk-adjusted estimated hospital cost of treating adverse events varied from a high of $29,061 (MBs experiencing hip fracture and joint infection) to a low of $6308 (MBs without hip fracture that experienced pulmonary embolism). CONCLUSION: Avoidance of adverse events in the LEJR hospitalization will play an important role in managing episode hospital costs in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement program.

Incremental Hospital Cost and Length-of-Stay Associated With Treating Adverse Events Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Lumbar Spinal Fusion During Fiscal Year 2013.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: To report the incremental hospital resource consumption associated with treating selected adverse events experienced by Medicare beneficiaries undergoing a two- or three-level lumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Hospitals are increasingly at financial risk for the incremental resources consumed in treating patients experiencing adverse events because of public and private third-party payers' efforts to base hospital reimbursement on "pay for performance" measures. However, little is known about average incremental resources consumed in treating patients experiencing adverse events following lumbar spinal fusions. METHODS: The 2013 fiscal year Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file was used to identify 83,658 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent two- or three vertebrae-level lumbar spinal fusion. International Classification of Diseases-9th-Clinical Modification diagnostic and procedure codes were used to identify the frequencies of nine adverse events. This study estimated both the observed and risk-adjusted incremental hospital resources consumed (cost and length of stay [LOS]) in treating Medicare beneficiaries experiencing each adverse event. RESULTS: Overall, 17.7% of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing lumbar spinal fusion experienced at least one of the study's adverse events. Medicare beneficiaries experiencing any complication consumed significantly more hospital resources (incremental cost of $8911) and had longer LOS (incremental stays of 5.7 days). After adjusting for patient demographics and comorbid conditions, incremental cost of treating adverse events ranged from a high of $32,049 (infection) to a low of $9976 (transfusion). CONCLUSION: Adverse events frequently occur and add substantially to the hospital resource costs of patients undergoing spinal fusion. Shared decision-making instruments should clearly provide these risk estimates to the patient before surgical consideration. Investment in activities that have been shown to reduce specific adverse events is warranted, and this project may allow health systems to prioritize performance improvement areas. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Understanding the Extent and Drivers of Interphysician Cost Variation for Spine Procedures.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of billing data, medical records, and hospital cost data. OBJECTIVE: To quantify intersurgeon variation for hospital costs of four spine procedures while adjusting for patient comorbidities and demographic factors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine care accounts for $90 billion in health care expenditures in the United States. Past findings demonstrate regional variation in surgery rates and high intersurgeon variation for anterior cervical discectomies/fusions. However, less has been done to examine intersurgeon variation in resource use across multiple procedures while adjusting for patient characteristics outside of a surgeon's control. METHODS: We examined intersurgeon variation for 1241 elective spine procedures at one facility for 3 years. The procedures included 1 to 2 level cases of anterior cervical discectomies/fusions, posterior lumbar decompressions/fusions, posterior laminectomies, and lumbar discectomies. We isolated mean and median costs by surgeon and adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedure types. Finally, we examined variation in subcategories such as instrumentation and inpatient stay costs to determine which contribute to total cost variation. RESULTS: Unadjusted costs per surgeon varied by a factor of 1.32 to 1.81 between lowest and highest cost surgeon depending on procedure. After adjusting for patient features and procedure, variation was reduced to 1.31x. Of the seven surgeons who had sufficient patient volume, one was significantly less costly (-$1,462 per procedure) whereas three were significantly more costly than mean (+$685, +$839, +$702 per procedure). Intersurgeon differences in supply and operating room costs largely accounted for total variation, though actual drivers of variation were surgeon-specific. CONCLUSION: Surgeons vary in average cost for spine procedures, though variation is more modest once adjusted for patient characteristics. Data on procedure-level variation should be discussed with individual surgeons to shift practice patterns. Finally, the comparison methodology can be applied to other procedures and specialties. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

A Survey of Innovative Reimbursement Models in Spine Care.

STUDY DESIGN: Structured key informant interviews with follow-up. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe innovative reimbursement models in spine care and gather perspectives on the future of spine care reimbursement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The United States spends $90 billion annually on medical expenses for low back pain. One approach to promoting high-quality, cost-effective care is through bundled payments and other reimbursement models wherein physicians are held accountable for costs and utilization. Little data exist on innovative payment models in spine care. METHODS: Through literature review and discussions with leaders in the field, we identified organizations that were engaged in bundled payment initiatives for spine care and surgery. These included healthcare systems, physician groups, organizations helping to set up bundles, and a large employer. We conducted interviews to understand the background and specific features of each initiative, generalizable success factors and challenges, and perspectives on the future of spine reimbursement. RESULTS: We interviewed 24 stakeholders across 18 organizations that collectively perform approximately 12,000 inpatient spine surgeries annually. Fee-for-service reimbursement accounts for a majority of revenue, but several organizations expect 30% to 45% of their spine volume to be covered under bundled payments within 3 years and cite new patient volume, increased surgical yield, and financial benefits from efficiency improvements as reasons for adopting bundled payments. Current initiatives are heterogeneous, but share similar success factors and challenges. Institutions are more hesitant to adopt risk-based payment models for chronic back care, citing difficulty modeling risk, patient heterogeneity, and difficulty aligning incentives. CONCLUSION: Payment models outside of the traditional fee-for-service paradigm are emerging in spine care. Providers that preemptively adopt bundled payments can increase patient volumes from payers seeking cost-effective care. Going forward, organizations should begin considering reimbursement models that focus on noninterventional spine care. Finally, developments in spine reimbursement may apply to other procedure-based specialties, including orthopedics and cardiology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

The Incremental Hospital Cost and Length-of-Stay Associated With Treating Adverse Events Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing THA During Fiscal Year 2013.

This paper estimates the incremental hospital resource consumption associated with treating selected adverse events experienced by Medicare beneficiaries (MBs) undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). This retrospective study, using the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file, identified 174,167 MBs who underwent THA in 2013. Overall, 20.16% of MB undergoing THA experienced at least one adverse event. MB experiencing any adverse event consumed significantly higher hospital cost ($3429) and had longer length of stays (1.0 day). The risk-adjusted incremental cost of treating adverse events ranged from a high of $27,116 (pneumonia) to a low of $2626 (hemorrhage or post-operative shock requiring transfusion). Most major adverse events occurred infrequently, however when adverse events occurred, they add substantially to the hospital resource costs of treating MB.

Defining Avoidable and Unavoidable Complications in Spine Surgery: A Survey-based Study of Spine Fellowship Directors.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of orthopedic spine surgery fellowship directors in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether consensus exists with respect to spine-related adverse events and certain hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) or "never events." SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As part of a broad effort to improve health care outcomes, providers are no longer reimbursed for HACs, which are deemed avoidable. Although some HACs are unquestionably preventable with proper quality control measures, research suggests that even scrupulous adherence to evidence-based guidelines cannot eliminate others. METHODS: Surveys were distributed via email and post. Participants rated 27 HACs and selected spine-specific events on an ordinal scale. Interobserver reliability was assessed among all 46 spine directors (respondents) using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), based on a two-way random effects model, assuming that the participants were a representative population sample of spine surgeons. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed on each of the 27 complications to identify potential demographic factors that could be associated with variation among respondents in their ratings of "avoidable" to "unavoidable." RESULTS: Forty-six fellowship directors responded, of whom 98% were orthopedic spine surgeons. The majority (80.4%) of respondents had greater than 10 years' experience as a spine surgeon, and 66.7% had an annual surgical volume >201 cases. The multivariable linear regression analyses found that demographic factors were not predictive of the directors' ratings. The complications thought to be completely avoidable (median scores 1) included "Incompatible blood," "Retained foreign object," and "Wrong level surgery." The HAC considered least avoidable was "Site infection with risk factors" (median score 8). Among 17 spine-specific complications, "L4-L5 disc re-herniation within 3 months" (median score 9) was considered least avoidable. CONCLUSION: This survey suggests that orthopedic spine surgeons consider most "never events" neither avoidable nor unavoidable. There is strong consensus only about the HACs resulting from obvious medical error. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Lean principles to optimize instrument utilization for spine surgery in an academic medical center: an opportunity to standardize, cut costs, and build a culture of improvement.

STUDY DESIGN: Case study OBJECTIVE.: To optimize the utilization of operating room instruments for orthopedic and neurosurgical spine cases in an urban level 1 academic medical center through application of Lean principles. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Process improvement systems such as Lean have been adapted to health care and offer an opportunity for frank assessment of surgical routines to increase efficiency and enhance value. The goal has been to safely reduce the financial burden to the health care system without compromising care and if possible reallocate these resources or gains in efficiency to further improve the value to the patient. METHODS: The investigators identified instruments as a source of waste in the operating room and proposed a Lean process assessment. The instruments and the instrument processing workflow were described. An audit documented the utilization of each instrument by orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons through observation of spine cases. The data were then presented to the stakeholders, including surgeons, the perioperative director, and representatives from nursing, central processing, and the surgical technicians. RESULTS: Of the 38 cases audited, only 89 (58%) of the instruments were used at least once. On the basis of the data and stakeholder consensus, 63 (41%) of the instruments were removed, resulting in a weight reduction of 17.5 lb and consolidation of 2 instrument sets into 1. Projected cost savings were approximately $41,000 annually. Although new instruments were purchased to standardize sets, the return on investment was estimated to be 2 years. CONCLUSION: Inefficient surgical routines may comprise significant resource waste in an institution. Process assessment is an important tool in decreasing health care costs, with objectivity provided by Lean or similar principles, and essential impetus to change provided by stakeholders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Cost-effectiveness of teaching hospitals for the operative management of hip fractures.

Hospitals with lower costs are not necessarily superior to those that are more expensive, because the more costly institutions might offer better outcomes. The purpose of this study was to consider prices and outcomes in an integrated model and thereby determine if teaching hospitals are cost-effective for the care of hip fractures. We analyzed the claims data of a sample of 18,908 Medicare patients who were admitted to one of 190 acute care hospitals for surgical treatment of a hip fracture. For each hospital, we assessed the relationship between the total per capita Medicare payments over a 6-month period following admission and the 30-day and 6-month mortality. The data were analyzed as a function of hospital type: teaching vs nonteaching. The mean adjusted costs were $5910 per patient higher at teaching hospitals compared to nonteaching hospitals (approximately $24,000 vs $18,000) However, the adjusted 6-month mortality was 1.4% lower at major teaching hospitals. The adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness for teaching hospitals was $422,143 per life saved. By that measure, each life saved would have to yield nearly 8.5 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALY) to attain the $50,000/QALY standard thought to represent cost-effective spending, an unlikely target given the age of the typical hip fracture patient. Nonetheless, because teaching hospitals are more expensive than non-teaching hospitals, a relatively small cut in the overall cost of care at teaching hospitals could dramatically decrease the marginal cost of each life saved. The elements of teaching hospital care that improve survival might be identified in further studies and instituted, perhaps, at non-teaching hospitals without greatly increasing their cost structure.

Intraoperative waste in spine surgery: incidence, cost, and effectiveness of an educational program.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify the incidence of intraoperative waste in spine surgery and to examine the efficacy of an educational program directed at surgeons to induce a reduction in the intraoperative waste. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine procedures are associated with high costs. Implants are a main contributor of these costs. Intraoperative waste further exacerbates the high cost of surgery. METHODS: Data were collected during a 25-month period from one academic medical center (15-month observational period, 10-month post-awareness program). The total number of spine procedures and the incidence of intraoperative waste were recorded prospectively. Other variables recorded included the type of product wasted, cost associated with the product or implant wasted, and reason for the waste. RESULTS: Intraoperative waste occurred in 20.2% of the procedures prior to the educational program and in 10.3% of the procedures after the implementation of the program (P < 0.0001). Monthly costs associated with surgical waste were, on average, $17680 prior to the awareness intervention and $5876 afterwards (P = 0.0006). Prior to the intervention, surgical waste represented 4.3% of total operative spine budget. After the awareness program this proportion decrease to an average of 1.2% (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative waste in spine surgery exacerbates the already costly procedures. Extrapolation of this data to the national level leads to an annual estimate of $126,722,000 attributable to intraoperative spine waste. A simple educational program proved to be and continues to be effective in making surgeons aware of the import of their choices and the costs related to surgical waste.

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.

Comparison of 5766 vertebral compression fractures treated with or without kyphoplasty.

BACKGROUND: The majority of the 700,000 osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) that occur annually in the United States affect women. The total treatment costs exceed $17 billion and approximate the total costs of breast cancer ($13 billion) and heart disease ($19 billion). Balloon-assisted percutaneous vertebral augmentation with bone cement (kyphoplasty) reportedly reduces VCF-related pain and accelerates return of independent functional mobility. Kyphoplasty may decrease overall cost of VCF treatment costs by reducing use of posttreatment medical resources. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We evaluated complications, mortality, posthospital disposition, and treatment costs of kyphoplasty compared with nonoperative treatment using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. METHODS: We identified 5766 VCFs (71% female) in patients 65 years of age or older with nonneoplastic VCF as the primary diagnosis in nonroutine hospital admissions; 15.3% underwent kyphoplasty. Demographic data, medical comorbidities, and fracture treatment type were recorded. Outcomes, including complications, mortality, posthospital disposition, and treatment costs, were compared for each treatment type. RESULTS: Women were more likely to be treated with kyphoplasty than were men. Patients undergoing kyphoplasty had comorbidity indices equivalent to those treated nonoperatively. Kyphoplasty was associated with a greater likelihood of routine discharge to home (38.4% versus 21.0% for nonoperative treatment), a lower rate of discharge to skilled nursing (26.1% versus 34.8%) or other facilities (35.7% versus 47.1%), a complication rate equivalent to nonoperative treatment (1.7% versus 1.0%), and a lower rate of in-hospital mortality (0.3% versus 1.6%). Kyphoplasty was associated with higher cost of hospitalization (mean $37,231 versus $20,112). CONCLUSIONS: Kyphoplasty for treatment of VCF in well-selected patients may accelerate the return of independent patient function as indicated by improved measures of hospital discharge. The initially higher cost of treatment may be offset by the reduced use of posthospital medical resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Assessment of the test characteristics of C-reactive protein for septic arthritis in children.

The purpose of this study was to determine the test characteristics of C-reactive protein (CRP) in the diagnosis of septic arthritis in children and to compare with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). The authors reviewed patients with synovial fluid aspiration sent for culture and Gram stain for whom a CRP was drawn within 24 hours of presentation. Descriptive statistics and univariate analyses were performed. Results for CRP were compared with ESR. Thirty-nine of 133 patients had septic arthritis. Sensitivity of CRP ranged from 41% to 90%, specificity from 29% to 85%. Positive predictive values ranged from 34% to 53%, negative predictive values from 78% to 87%. In comparison to ESR, CRP is a better independent predictor of disease. CRP is a better negative predictor than a positive predictor of disease. Indeed, if the CRP is <1.0 mg/dL, the probability that the patient does not have septic arthritis is 87%.