Estimating the Cost of Spinopelvic Complications After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

Objective: Reoperations for spinopelvic failure after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery are common. We sought to determine the added costs of ASD surgery attributable to reoperations for spinopelvic construct failures. Methods: We constructed a Markov process model to calculate the expected discounted 5-year costs of spinopelvic construct failures after ASD surgery. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried to estimate the number of ASD surgeries. Model inputs were based on literature review and expert opinion. ASD surgery was defined as thoracolumbar fusion of 4 or more levels with pelvic fixation. The following pelvic fixation failures were included: 1) rod fracture or pseudarthrosis from L4-S1, 2) iliac screw failure or set plug dislodgment, 3) iliac screw prominence, and 4) sacroiliac (SI) joint pain. The number of patients undergoing ASD surgery annually in the US was determined using a commercial claims database. Results: The net present value 5-year cost per patient for spinopelvic complications was $35,265, equal to 29% of index surgery costs. Given an estimated 27,580 cases annually in the US, the additional cost to address spinopelvic complications reach nearly $1 billion over 5-years. A sensitivity analysis showed that these costs were most sensitive to the rate of rod fracture/pseudarthrosis, iliac screw prominence, and reoperation. Conclusion: A conservative estimate of the cost of spinopelvic failures after ASD surgery is substantial, nearly $1 billion over 5-years. We propose a method of capturing spinopelvic fixation failures for use in future clinical studies and cost analyses.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Sacroiliac Joint Fusion in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Multi-Level Lumbar Fusion to the Sacrum.

Purpose: Multi-level lumbar fusion to the sacrum (MLF) can lead to increased stress and angular motion across the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), with an incidence of post-operative SIJ pain estimated at 26-32%. SIJ fusion (SIJF) can help obviate the need for revisions by reducing range of motion and screw stresses. We aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of MLF + SIJF compared to MLF alone among high-risk patients from a payer perspective, where high risk is defined as high body mass index and high pelvic incidence. Methods: A Markov process decision-analysis model was developed to evaluate cumulative 5-year costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of MLF + SIJF compared to MLF alone using published data; costs from Medicare claims data analyses and health state utility values (derived from EQ-5D) informed by three prospective, multicenter, clinical trials. The base case assumed a reduction in post-operative SIJ pain from 30% to 10% (relative risk reduction [RRR] of 67%). Costs and utilities were discounted 3% annually. The ICER is reported in 2020 US dollars. One-way, multi-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: With an assumed 30% incidence of SIJ pain after MLF alone, stabilizing with SIJF was associated with an additional 5-year cost of $2421 and a gain of 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $17,293 per QALY gained (similar to total knee arthroplasty and more favorable than open discectomy). ICERs were most sensitive to the RRR of post-operative SIJ pain conferred by SIJF, time horizon, and probability of successful treatment with MLF alone. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained, MLF + SIJF has a 97.7% probability of being cost-effective in the target patient population. Conclusion: Fusing the SIJ in high-risk patients undergoing MLF was cost-effective when the incidence of post-operative SIJ pain after MLF alone exceeds approximately 25%, providing value-based healthcare from a payer perspective.

Best Practice Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Osteoporosis in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Spinal Reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN: Expert consensus study. OBJECTIVE: This expert panel was created to establish best practice guidelines to identify and treat patients with poor bone health prior to elective spinal reconstruction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Currently, no guidelines exist for the management of osteoporosis and osteopenia in patients undergoing spinal reconstructive surgery. Untreated osteoporosis in spine reconstruction surgery is associated with higher complications and worse outcomes. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel with 18 experts was assembled including orthopedic and neurological surgeons, endocrinologists, and rheumatologists. Surveys and discussions regarding the current literature were held according to Delphi method until a final set of guidelines was created with over 70% consensus. RESULTS: Panelists agreed that bone health should be considered in every patient prior to elective spinal reconstruction. All patients above 65 and those under 65 with particular risk factors (chronic glucocorticoid use, high fracture risk or previous fracture, limited mobility, and eight other key factors) should have a formal bone health evaluation prior to undergoing surgery. DXA scans of the hip are preferable due to their wide availability. Opportunistic CT Hounsfield Units of the vertebrae can be useful in identifying poor bone health. In the absence of contraindications, anabolic agents are considered first line therapy due to their bone building properties as compared with antiresorptive medications. Medications should be administered preoperatively for at least 2 months and postoperatively for minimum 8 months. CONCLUSION: Based on the consensus of a multidisciplinary panel of experts, we propose best practice guidelines for assessment and treatment of poor bone health prior to elective spinal reconstructive surgery. Patients above age 65 and those with particular risk factors under 65 should undergo formal bone health evaluation. We also established guidelines on perioperative optimization, utility of various diagnostic modalities, and the optimal medical management of bone health in this population.Level of Evidence: 5.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering versus Spinal Fusion in Idiopathic Scoliosis from a US Integrated Healthcare Delivery System Perspective.

PURPOSE: Anterior vertebral body tethering (VBT) is a non-fusion, minimally invasive, growth-modulating procedure with some early positive clinical outcomes reported in pediatric patients with idiopathic scoliosis (IS). VBT offers potential health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits over spinal fusion in allowing patients to retain a greater range of motion after surgery. We conducted an early cost-utility analysis (CUA) to compare VBT with fusion as a first-choice surgical treatment for skeletally immature patients (age >10 years) with moderate to severe IS, who have failed nonoperative management, from a US integrated healthcare delivery system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The CUA uses a Markov state transition model, capturing a 15-year period following index surgery. Transition probabilities, including revision risk and subsequent fusion, were based on published surgical outcomes and an ongoing VBT observational study (NCT02897453). Patients were assigned utilities derived from published patient-reported outcomes (PROs; SRS-22r mapped to EQ-5D) following fusion and the above VBT study. Index and revision procedure costs were included. Probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) were performed. RESULTS: VBT was associated with higher costs but also higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than fusion (incremental costs: $45,546; QALYs gained: 0.54). The subsequent incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for VBT vs fusion was $84,391/QALY gained. Mean PSA results were similar to the base case, indicating that results were generally robust to uncertainty. The DSA indicated that results were most sensitive to variations in utility values. CONCLUSION: This is the first CUA comparing VBT with fusion in pediatric patients with IS and suggests that VBT may be a cost-effective alternative to fusion in the US, given recommended willingness-to-pay thresholds ($100,000-$150,000). The results rely on HRQoL benefits for VBT compared with fusion. For improved model accuracy, further analyses with longer-term PROs for VBT, and comparative effectiveness studies, would be needed.

Cost-Effectiveness for Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is significantly more cost-effective than nonsurgical management in patients who have failed to improve with a 6-week trial of nonsurgical management. Decompression plus fusion becomes more cost-effective compared with decompression alone at 2 years following surgery. Further study is needed to evaluate the most cost-effective fusion approach and augmentation strategy.

Sacroiliac joint fusion health care cost comparison prior to and following surgery: an administrative claims analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess real-world expenditures on surgical and non-surgical treatment for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain by comparing direct health care costs before and after surgery in patients who underwent an SIJ fusion (SIJF) procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study examined administrative claims data (January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2017) for adult commercial health plan members with a medical claim for SIJF. Identified patients were included if they had continuous enrollment in the health plan for 12 months pre-SIJF (baseline period) and 12 months post-SIJF (follow-up period). The outcomes of interest were low back pain-related health care costs in the first three quarters of the baseline period (pre-surgery period; excludes the quarter immediately preceding surgery) and last three quarters of the follow-up period (post-surgery period; excludes the quarter in which SIJF was performed). RESULTS: Some 302 patients met inclusion criteria: 159 patients had the index SIJF in an inpatient hospital setting, 122 in an outpatient hospital setting, 18 in a surgery center, and three in other settings. Mean and median costs in the pre-surgery period were US$16,803 and US$5,849, respectively, and US$13,297 and US$2,269 in the post-surgery period. Median costs were significantly different in the pre- and post-surgery periods (P<0.001), while mean costs were not. Median health care costs in the pre-surgery and post-surgery periods were lower than the corresponding means due to the highly skewed nature of the cost data. CONCLUSION: This health care claims data analysis shows the potential for lower post-operative health care costs compared to pre-operative costs in patients undergoing SIJF. Median low back pain-related costs in the post-surgery period were approximately US$400 per quarter overall and US$250 per quarter for those undergoing SIJF in the non-inpatient setting. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up will improve the precision of the cost data.

The Pursuit of Scholarship: Why We Should Care About Resident Research.

Research is a foundational component of an orthopaedic residency. It fosters intellectual curiosity and pursuit of excellence, while teaching discipline and the scientific method. These are the key principles for careers in both community-based practice and academia. Currently, no consensus exists on how to best engage residents and support their research endeavors. In 2014, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Board of Specialty Societies Research and Quality Committee convened a Clinician-Scientist Collaboration Workgroup. The workgroup's task was to identify barriers to clinical and basic science research, and to propose feasible recommendations to overcome these barriers. Herein, we have compiled the opinions of various stakeholder constituencies on how to foster scholarly pursuits during an orthopaedic residency. These opinions reflect the workgroup's conclusions that research is directly and indirectly influenced by funding, departmental support, and mentorship, and that early exposure and dedicated time to pursue scholarly activities may have a positive impact on lifelong research interests.

Cell Saver for Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Reduces Cost.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: To determine if the use of cell saver reduces overall blood costs in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent studies have questioned the clinical value of cell saver during spine procedures. METHODS: ASD patients enrolled in a prospective, multicenter surgical database who had complete preoperative and surgical data were identified. Patients were stratified into (1) cell saver available during surgery, but no intraoperative autologous infusion (No Infusion group), or (2) cell saver available and received autologous infusion (Infusion group). RESULTS: There were 427 patients in the Infusion group and 153 in the No infusion group. Patients in both groups had similar demographics. Mean autologous infusion volume was 698 mL. The Infusion group had a higher percentage of EBL relative to the estimated blood volume (42.2%) than the No Infusion group (19.6%, p < .000). Allogeneic transfusion was more common in the Infusion group (255/427, 60%) than the No Infusion group (67/153, 44%, p = .001). The number of allogeneic blood units transfused was also higher in the Infusion group (2.4) than the No Infusion group (1.7, p = .009). Total blood costs ranged from $396 to $2,146 in the No Infusion group and from $1,262 to $5,088 in the Infusion group. If the cost of cell saver blood was transformed into costs of allogeneic blood, total blood costs for the Infusion group would range from $840 to $5,418. Thus, cell saver use yielded a mean cost savings ranging from $330 to $422 (allogeneic blood averted). Linear regression showed that after an EBL of 614 mL, cell saver becomes cost-efficient. CONCLUSION: Compared to transfusing allogeneic blood, cell saver autologous infusion did not reduce the proportion or the volume of allogeneic transfusion for patients undergoing surgery for adult spinal deformity. The use of cell saver becomes cost-efficient above an EBL of 614 mL, producing a cost savings of $330 to $422. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Commentary: Appropriate Use Criteria for Lumbar Degenerative Scoliosis: Developing Evidence-based Guidance for Complex Treatment Decisions.

Lumbar degenerative scoliosis is a relatively common problem, and is being treated more frequently due to the confluence of an aging population and an increased capacity and willingness to manage difficult problems in older patients. Lumbar degenerative scoliosis is a complex pathology as it often involves the intersection of degenerative spinal stenosis and spinal deformity. While previous studies provide an indication that these patients may benefit from surgical treatment, the substantial variability in treatment underscores the opportunity for improvement. Optimizing treatment for lumbar degenerative scoliosis is critical as surgical intervention, while potentially providing substantial clinical benefit also entails measurable risk and significant expense. In light of these issues, evidence-based guidance generated through Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) development offers the potential to improve both the quality and cost effectiveness of care.The lumbar degenerative scoliosis AUC represents a significant step toward evidence-based treatment in spinal surgery. This is the first time that spine societies and industry partners have collaborated to support evidence development. The willingness of all involved to support a completely independent process underlines a commitment to trust the evidence. Subsequent studies may validate and/or refine the AUC recommendations, but the most important result is that the standard for evidence quality has been raised.

Sacral bone mineral density (BMD) assessment using opportunistic CT scans.

This study seeks to establish a method for opportunistic evaluation of sacral bone mineral density. This is a retrospective review of 109 scans from 109 patients who had renal-protocol computed tomography (CT) scans performed for any indication during a 3-month period at a single academic institution in 2014. In the collected CT scans, sacral CT-attenuation in multiple regions of interest (ROI) was compared to the L1 CT-attenuation, an internal reference standard, to determine if a correlation existed. The sacral ROI were analyzed to determine regions of higher and lower attenuation. All sacral ROI had strong correlations with lumbar spine attenuation values, and these values became even stronger when transitional vertebrae were excluded. Sacral attenuation values varied predictably by location, and matched relationships were shown by prior volumetric bone mineral density studies. We conclude that sacral CT-attenuation can be used in opportunistic CT scans to determine sacral bone mineral density. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:160-166, 2017.

Impact of cost valuation on cost-effectiveness in adult spine deformity surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Over the past decade, the number of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgeries has more than doubled in the United States. The complex surgeries needed to manage ASD are associated with significant resource utilization and high cost, making them a primary target for increased scrutiny. Accordingly, it is important to not only demonstrate value in ASD surgery as clinical effectiveness but also to translate outcome assessment to cost-effectiveness. PURPOSE: To compare the difference between Medicare allowable rates and the actual, direct hospital costs for ASD surgeries. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: Consecutive patients enrolled in an ASD database from a single institution. OUTCOME MEASURES: Short Form (SF)-6D. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in an ASD database from a single institution from 2008 to 2013 were identified. Direct hospital costs were collected from hospital administrative records for the entire inpatient episode of surgical care. Medicare allowable rates were calculated for the same inpatient stays using the year-appropriate Center for Medicare-Medicaid Services Inpatient Pricer Payment System Tool. The SF-6D, a utility index derived from the SF-36v1, was used to determine quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5% annually. RESULTS: Of 580 surgical ASD patients eligible for 2-year follow up, 346 (60%) had complete baseline and 2-year data, and 60 were Medicare beneficiaries comprising the cohort for the present study. Mean SF-6D gained is 0.10 during year 1 after surgery and 0.02 at year 2, resulting in a cumulative SF-6D gain of 0.12 over 2 years. Mean Medicare allowable rate over the 2 years is $82,050 (range $42,383 to $220,749) and mean direct cost is $99,114 (range $28,447 to $217,717). Mean cost per QALY over 2 years is $683,750 using Medicare allowable rates and $825,950 using direct costs. This difference of $17,181 between the 2 cost calculation represents a 17% difference, which was statistically significant (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference in direct hospital costs versus Medicare allowable rates in ASD surgery and in turn, there is a similar difference in the cost per QALY calculation. Utilizing Medicare allowable rates not only underestimates (17%) the cost of ASD surgery, but it also creates inaccurate and unrealistic expectations for researchers and policymakers.

Cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective.

PURPOSE: Traditional growing rod (TGR) for early-onset scoliosis (EOS) is effective but requires repeated invasive surgical lengthenings under general anesthesia. Magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) is lengthened noninvasively using a hand-held magnetic external remote controller in a physician office; however, the MCGR implant is expensive, and the cumulative cost savings have not been well studied. We compared direct medical costs of MCGR and TGR for EOS from the US integrated health care delivery system perspective. We hypothesized that over time, the MCGR implant cost will be offset by eliminating repeated TGR surgical lengthenings. METHODS: For both TGR and MCGR, the economic model estimated the cumulative costs for initial implantation, lengthenings, revisions due to device failure, surgical-site infections, device exchanges (at 3.8 years), and final fusion, over a 6-year episode of care. Model parameters were estimated from published literature, a multicenter EOS database of US institutions, and interviews. Costs were discounted at 3.0% annually and represent 2015 US dollars. RESULTS: Of 1,000 simulated patients over 6 years, MCGR was associated with an estimated 270 fewer deep surgical-site infections and 197 fewer revisions due to device failure compared with TGR. MCGR was projected to cost an additional $61 per patient over the 6-year episode of care compared with TGR. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were sensitive to changes in the percentage of MCGR dual rod use, months between TGR lengthenings, percentage of hospital inpatient (vs outpatient) TGR lengthenings, and MCGR implant cost. CONCLUSION: Cost neutrality of MCGR to TGR was achieved over the 6-year episode of care by eliminating repeated TGR surgical lengthenings. To our knowledge, this is the first cost analysis comparing MCGR to TGR - from the US provider perspective - which demonstrates the efficient provision of care with MCGR.

Ignoring the sacroiliac joint in chronic low back pain is costly.

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence supports minimally invasive sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion as a safe and effective treatment for SIJ dysfunction. Failure to include the SIJ in the diagnostic evaluation of low back pain could result in unnecessary health care expenses. DESIGN: Decision analytic cost model. METHODS: A decision analytic model calculating 2-year direct health care costs in patients with chronic low back pain considering lumbar fusion surgery was used. RESULTS: The strategy of including the SIJ in the preoperative diagnostic workup of chronic low back pain saves an expected US$3,100 per patient over 2 years. Cost savings were robust to reasonable ranges for costs and probabilities, such as the probability of diagnosis and the probability of successful surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: Including the SIJ as part of the diagnostic strategy in preoperative patients with chronic low back pain is likely to be cost saving in the short term.

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion.

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) disorders are common in patients with chronic lower back pain. Minimally invasive surgical options have been shown to be effective for the treatment of chronic SIJ dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive SIJ fusion. METHODS: Data from two prospective, multicenter, clinical trials were used to inform a Markov process cost-utility model to evaluate cumulative 5-year health quality and costs after minimally invasive SIJ fusion using triangular titanium implants or non-surgical treatment. The analysis was performed from a third-party perspective. The model specifically incorporated variation in resource utilization observed in the randomized trial. Multiple one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: SIJ fusion was associated with a gain of approximately 0.74 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of US$13,313 per QALY gained. In multiple one-way sensitivity analyses all scenarios resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <$26,000/QALY. Probabilistic analyses showed a high degree of certainty that the maximum ICER for SIJ fusion was less than commonly selected thresholds for acceptability (mean ICER =$13,687, 95% confidence interval $5,162-$28,085). SIJ fusion provided potential cost savings per QALY gained compared to non-surgical treatment after a treatment horizon of greater than 13 years. CONCLUSION: Compared to traditional non-surgical treatments, SIJ fusion is a cost-effective, and, in the long term, cost-saving strategy for the treatment of SIJ dysfunction due to degenerative sacroiliitis or SIJ disruption.

What would be the annual cost savings if fewer screws were used in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treatment in the US?

OBJECTIVE: There is substantial heterogeneity in the number of screws used per level fused in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery. Assuming equivalent clinical outcomes, the potential cost savings of using fewer pedicle screws were estimated using a medical decision model with sensitivity analysis. METHODS: Descriptive analyses explored the annual costs for 5710 AIS inpatient stays using discharge data from the 2009 Kids' Inpatient Database (Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), which is a national all-payer inpatient database. Patients between 10 and 17 years of age were identified using the ICD-9-CM code for idiopathic scoliosis (737.30). All inpatient stays were assumed to represent 10-level fusions with pedicle screws for AIS. High screw density was defined at 1.8 screws per level fused, and the standard screw density was defined as 1.48 screws per level fused. The surgical return for screw malposition was set at $23,762. A sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the cost per screw ($600-$1000) and the rate of surgical revisions for screw malposition (0.117%-0.483% of screws; 0.8%-4.3% of patients). The reported outcomes include estimated prevented malpositioned screws (set at 5.1%), averted revision surgeries, and annual cost savings in 2009 US dollars, assuming similar clinical outcomes (rates of complications, revision) using a standard- versus high-density pattern. RESULTS: The total annual costs for 5710 AIS hospital stays was $278 million ($48,900 per patient). Substituting a high for a standard screw density yields 3.2 fewer screws implanted per patient, with 932 malpositioned screws prevented and 21 to 88 revision surgeries for implant malposition averted, and a potential annual cost savings of $11 million to $20 million (4%-7% reduction in the total cost of AIS hospitalizations). CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the number of screws used in scoliosis surgery could potentially decrease national AIS hospitalization costs by up to 7%, which may improve the safety and efficiency of care. However, such a screw construct must first be proven safe and effective.

Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States commercial payer population: potential economic implications of a new minimally invasive technology.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is common and treatment costly with substantial lost productivity and lost wages in the working-age population. Chronic low back pain originating in the sacroiliac (SI) joint (15%-30% of cases) is commonly treated with nonoperative care, but new minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options are also effective in treating SI joint disruption. We assessed whether the higher initial MIS SI joint fusion procedure costs were offset by decreased nonoperative care costs from a US commercial payer perspective. METHODS: An economic model compared the costs of treating SI joint disruption with either MIS SI joint fusion or continued nonoperative care. Nonoperative care costs (diagnostic testing, treatment, follow-up, and retail pharmacy pain medication) were from a retrospective study of Truven Health MarketScan(®) data. MIS fusion costs were based on the Premier's Perspective™ Comparative Database and professional fees on 2012 Medicare payment for Current Procedural Terminology code 27280. RESULTS: The cumulative 3-year (base-case analysis) and 5-year (sensitivity analysis) differentials in commercial insurance payments (cost of nonoperative care minus cost of MIS) were $14,545 and $6,137 per patient, respectively (2012 US dollars). Cost neutrality was achieved at 6 years; MIS costs accrued largely in year 1 whereas nonoperative care costs accrued over time with 92% of up front MIS procedure costs offset by year 5. For patients with lumbar spinal fusion, cost neutrality was achieved in year 1. CONCLUSION: Cost offsets from new interventions for chronic conditions such as MIS SI joint fusion accrue over time. Higher initial procedure costs for MIS were largely offset by decreased nonoperative care costs over a 5-year time horizon. Optimizing effective resource use in both nonoperative and operative patients will facilitate cost-effective health care delivery. The impact of SI joint disruption on direct and indirect costs to commercial insurers, health plan beneficiaries, and employers warrants further consideration.

Incremental cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity surgery: observed quality-adjusted life years with surgery compared with predicted quality-adjusted life years without surgery.

OBJECT: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is critical to the efficient allocation of health care resources; however, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) has eluded the literature, due in part to inherent empirical difficulties when comparing surgical and nonsurgical patients. Using observed preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for patients who later underwent surgery, this study builds a statistical model to predict hypothetical quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) without surgical treatment. The analysis compares predicted QALYs to observed postoperative QALYs and forms the resulting ICER. METHODS: This was a single-center (Baylor Scoliosis Center) retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing primary surgery for ASD. Total costs (expressed in 2010 dollars) incurred by the hospital for each episode of surgical care were collected from administrative data and QALYs were calculated from the 6-dimensional Short-Form Health Survey, each discounted at 3.5% per year. Regression analysis was used to predict hypothetical QALYs without surgery based on preoperative longitudinal data for 124 crossover surgical patients with similar diagnoses, baseline HRQOL, age, and sex compared with the surgical cohort. Results were projected through 10-year follow-up, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Three-year follow-up was available for 120 (66%) of 181 eligible patients, who were predominantly female (89%) with average age of 50. With discounting, total costs averaged $125,407, including readmissions, with average QALYs of 1.93 at 3-year follow-up. Average QALYs without surgery were predicted to be 1.6 after 3 years. At 3- and 5-year follow-up, the ICER was $375,000 and $198,000, respectively. Projecting through 10-year follow-up, the ICER was $80,000. The 10-year CEAC revealed a 40% probability that the ICER was $80,000 or less, a 90% probability that the ICER was $90,000 or less, and a 100% probability that the ICER was less than $100,000. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the WHO's suggested upper threshold for cost-effectiveness (3 times per capita GDP, or $140,000 in 2010 dollars), the analysis reveals that surgical treatment for ASD is cost-effective after a 10-year period based on predicted deterioration in HRQOL without surgery. The ICER well exceeds the WHO threshold at earlier follow-up intervals, highlighting the importance of the durability of surgical treatment in assessing the value of surgical intervention. Due to the study's methodology, the results are dependent on the predicted deterioration in HRQOL without surgery. As such, the results may not extend to patients whose HRQOL would remain steady without surgery. Future research should therefore pursue a direct comparison of QALYs for surgical and nonsurgical patients to better understand the cost-effectiveness of surgery for the average ASD patient.

Management of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis with nonoperative care is medical resource-intensive and costly in a United States commercial payer population.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is common and originates in the sacroiliac (SI) joint in 15%-30% of cases. Traditional SI joint disruption/degenerative sacroiliitis treatments include nonoperative care or open SI joint fusion. To evaluate the usefulness of newly developed minimally-invasive technologies, the costs of traditional treatments must be better understood. We assessed the costs of nonoperative care for SI joint disruption to commercial payers in the United States (US). METHODS: A retrospective study of claim-level medical resource use and associated costs used the MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters as well as Medicare Supplemental Databases of Truven Healthcare. Patients with a primary ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for SI joint disruption (720.2, 724.6, 739.4, 846.9, or 847.3), an initial date of diagnosis from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 (index date), and continuous enrollment for ≥1 year before and 3 years after the index date were included. Claims attributable to SI joint disruption with a primary or secondary ICD-9-CM diagnosis code of 71x.xx, 72x.xx, 73x.xx, or 84x.xx were identified; the 3-year medical resource use-associated reimbursement and outpatient pain medication costs (measured in 2011 US dollars) were tabulated across practice settings. A subgroup analysis was performed among patients with lumbar spinal fusion. RESULTS: The mean 3-year direct, attributable medical costs were $16,196 (standard deviation [SD] $28,592) per privately-insured patient (N=78,533). Among patients with lumbar spinal fusion (N=434), attributable 3-year mean costs were $91,720 (SD $75,502) per patient compared to $15,776 (SD $27,542) per patient among patients without lumbar spinal fusion (N=78,099). Overall, inpatient hospitalizations (19.4%), hospital outpatient visits and procedures (14.0%), and outpatient pain medications (9.6%) accounted for the largest proportion of costs. The estimated 3-year insurance payments attributable to SI joint disruption were $1.6 billion per 100,000 commercial payer beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: The economic burden of SI joint disruption among privately-insured patients in the US is substantial, highlighting the need for more cost-effective therapies.

Cost savings analysis of intrawound vancomycin powder in posterior spinal surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Recent studies have shown that prophylactic use of intrawound vancomycin in posterior instrumented spine surgery substantially decreases the incidence of wound infections requiring repeat surgery. Significant cost savings are thought to be associated with the use of vancomycin in this setting. PURPOSE: To elucidate cost savings associated with the use of intrawound vancomycin in posterior spinal surgeries using a budget-impact model. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Data from a cohort of 303 patients who underwent spinal surgery (instrumented and noninstrumented) over 2 years were analyzed; 96 of these patients received prophylactic intrawound vancomycin powder in addition to normal intravenous (IV) antibiotic prophylaxis, and 207 received just routine IV antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients requiring repeat surgical procedures for infection were identified, and the costs of these additional procedures were elucidated. OUTCOME MEASURE: Cost associated with the additional procedure to remediate infection in the absence of vancomycin prophylaxis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the cost of return procedures for treatment of surgical site infection (SSI). The total reimbursement received by the health care facility was used to model the costs associated with repeat surgery, and this cost was compared with the cost of a single local application of vancomycin costing about $12. RESULTS: Of the 96 patients in the treatment group, the return-to-surgery rate for SSI was 0. In the group without vancomycin, seven patients required a total of 14 procedures. The mean cost per episode of surgery, based on the reimbursement, the health care facility received was $40,992 (range, $14,459-$114,763). A total of $573,897 was spent on 3% of the 207-patient cohort that did not receive intrawound vancomycin, whereas a total of $1,152 ($12×96 patients) was spent on the cohort treated with vancomycin. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a reduction in SSIs requiring a return-to-surgery-with large cost savings-with use of intrawound vancomycin powder. In our study population, the cost savings totaled more than half a million dollars.