Hospital cost differences between open and endoscopic lumbar spine decompression surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, fully endoscopic decompression surgery for degenerative spine disease has become increasingly popular in the US. Although an endoscopic approach has demonstrated some benefits compared with open procedures in randomized controlled trials, the cost of advanced technologies remains contested. The authors evaluated the differences in costs and cost drivers between open and endoscopic decompression surgical procedures performed at a single institution. METHODS: Using associated Current Procedural Terminology codes, the authors identified all open and endoscopic decompression lumbar surgical procedures performed from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2022. Preoperative comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were captured. The costs of index surgery-related readmission for revision, washout, or other complications were included in the index surgery expenses. Associated in-hospital costs were collected; these were reported in comparative percentages with open surgical procedures as the baseline because of an institutional agreement. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: The retrospective search identified 633 open surgical procedures and 195 endoscopic surgical procedures for inclusion. The two patient cohorts were similar, with clinically nonrelevant but statistically significant differences in mean age (open 55.7 years vs endoscopic 59.4 years, p = 0.01) and mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class (open 2.3 vs endoscopic 2.4, p = 0.03). Postoperatively, patients who underwent open surgical procedures had significantly longer mean hospital stays (open 1.4 days vs endoscopic 0.7, p < 0.01) and more perioperative complications (open 7.9% of patients vs endoscopic 3.1%, p = 0.02), and they required washout surgical procedures in some cases (open 1.3% vs endoscopic 0%, p = 0.12). The largest cost difference between open and endoscopic surgical procedures was the significantly greater cost of disposable supplies for endoscopic cases (10.1% vs 31.7% of the total cost of open procedures, p < 0.01), and open surgical procedures were generally less costly in total (100.0% vs 115.1%, p < 0.01). In multivariate linear regression, endoscopic surgery was independently associated with greater total costs (standardized beta 15.9%, p < 0.01), although length of hospital stay (standardized beta 34.0%) and readmissions (standardized beta 30.0%, p < 0.01) had larger effects on cost. CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopic approach was associated with greater total in-hospital costs compared with open procedures. The findings of further cost evaluations, including those of patient-reported outcomes, social cost, and capital costs per procedure type, need to be included in operational and clinical decisions.

Evaluation of disease severity and treatment intensity as cost drivers for ruptured intracranial aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have not evaluated the impact of illness severity and postrupture procedures in the cost of care for intracranial aneurysms. We hypothesize that the severity of aneurysm rupture and the aggressiveness of postrupture interventions play a role in cost. METHODS: The Value Driven Outcomes database was used to assess direct patient cost during the treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysm with clipping, coiling, and Pipeline flow diverters. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight patients (mean age 52.8 ± 14.1 years; 40.0% male) underwent craniotomy (64.6%), coiling (26.7%), or flow diversion (8.6%). Coiling was 1.4× more expensive than clipping (p = .005) and flow diversion was 1.7× more expensive than clipping (p < .001). More severe illness as measured by American Society of Anesthesia, Hunt/Hess, and Fisher scales incurred higher costs than less severe illness (p < .05). Use of a lumbar drain protocol to reduce subarachnoid hemorrhage and use of an external ventricular drain to manage intracranial pressure were associated with reduced (p = .05) and increased (p < .001) total costs, respectively. Patients with severe vasospasm (p < .005), those that received shunts (p < .001), and those who had complications (p < .001) had higher costs. Multivariate analysis showed that procedure type, length of stay, number of angiograms, vasospasm severity, disposition, and year of treatment were independent predictors of cost. CONCLUSIONS: These results show for the first time that disease and vasospasm severity and intensity of treatment directly impact the cost of care for patients with aneurysms in the USA. Strategies to alter these variables may prove important for cost reduction.

Initial Treatment for Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm and Its Follow-up: A Cost Analysis of Pipeline Flow Diverters versus Coiling.

Purpose Intracranial aneurysms are relatively common epidemiological problems for which the surveillance, treatment, and follow-up are costly. Although multiple studies have evaluated the treatment cost of aneurysms, the follow-up costs are often not examined. In our study, we analyzed how follow-up costs after treatment affected the overall cost of different endovascular techniques for treating aneurysms. Materials and methods An institutional database was used to evaluate the upfront and follow-up costs incurred by patients who underwent elective coiling or placement of a pipeline embolization device (PED) for the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms from July 2011 to December 2017. Results A total of 114 patients (coiling, n = 37; PED, n = 77 ) were included in the study. There was no significant difference among patients in mean age [61.3 (±12.8 years) vs. 57.0 (±14.5 years); probability value (p) = 0.2], sex (male: 32.4% vs. 22.1%; p = 0.2), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (p = 0.5), discharge disposition (p = 0.1), mean length of stay [3.1 days (±5.5) vs. 2.4 days (±2.6); p = 0.2) or follow-up period [22.7 months (±18.5) vs. 18.6 months (±14.9); p = 0.2). There were no differences in costs during admission (p = 0.5) or in follow-up (p = 0.3) between coiling and PED treatments. Initial costs were predominantly related to supplies/implants (56.1% vs. 63.7%) for both treatments. Follow-up costs mostly comprised facility costs (68.2% vs. 67.5%), and there were no differences in costs of subgroups such as supplies/implants (10.5% vs. 9.4%), imaging (17.0% vs. 17.8%), or facilties between coiling and PED. Conclusion These results suggest that the upfront and follow-up costs are mostly similar for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms irrespective of whether the providers used coiling or PED endovascular techniques. Hence, we conclude that follow-up costs should not be a deciding factor when considering these treatments.

Analysis of Treatment Cost Variation Among Multiple Neurosurgical Procedures Using the Value-Driven Outcomes Database.

BACKGROUND: Health care costs comprise a substantial portion of total national expenditure. Although interest in cost-effectiveness analysis in neurosurgery has increased, there has been little cross-comparison of neurosurgical procedures. The aim of this study was to compare costs across elective neurosurgical procedures to understand whether drivers of cost differ. METHODS: The Value Driven Outcomes database was used to evaluate treatment costs for resection of vestibular schwannoma, intracranial meningioma, gliomas, and pituitary adenoma; anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and lumbar spinal fusion; and aneurysm treatment. RESULTS: A total of 1997 patients (mean age 54.6 ± 14.5 years; 45.2% male) were evaluated. The mean length of stay (LOS) was 4.0 ± 4.4 days. For cases involving hardware implantation, including spine fusion or aneurysm treatment, supplies and implants (49.1%) accounted for the largest fraction of costs followed by facility costs (37.9%). For cases that did not involve hardware, including tumor cases, facility costs (63.9%) were the largest fraction, followed by supplies and implants (16.2%). Aneurysm treatment and lumbar fusion were 1.5-3 times more costly than cranial tumor resection and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion per patient. Multivariate linear regression demonstrated that LOS (ß = 0.7, P = 0.0001) and patient treatment type (ß = 0.2, P = 0.0001) had the greatest effect on costs. LOS correlated with cost differently depending on case type; its effect was largest for patients with meningioma and smallest for patients with vestibular schwannoma. Costs across time increased similarly for all case types. CONCLUSIONS: Costs for neurosurgical procedures vary widely depending on treatment type and correlated directly with LOS. Strategies to reduce cost may require different approaches depending on procedure type.

Analysis of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Healthcare Costs via the Value-Driven Outcomes Tool.

BACKGROUND: Examining the costs of single- and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is important for the identification of cost drivers and potentially reducing patient costs. A novel tool at our institution provides direct costs for the identification of potential drivers. OBJECTIVE: To assess perioperative healthcare costs for patients undergoing an ACDF. METHODS: Patients who underwent an elective ACDF between July 2011 and January 2017 were identified retrospectively. Factors adding to total cost were placed into subcategories to identify the most significant contributors, and potential drivers of total cost were evaluated using a multivariable linear regression model. RESULTS: A total of 465 patients (mean, age 53 ± 12 yr, 54% male) met the inclusion criteria for this study. The distribution of total cost was broken down into supplies/implants (39%), facility utilization (37%), physician fees (14%), pharmacy (7%), imaging (2%), and laboratory studies (1%). A multivariable linear regression analysis showed that total cost was significantly affected by the number of levels operated on, operating room time, and length of stay. Costs also showed a narrow distribution with few outliers and did not vary significantly over time. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that facility utilization and supplies/implants are the predominant cost contributors, accounting for 76% of the total cost of ACDF procedures. Efforts at lowering costs within these categories should make the most impact on providing more cost-effective care.

Assessment of cost drivers and cost variation for lumbar interbody fusion procedures using the Value Driven Outcomes database.

OBJECTIVE Efforts to examine the value of care-combining both costs and quality-are gaining importance in the current health care climate. This thrust is particularly evident in treating common spinal disease where both incidences and costs are generally high and practice patterns are variable. It is often challenging to obtain direct surgical costs for these analyses, which hinders the understanding of cost drivers and cost variation. Using a novel tool, the authors sought to understand the costs of posterior lumbar arthrodesis with interbody devices. METHODS The Value Driven Outcomes (VDO) database at the University of Utah was used to evaluate the care of patients who underwent open or minimally invasive surgery (MIS), 1- and 2-level lumbar spine fusion (Current Procedural Terminology code 22263). Patients treated from January 2012 through June 2017 were included. RESULTS A total of 276 patients (mean age 58.9 ± 12.4 years) were identified; 46.7% of patients were men. Most patients (82.2%) underwent 1-level fusion. Thirteen patients (4.7%) had major complications and 11 (4.1%) had minor complications. MIS (ß = 0.16, p = 0.002), length of stay (ß = 0.47, p = 0.0001), and number of operated levels (ß = 0.37, p = 0.0001) predicted costs in a multivariable analysis. Supplies and implants (55%) and facility cost (36%) accounted for most of the expenditure. Other costs included pharmacy (7%), laboratory (1%), and imaging (1%). CONCLUSIONS These results provide direct cost accounting for lumbar fusion procedures using the VDO database. Efforts to improve the value of lumbar surgery should focus on high cost areas, i.e., facility and supplies/implant.

Analysis of cerebrovascular aneurysm treatment cost: retrospective cohort comparison of clipping, coiling, and flow diversion.

OBJECTIVE With the continuous rise of health care costs, hospitals and health care providers must find ways to reduce costs while maintaining high-quality care. Comparing surgical and endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms may offer direction in reducing health care costs. The Value-Driven Outcomes (VDO) database at the University of Utah identifies cost drivers and tracks changes over time. In this study, the authors evaluate specific cost drivers for surgical clipping and endovascular management (i.e., coil embolization and flow diversion) of both ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms using the VDO system. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed surgical and endovascular treatment of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms from July 2011 to January 2017. Total cost (as a percentage of each patient's cost to the system), subcategory costs, and potential cost drivers were evaluated and analyzed. RESULTS A total of 514 aneurysms in 469 patients were treated; 273 aneurysms were surgically clipped, 102 were repaired with coiling, and 139 were addressed with flow diverter placements. Middle cerebral artery aneurysms accounted for the largest portion of cases in the clipping group (29.7%), whereas anterior communicating artery aneurysms were most frequently involved in the coiling group (30.4%) and internal carotid artery aneurysms were the majority in the flow diverter group (63.3%). Coiling (mean total cost 0.25% ± 0.20%) had a higher cost than flow diversion (mean 0.20% ± 0.16%) and clipping (mean 0.17 ± 0.14%; p = 0.0001, 1-way ANOVA). Coiling cases cost 1.5 times as much as clipping and flow diversion costs 1.2 times as much as clipping. Facility costs were the most significant contributor to intracranial clipping costs (60.2%), followed by supplies (18.3%). Supplies were the greatest cost contributor to coiling costs (43.2%), followed by facility (40.0%); similarly, supplies were the greatest portion of costs in flow diversion (57.5%), followed by facility (28.5%). Cost differences for aneurysm location, rupture status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and discharge disposition could be identified, with variability depending on surgical procedure. A multivariate analysis showed that rupture status, surgical procedure type, ASA status, discharge disposition, and year of surgery all significantly affected cost (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Facility utilization and supplies constitute the majority of total costs in aneurysm treatment strategies, but significant variation exists depending on surgical approach, rupture status, and patient discharge disposition. Developing and implementing approaches and protocols to improve resource utilization are important in reducing costs while maintaining high-quality patient care.