Does Body Mass Index Influence Intraoperative Costs and Operative Times for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Spine surgeons are often unaware of drivers of cost variation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We used time-driven activity-based costing to assess the relationship between body mass index (BMI), total cost, and operating room (OR) times for ACDFs. METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation, electronic medical records, and through querying multiple departments. Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. Total intraoperative costs were estimated for all ACDFs from 2017 to 2022. All patients were categorized into distinct BMI-based cohorts. Linear regression models were performed to assess the relationship between BMI, total cost, and OR times. RESULTS: A total of 959 patients underwent ACDFs between 2017 and 2022. The average age and BMI were 58.1 ± 11.2 years and 30.2 ± 6.4 kg/m2, respectively. The average total intraoperative cost per case was $7120 ± $2963. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that BMI was not significantly associated with total cost (P = 0.36), supply cost (P = 0.39), or personnel cost (P = 0.20). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased time spent in the OR (P = 0.018); however, it was not a significant factor for the duration of surgery itself (P = 0.755). Rather, higher BMI was significantly associated with nonoperative OR time (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing is a feasible and scalable methodology for understanding the true intraoperative costs of ACDF. Although higher BMI was not associated with increased total cost, it was associated with increased preparatory time in the OR.

Health Care Costs Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion or Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To describe the postoperative costs associated with both anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in the two-year period following surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDA has become an increasingly common alternative to ACDF for the treatment of cervical disc disorders. Although a number of studies have compared clinical outcomes between both procedures, much less is known about the postoperative economic burden of each procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By analyzing a commercial insurance claims database (Marketscan, Merative), patients who underwent one-level or two-level ACDF and CDA procedures between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 were identified and included in the study. The primary outcome was the cost of payments for postoperative management in the two-year period following ACDF or CDA. Identified postoperative interventions included in the study were: (i) physical therapy, (ii) pain medication, (iii) injections, (iv) psychological treatment, and (iv) subsequent spine surgeries. RESULTS: Totally, 2304 patients (age: 49.0±9.4 yr; male, 50.1%) were included in the study. In all, 1723 (74.8%) patients underwent ACDF, while 581 (25.2%) underwent CDA. The cost of surgery was similar between both groups (ACDF: $26,819±23,449; CDA: $25,954±20,620; P =0.429). Thirty-day, 90-day, and two-year global costs were all lower for patients who underwent CDA compared with ACDF ($31,024 vs. $34,411, $33,064 vs. $37,517, and $55,723 vs. $68,113, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lower two-year health care costs were found for patients undergoing CDA compared with ACDF. Further work is necessary to determine the drivers of these findings and the associated longer-term outcomes.

What is the Marginal Intraoperative Cost of Using an Exoscope or Operative Microscope for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to compare the intraoperative costs of 3 different surgical visualization techniques for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Specifically, we used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology to compare costs between ACDFs performed with operative microscopes (OM-ACDF), exoscopes (EX-ACDF), and loupes (loupes-ACDF). METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation, electronic medical records, and through querying multiple departments (business operations, sterile processing, plant operations, and pharmacy). Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. We identified all instances of loupes-ACDF (n = 882), EX-ACDF (n = 26), and OM-ACDF (n = 52) performed at our institution. We performed multivariable linear regression analyses to compare costs between these modalities, accounting for patient-specific factors as well as number of levels fused, surgeon, and hospital site. RESULTS: The average total intraoperative costs per loupes-ACDF, EX-ACDF, and OM-ACDF cases were $7081 +/- $2,942, $7951 +/- $3,488, and $6557 +/- $954, respectively. Regression analysis revealed no difference in intraoperative cost between loupes-ACDF and EX-ACDF (P = 0.717), loupes-ACDF and OM-ACDF (0.954), or OM-ACDF and EX-ACDF (0.217). On a more granular level, however, EX-ACDF was associated with increased cost of consumables, including drapes, compared to both OM-ACDF (ß-coefficient: $369 +/- $121, P = 0.002) and loupes-ACDF (ß-coefficient: $284 +/- $86, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although hospitals may be aware of the purchasing fees associated with microscopes and exoscopes, there is no clear documentation of how these technologies affect intraoperative cost. We demonstrate a novel use of TDABC for this purpose.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Replacement for a Workers' Compensation Population in an Ambulatory Surgical Center.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement outcomes between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disk replacement (CDR) in the Workers' Compensation (WC) population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No studies to our knowledge have compared PROMs and MCID attainment between ACDF and CDR among patients with WC insurance undergoing surgery in an outpatient ambulatory surgical center (ASC). METHODS: WC insurance patients undergoing primary, single/double-level ACDF/CDR in an ASC were identified. Patients were divided into ACDF versus CDR. PROMs were collected at preoperative/6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year timepoints, including PROMIS-PF, SF-12 PCS/MCS, VAS neck/arm, and NDI. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were included, 51 ACDF/28 CDR. While operative time (56.4 vs. 54.4 min), estimated blood loss (29.2 vs. 25.9 mL), POD0 pain (4.9 vs. 3.8), and POD0 narcotic consumption (21.2 vs. 14.5 oral morphine equivalents) were higher in ACDF patients, none reached statistical significance ( P >0.050, all). One-year arthrodesis rate was 100.0% among ACDF recipients with available imaging (n=36). ACDF cohort improved from preoperative for PROMIS-PF from 12 weeks to 1 year, SF-12 PCS at 6 months, all timepoints for VAS neck/arm, and 12 weeks/6 months for NDI ( P ≤0.044, all). CDR cohort improved from preoperative for PROMIS-PF at 6 months, VAS neck/arm from 12 weeks to 1 year, and NDI at 12 weeks/6 months ( P ≤0.049, all). CDR cohort reported significantly lower VAS neck at 12 weeks/1 year and VAS arm at 12 weeks ( P ≤0.039, all). MCID achievement rates did not differ. CONCLUSION: While operative duration/estimated blood loss/acute postoperative pain/narcotic consumption were, on average, higher among ACDF recipients, these were not statistically significant, possibly due to the limited sample size. ACDF and CDR ASC patients generally demonstrated comparable arm pain/disability/physical function/mental health, though neck pain was significantly lower at multiple timepoints among CDR patients. Clinically meaningful PROM improvements were comparable. Larger, multicentered studies are required to confirm our results.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial).

BACKGROUND: Cervical radiculopathy occurs when a nerve root is compressed in the spine, if symptoms fail to resolve after 6 weeks surgery may be indicated. Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) is the commonest procedure, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative that avoids the risk of damage to anterior neck structures. This prospective, Phase III, UK multicentre, open, individually randomised controlled trial was performed to determine whether PCF is superior to ACD in terms of improving clinical outcome as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI) 52 weeks post-surgery. METHOD: Following consent to participate and collection of baseline data, subjects with cervical brachialgia were randomised to ACD or PCF in a 1:1 ratio on the day of surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed on day 1 and patient reported outcomes on day 1 and weeks 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 post-operation. A total of 252 participants were planned to be randomised. Statistical analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. Health economic outcomes were also described. RESULTS: The trial was closed early (n = 23). Compared to baseline, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) NDI score at 52 weeks reduced from 44.0 (36.0, 62.0) to 25.3 (20.0, 42.0) in the PCF group and increased from 35.6 (34.0, 44.0) to 45.0 (20.0, 57.0) in the ACD group. ACD may be associated with more swallowing, voice and other complications and was more expensive; neck and arm pain scores were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was closed early, therefore no definitive conclusions on clinical or cost-effectiveness could be made.

Public health insurance, frailty, and lack of home support predict rehab discharge following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a commonly-performed and generally well-tolerated procedure used to treat cervical disc herniation. Rarely, patients require discharge to inpatient rehab, leading to inconvenience for the patient and increased healthcare expenditure for the medical system. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to create an accurate and practical predictive model for, as well as delineate associated factors with, rehab discharge following elective ACDF. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent ACDF between 2012 and 2022 were included. Those with confounding diagnoses or who underwent concurrent, staged, or nonelective procedures were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes for this study included measurements of accuracy for predicting rehab discharge. Secondary outcomes included associations of variables with rehab discharge. METHODS: Current Procedural Terminology codes identified patients. Charts were reviewed to obtain additional demographic and clinical characteristics on which an initial univariate analysis was performed. Two logistic regression and two machine learning models were trained and evaluated on the data using cross-validation. A multimodel logistic regression was implemented to analyze independent variable associations with rehab discharge. RESULTS: A total of 466 patients were included in the study. The logistic regression model with minimum corrected Akaike information criterion score performed best overall, with the highest values for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.83), Youden's J statistic (0.71), balanced accuracy (85.7%), sensitivity (90.3%), and positive predictive value (38.5%). Rehab discharge was associated with a modified frailty index of 2 (p=.007), lack of home support (p=.002), and having Medicare or Medicaid insurance (p=.007) after correction for multiple hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: Nonmedical social determinants of health, such as having public insurance or a lack of support at home, may play a role in rehab discharge following elective ACDF. In combination with the modified frailty index and other variables, these factors can be used to predict rehab discharge with high accuracy, improving the patient experience and reducing healthcare costs.

How much are patients willing to pay for spine surgery? An evaluation of attitudes toward out-of-pocket expenses and cost-reducing measures.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: With rising healthcare expenditures in the United States, patients and providers are searching to maintain quality while reducing costs. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate patient willingness to pay for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), degenerative lumbar spinal fusions (LF), and adult spine deformity (ASD) surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A survey was developed and distributed to anonymous respondents through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). METHODS: The survey introduced 3 procedures: ACDF, LF, and ASD surgery. Respondents were asked sequentially if they would pay at each increasing price option. Respondents were then presented with various cost-saving methods and asked to select the options that made them most uncomfortable, even if those would save them out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: In total, 979 of 1,172 total responses (84%) were retained for analysis. The average age was 36.2 years and 44% of participants reported a household income of $50,000 to 100,000. A total of 63% used Medicare and 13% used Medicaid. A total of 40% stated they had high levels of financial stress. A total of 30.1% of participants were willing to undergo an ACDF, 30.3% were willing to undergo a LF, and 29.6% were willing to undergo ASD surgery for the cost of $3,000 (p=.98). Regression demonstrated that for ACDF surgery, a $100 increase in price resulted in a 2.1% decrease in willingness to pay. This is comparable to degenerative LF surgery (1.8% decrease), and ASD surgery (2%). When asked which cost-saving measures participants were least comfortable with for ACDF surgery, 60% stated "Use of the older generation implants/devices" (LF: 51%, ASD: 60%,), 61% stated "Having the surgery performed at a community hospital instead of at a major academic center" (LF: 49%, ASD: 56%), and 55% stated "Administration of anesthesia by a nurse anesthetist" (LF: 48.01%, ASD: 55%). Conversely, 36% of ACDF patients were uncomfortable with a "Video/telephone postoperative visit" to cut costs (LF: 51%, ASD: 39%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are unwilling to contribute larger copays for adult spinal deformity correction than for ACDF and degenerative lumbar spine surgery, despite significantly higher procedural costs and case complexity/invasiveness. Patients were most uncomfortable forfeiting newer generation implants, receiving the operation at a community rather than an academic center, and receiving care by physician extenders. Conversely, patients were more willing to convert postoperative visits to telehealth and forgo neuromonitoring, indicating a potentially poor understanding of which cost-saving measures may be implemented without increasing the risk of complications.

Cost and Effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy versus Microscope-Assisted Tubular Discectomy for L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost and effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and microscope-assisted tubular discectomy (MATD) for patients with L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: The medical and financial records of patients diagnosed with L5/S1 LDH and who underwent either PEID or MATD from April 2021 to April 2022 were retrospectively collected. Demographic and baseline information, perioperative observational index, clinical outcomes, and inpatient costs were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included, with 30 patients in the PEID group and 30 patients in the MATD group. No significant difference was found in demographic and baseline information between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The PEID group showed significantly shorter incision length, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and higher intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency compared with the MATD group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, and 36-Item Short-Form Survey score between PEID and MATD groups before the surgery and at any follow-up time points (P > 0.05). The total cost, surgery cost, and surgical instruments/materials cost were significantly higher in the PEID group compared with the MATD group (P < 0.05). In contrast, the drug and nursing costs were significantly higher in the MATD group than in the PEID group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PEID and MATD provide equivalent clinical efficacy and safety in treating LDH at L5/S1 segment within a 1-year follow-up. However, PEID is less invasive and MATD is less costly. No one surgical technique is superior in all aspects and patients should make decisions according to their top concern.

Outcomes of cervical spinal stenosis surgery in patients aged ≥ 65 years based on insurance status: a single-center cohort study from a tertiary center in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of degenerative disorders of the spine, such as cervical spinal stenosis with cervical spine myelopathy (CSM) in the geriatric population, has rapidly increased worldwide. To date, there has been no systematic analysis comparing outcomes in older patients suffering from progressive CSM and undergoing surgery depending on their health insurance status. We sought to compare the clinical outcomes and complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior decompression with fusion in patients aged ≥ 65 years with multilevel cervical spinal canal stenosis and concomitant CSM with special focus on their insurance status. METHODS: Clinical and imaging data were retrieved from patients' electronic medical records at a single institution between September 2005 and December 2021. Patients were allocated into two groups with respect to their health insurance status: statutory health insurance (SHI) vs. private insurance (PI). RESULTS: A total of 236 patients were included in the SHI group and 100 patients in the privately insured group (PI) group. The overall mean age was 71.7 ± 5.2 years. Regarding comorbidities, as defined with the age-adjusted CCI, SHI patients presented with higher rates of comorbidities as defined by a CCI of 6.7 ± 2.3 and higher prevalence of previous malignancies (9.3%) when compared to the PI group (CCI 5.4 ± 2.5, p = 0.051; 7.0%, p = 0.048). Both groups underwent ACDF (SHI: 58.5% vs. PI: 61.4%; p = 0.618), and the surgical duration was similar between both groups. Concerning the intraoperative blood transfusion rates, no significant differences were observed. The hospital stay (12.5 ± 1.1 days vs. 8.6 ± 6.3 days; p = 0.042) and intenisve care unit stay (1.5 ± 0.2 days vs. 0.4 ± 0.1 days; p = 0.049) were significantly longer in the PI group than in the SHI group. Similar in-hospital and 90-day mortality rates were noted across the groups. The presence of comorbidities, as defined with the age-adjusted CCI, poor neurological status at baseline, and SHI status, was significant predictor for the presence of adverse events, while the type of surgical technique, operated levels, duration of surgery, or blood loss was not. CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we found that surgeons make decisions independent of health insurance status and aim to provide the most optimal therapeutic option for each individual; hence, outcomes were similar between the groups. However, longer hospitalization stays were present in privately insured patients, while SHI patients presented on admission with poorer baseline status.

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.

Cost-utility Analysis of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Spondylosis Patients Comparing Polyetheretherketone Versus Tricortical Iliac Crest Bone Graft.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To perform a cost-utility analysis and to investigate the clinical outcomes and patient's quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to treat cervical spondylosis compared between fusion with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and fusion with tricortical iliac bone graft (IBG) in Thailand. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ACDF is one of the standard treatments for cervical spondylosis. The fusion material options include PEEK and tricortical IBG. No previous studies have compared the cost-utility between these 2 fusion material options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with cervical spondylosis who were scheduled for ACDF at Siriraj Hospital (Bangkok, Thailand) during 2019-2020 were prospectively enrolled. Patients were allocated to the PEEK or IBG fusion material group according to the patient's choice of fusion material. EuroQol-5 dimensions 5 levels and relevant costs were collected during the operative and postoperative periods. A cost-utility analysis was performed using a societal perspective. All costs were converted to 2020 United States dollars (USD), and a 3% discount rate was used. The outcome was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (18 ACDF-PEEK and 18 ACDF-IBG) were enrolled. Except for Nurick grading, there was no significant difference in patient baseline characteristics between groups. The average utility at 1 year after ACDF-PEEK and ACDF-IBG were 0.939 ± 0.061 and 0.798 ± 0.081, respectively ( P < 0.001). The total lifetime cost of ACDF-PEEK and ACDF-IBG was 83,572 USD and 73,329 USD, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ACDF-PEEK when compared with that of ACDF-IBG showed a gain of 4468.52 USD/quality-adjusted life-years, which is considered cost-effective at the Thailand willingness-to-pay threshold of 5115 USD/quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: ACDF-PEEK was found to be more cost-effective than ACDF-IBG for treating cervical spondylosis in Thailand. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Assessment of quality of life, pain level and disability outcomes after lumbar discectomy.

This study aimed to assess the quality of life of 113 Caucasian patients with intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration of the lumbosacral (L/S) spine who qualified for microdiscectomy during a 12-month period after surgery. Based on magnetic resonance imaging before the surgery, the degree of radiological advancement of the degenerative changes was determined according to the Pfirrmann grading scale from 1 to 5. To assess pain intensity, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used; the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) was used to evaluate quality of life; and to assess the degree of ability, the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI) was employed. The level of pain, assessed using the VAS, significantly changed in the months following the surgery, with the highest values noted before surgery and the lowest a year after. In turn, the results of the SWLS questionnaire revealed a significant increase in satisfaction with life in the subsequent stages of the study. The conducted correlation analysis revealed significant dependencies in terms of quality of life in regard to pain as well as degree of disability. The level of pain and degree of disability were closely related to the degree of radiological advancement of degenerative changes according to the Pfirrmann grading scale.

Clinical Outcomes and Cost Differences Between Patients Undergoing Primary Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Procedures with Private or Medicare Insurance: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether the insurance type reflects a patient's quality of care after an anterior discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedure by comparing differences in the postoperative complications, readmission rates, reoperation rates, lengths of hospital stay, and cost of treatment between patients with Medicare versus private insurance. METHODS: Propensity score matching was used to match patient cohorts insured by Medicare and private insurance in the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (2007-2016). Age, sex, year of operation, geographic region, comorbidities, and operative factors were used to match cohorts of patients who had undergone an ACDF procedure. RESULTS: A total of 110,911 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 97,543 patients (87.9%) were privately insured and 13,368 patients (12.1%) were insured by Medicare. The propensity score matching algorithm matched 7026 privately insured patients to 7026 Medicare patients. After matching, no significant differences were found in the 90-day postoperative complication rates, lengths of stay, or reoperation rates between the Medicare and privately insured cohorts. The Medicare group had had lower postoperative readmission rates for all time points: 30 days (1.8% vs. 4.6%; P < 0.001), 60 days (2.5% vs. 6.3%; P < 0.001), and 90 days (4.2% vs. 7.7%; P < 0.001). The median payment to physicians was significantly lower for the Medicare group ($3885 vs. $5601; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, propensity score matched patients covered by Medicare and private insurance who had undergone an ACDF procedure had had similar treatment outcomes.

Epidemiology of the causes of complaints after discectomy collected from a French insurance company.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar discectomy is a frequent procedure performed by surgeons from specialties at risk of patient complaints. The objective of the study was to analyze the causes of litigations following lumbar discectomy to be able to reduce their frequency. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This observational, retrospective study was carried out at a French insurance company (Branchet). All files opened between the 1st of January 2003 and the 31st of December 2020, following lumbar discectomy without instrumentation and without any other associated code, undertaken by a surgeon insured by Branchet, were analyzed. The data was extracted from the database by a consultant from the insurance company and analyzed by an orthopedic surgeon. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-four records met all inclusion criteria and were complete and available for analysis. Infection was the leading cause of litigation, responsible for 27% of complaints. Residual postoperative pain was the second cause of complaint with 26% of cases, of which 93% had persistent pain. Neurological deficits were the third cause of complaint with 25% of cases among which 76% were related to the appearance of a deficit and 20% related to the persistence of an existing deficit. Early recurrence of herniated disc also appeared as a cause of complaint, accounting for 7% of cases. CONCLUSION: Surgical site infection, persistence of pain, and the appearance or persistence of neurological disorders are the primary causes of complaints leading to investigation in the aftermath of lumbar discectomy. It seems essential to us that this information be brought to the attention of surgeons to enable them to better adapt their explanations in the delivery of preoperative information. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

A real-world analysis of hybrid CDA and ACDF compared to multilevel ACDF.

BACKGROUND: Multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (mACDF) is the gold standard for multilevel spinal disease; although safe and effective, mACDF can limit regular spinal motion and contribute to adjacent segment disease (ASD). Hybrid surgery, composed of ACDF and cervical disc arthroplasty, has the potential to reduce ASD by retaining spinal mobility. This study examined the safety of hybrid surgery by utilizing administrative claims data to compare real-world rates of subsequent surgery and post-procedural hospitalization within populations of patients undergoing hybrid surgery versus mACDF for multilevel spinal disease. METHODS: This observational, retrospective analysis used the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Database from July 2013 through June 2020. Propensity score matched cohorts of patients who received hybrid surgery or mACDF were established based on the presence of spinal surgery procedure codes in the claims data and followed over a variable post-period. Rates of subsequent surgery and post-procedural hospitalization (30- and 90-day) were compared between hybrid surgery and mACDF cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 430 hybrid surgery patients and 2,136 mACDF patients qualified for the study; average follow-up was approximately 2 years. Similar rates of subsequent surgery (Hybrid: 1.9 surgeries/100 patient-years; mACDF: 1.8 surgeries/100 patient-years) were observed for the two cohorts. Hospitalization rates were also similar across cohorts at 30 days post-procedure (Hybrid: 0.67% hospitalized/patient-year; mACDF: 0.87% hospitalized/patient-year). At 90 days post-procedure, hybrid surgery patients had slightly lower rates of hospitalization compared to mACDF patients (0.23% versus 0.42% hospitalized/patient-year; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this real-world, retrospective cohort study confirm prior reports indicating that hybrid surgery is a safe and effective intervention for multilevel spinal disease which demonstrates non-inferiority in relation to the current gold standard mACDF. The use of administrative claims data in this analysis provides a unique perspective allowing the inclusion of a larger, more generalizable population has historically been reported on in small cohort studies.

Robust prediction of nonhome discharge following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using explainable machine learning.

PURPOSE: Predict nonhome discharge (NHD) following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using an explainable machine learning model. METHODS: 2227 patients undergoing elective ACDF from 2008 to 2019 were identified from a single institutional database. A machine learning model was trained on preoperative variables, including demographics, comorbidity indices, and levels fused. The validation technique was repeated stratified K-Fold cross validation with the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) statistic as the performance metric. Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) values were calculated to provide further explainability regarding the model's decision making. RESULTS: The preoperative model performed with an AUROC of 0.83 ± 0.05. SHAP scores revealed the most pertinent risk factors to be age, medicare insurance, and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score. Interaction analysis demonstrated that female patients over 65 with greater fusion levels were more likely to undergo NHD. Likewise, ASA demonstrated positive interaction effects with female sex, levels fused and BMI. CONCLUSION: We validated an explainable machine learning model for the prediction of NHD using common preoperative variables. Adding transparency is a key step towards clinical application because it demonstrates that our model's "thinking" aligns with clinical reasoning. Interactive analysis demonstrated that those of age over 65, female sex, higher ASA score, and greater fusion levels were more predisposed to NHD. Age and ASA score were similar in their predictive ability. Machine learning may be used to predict NHD, and can assist surgeons with patient counseling or early discharge planning.

Cost effectiveness of implanting a prosthesis after anterior cervical discectomy for radiculopathy: results of the NECK randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In the treatment of cervical radiculopathy due to a herniated disc, potential surgical treatments include: anterior cervical discectomy (ACD), ACD and fusion using a cage (ACDF), and anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA). Previous publications yielded comparable clinical and radiological outcome data for the various implants, but research on their comparative costutility has been inconclusive. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost utility of ACD, ACDF, and ACDA. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: About 109 patients with cervical radiculopathy randomized to undergo ACD, ACDF, or ACDA as part of the NEtherlands Cervical Kinetics trial. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) estimated from patient-reported utilities using the EuroQol-5D questionnaire and EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS), measured at baseline, 2, 4, 8, 12, 26, 52, and 104 weeks postprocedure. Societal costs including admissions to hospital (related and otherwise), GP visits, specialist visits, physical therapy, medications, home care, aids, informal care, productivity losses, and out of pocket condition-related expenses. METHODS: The cost utility of the competing strategies over 1 and 2 years was assessed following a net benefit (NB) approach, whereby the intervention with the highest NB among competing strategies is preferred. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves were produced to reflect the probability of each strategy being the most cost effective across various willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Five sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: ACDF was more likely to be the most cost-effective strategy at WTP thresholds of €20,000 to 50,000/QALY in all but one of the analyses. The mean QALYs during the first year were 0.750, 0.817, and 0.807 for ACD, ACDF, and ACDA, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Total healthcare costs over the first year were significantly higher for ACDA, largely due to the higher surgery and implant costs. The total societal costs of the three strategies were €12,173 for ACD, €11,195 for ACDF, and €13,746 for ACDA, with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that ACDF is likely to be more cost-effective than ACDA or ACD at most WTP thresholds, and this conclusion is robust to most sensitivity analyses conducted. It is demonstrated that the difference in costs is mainly caused by the initial surgical costs and that there are only minimal differences in other costs during follow-up. Since clinical data are comparable between the groups, it is to the judgment of the patient and surgeon which intervention is applied.

Trends in Outpatient Cervical Spine Surgery: Are There Emerging Disparities?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to (1) assess disparities in relative utilization of outpatient cervical spine surgery between White and Black patients from 2010 to 2019 and (2) to measure how these racial differences have evolved over time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although outpatient spine surgery has become increasingly popularized over the last decade, it remains unknown how racial disparities in surgical utilization have translated to the outpatient setting and whether restrictive patterns of access to outpatient cervical spine procedures may exist. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from 2010 to 2019 was conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Relative utilization of outpatient (same-day discharge) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (OP-ACDF) and cervical disk replacement (OP-CDR) were assessed and trended over time between races. Multivariable regressions were subsequently utilized to adjust for baseline patient factors and comorbidities. RESULTS: Overall, Black patients were significantly less likely to undergo OP-ACDF or OP-CDR surgery when compared with White patients ( P <0.03 for both OP-ACDF and OP-CDR). From 2010 to 2019, a persisting disparity over time was found in outpatient utilization for both ACDF and CDR ( e.g. White vs. Black OP-ACDF: 6.0% vs. 3.1% in 2010 compared with 16.7% vs. 8.5% in 2019). These results held in all adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting racial disparities in outpatient spine surgery and demonstrates an emerging disparity in outpatient cervical spine utilization among Black patients. These restrictive patterns of access to same-day outpatient hospital and surgery centers may contribute to broader disparities in the overall utilization of major spine procedures that have been previously reported. Renewed interventions are needed to both understand and address these emerging inequalities in outpatient care before they become more firmly established within our orthopedic and neurosurgery spine delivery systems.

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Usage Has Leveled Out From 2010 to 2021.

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiologic study. OBJECTIVE: To compare trends in utilization and predictive factors for single-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) relative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over the years. BACKGROUND: CDA is an alternative to ACDF for the treatment of cervical spine pathologies. With both procedures performed for similar indications, controversy on best practices exists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent single-level CDA or ACDF were identified in the 2010 through 2021 PearlDiver M151Ortho data set. The yearly number of CDAs performed and proportionality was assessed. Predictive patient factors for undergoing CDA as opposed to ACDF were determined. Kaplan Meyer survival analysis with an endpoint of cervical spine reoperation compared 5-year outcomes between CDA and ACDF. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2021, 19,301 single-level CDAs and 181,476 single-level ACDFs were identified. The proportional utilization of CDA relative to ACDF increased from 4.00% in 2010 to 14.15% in 2018 ( P < 0.0001), after which there was a plateau between 2018 and 2021 where proportional utilization was 14.47% ( P = 0.4654). Multivariate analysis identified several predictors of undergoing CDA rather than ACDF, including: younger age [odds ratio (OR) per decade decrease: 1.72], having surgery performed in the Midwest, Northeast, or West (relative to South, OR: 1.16, 1.13, 2.26, respectively), having Commercial insurance (relative to Medicare, OR: 1.75), and having surgery performed by an orthopedic surgeon (relative to a neurological surgeon, OR: 1.54) ( P < 0.0001 for each). There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival to further cervical spine surgery between CDA and ACDF at 5 years (97.6% vs. 97.7%, P = 0.4249). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of CDA relative to ACDF rose from 2010 to 2018, its use has subsequently plateaued between 2018 and 2021 and remained a relatively low percentage of the single-level anterior cervical surgeries performed (14.47% in 2021). The causes for such changes in the trend are unclear.