Does Operative Management of Epidural Abscesses Increase Healthcare Expenditures up to 1 Year After Treatment?

BACKGROUND: The incidence of spinal epidural abscesses is increasing. What is more, they are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Advances in diagnostic imaging and antibiotic therapies have made earlier diagnosis and nonoperative management feasible in appropriately selected patients. Nonoperative treatment also has the advantage of lower immediate healthcare charges; however, it is unknown whether initial nonoperative care leads to higher healthcare charges long term. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does operative intervention generate higher charges than nonoperative treatment over the course of 1 year after the initial treatment of spinal epidural abscesses? (2) Does the treatment of spinal epidural abscesses in people who actively use intravenous drugs generate higher charges than management in people who do not? METHODS: This retrospective comparative study at two tertiary academic centers compared adult patients with spinal epidural abscesses treated operatively and nonoperatively from January 2016 through December 2017. Ninety-five patients were identified, with four excluded for lack of billing data and one excluded for concomitant intracranial abscess. Indications for operative management included new or progressive motor deficit, lack of response to nonoperative treatment including persistent or progressive systemic illness, or initial sepsis requiring urgent source control. Of the included patients, 52% (47 of 90) received operative treatment with no differences in age, gender, BMI, and Charlson comorbidity index between groups, nor any difference in 30-day all-cause readmission rate, 1-year reoperation rate, or 2-year mortality. Furthermore, 29% (26 of 90) of patients actively used intravenous drugs and were younger, with a lower BMI and lower Charlson comorbidity index, with no differences in 30-day all-cause readmission rate, 1-year reoperation rate, or 2-year mortality. Cumulative charges at the index hospital discharge and 90 days and 1 year after discharge were compared based on operative or nonoperative management and secondarily by intravenous drug use status. Medical records, laboratory results, and hospital billing data were reviewed for data extraction. Demographic factors including age, gender, region of abscess, intravenous drug use, and comorbidities were extracted, along with clinical factors such as symptoms and ambulatory function at presentation, spinal instability, intensive care unit admission, and complications. The primary outcome was charges associated with care at the index hospital discharge and 90 days and 1 year after discharge. All covariates extracted were included in this analysis using negative binomial regression that accounted for confounders and the nonparametric nature of charge data. Results are presented as an incidence rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables such as age, gender, BMI, ambulatory status, presence of mechanical instability, and intensive care unit admission among others, we found higher charges for the group treated with surgery compared with those treated nonoperatively at the index admission (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.62 [95% CI 1.35 to 1.94]; p < 0.001) and at 1 year (IRR 1.36 [95% CI 1.10 to 1.68]; p = 0.004). Adjusted analysis also showed that active intravenous drug use was also associated with higher charges at the index admission (IRR 1.57 [95% CI 1.16 to 2.14]; p = 0.004) but no difference at 1 year (IRR 1.11 [95% CI 0.79 to 1.57]; p = 0.55). CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary teams caring for patients with spinal epidural abscesses should understand that the decreased charges associated with selecting nonoperative management during the index admission persist at 1 year with no difference in 30-day readmission rates, 1-year reoperation rates, or 2-year mortality. On the other hand, patients with active intravenous drug use have higher index admission charges that do not persist at 1 year, with no difference in 30-day readmission rates, 1-year reoperation rates, or 2-year mortality. These results suggest possible economic benefit to nonoperative management of epidural abscesses without increases in readmission or mortality rates, further tipping the scale in an evolving framework of clinical decision-making. Future studies should investigate if these economic implications are mirrored on the patient-facing side to determine whether any financial burden is shifted onto patients and their families in nonoperative management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

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.

Outpatient spine surgery: defining the outcomes, value, and barriers to implementation.

Spine surgery is a key target for cost reduction within the United States health care system. One possible strategy involves the transition of inpatient surgeries to the ambulatory setting. Lumbar laminectomy with or without discectomy, lumbar fusion, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and cervical disc arthroplasty all represent promising candidates for outpatient surgeries in select populations. In this focused review, the authors clarify the different definitions used in studies describing outpatient spine surgery. They also discuss the body of evidence supporting each of these procedures and summarize the proposed cost savings. Finally, they examine several patient- and surgeon-specific considerations to highlight the barriers in translating outpatient spine surgery into actual practice.

Is There Variation in Procedural Utilization for Lumbar Spine Disorders Between a Fee-for-Service and Salaried Healthcare System?

BACKGROUND: Whether compensation for professional services drives the use of those services is an important question that has not been answered in a robust manner. Specifically, there is a growing concern that spine care practitioners may preferentially choose more costly or invasive procedures in a fee-for-service system, irrespective of the underlying lumbar disorder being treated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Were proportions of interbody fusions higher in the fee-for-service setting as opposed to the salaried Department of Defense setting? (2) Were the odds of interbody fusion increased in a fee-for-service setting after controlling for indications for surgery? METHODS: Patients surgically treated for lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis (2006-2014) were identified. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether the surgery was performed in the fee-for-service setting (beneficiaries receive care at a civilian facility with expenses covered by TRICARE insurance) or at a Department of Defense facility (direct care). There were 28,344 patients in the entire study, 21,290 treated in fee-for-service and 7054 treated in Department of Defense facilities. Differences in the rates of fusion-based procedures, discectomy, and decompression between both healthcare settings were assessed using multinomial logistic regression to adjust for differences in case-mix and surgical indication. RESULTS: TRICARE beneficiaries treated for lumbar spinal disorders in the fee-for-service setting had higher odds of receiving interbody fusions (fee-for-service: 7267 of 21,290 [34%], direct care: 1539 of 7054 [22%], odds ratio [OR]: 1.25 [95% confidence interval 1.20-1.30], p < 0.001). Purchased care patients were more likely to receive interbody fusions for a diagnosis of disc herniation (adjusted OR 2.61 [2.36-2.89], p < 0.001) and for spinal stenosis (adjusted OR 1.39 [1.15-1.69], p < 0.001); however, there was no difference for patients with spondylolisthesis (adjusted OR 0.99 [0.84-1.16], p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The preferential use of interbody fusion procedures was higher in the fee-for-service setting irrespective of the underlying diagnosis. These results speak to the existence of provider inducement within the field of spine surgery. This reality portends poor performance for surgical practices and hospitals in Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payment programs in which provider inducement is allowed to persist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analysis.

Paid expenditures and productivity costs associated with permanent disability pensions in patients with spinal disorders: Nationwide Finnish Register-based Study, 1990-2010.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to present the paid expenditures and productivity costs of disability pensions (DP) due to spinal disorders (SD) in Finland during 1990-2010. METHODS: This study is a register-based national study. All new cases aged 20-64 that were granted a DP due to SD were identified from the nationwide register maintained by the Finnish Centre of Pensions. The data included sex, age group, year of the DP decision, main cause of incapacity (diagnosis) leading to permanent DP and yearly paid expenditures for DPs. Annual productivity costs were estimated based on labour force participation rate and the employment rate adjusted gross domestic product. RESULTS: A total of 39,107 individuals (18,072 females, 21,035 males) received DPs during the study period. SDs generated 9,372 million euros extra cost during this period due to DP (females 3.5 billion, males 5.9 billion). The total DP expenditures paid increased during the first half of 1990s but decreased during the second half of 1990s (-44.8 %). For degenerative SD cases, the DP expenditure was 5.1 billion €, disc disease 3.5 billion € and for other SDs 0.7 billion €. Males, compared to females, were expected to have a rate 1.22 times greater costs due to DPs. The estimated total annual productivity costs due to SDs have been over six times higher than expenditures paid for DPs per year. The costs of DPs are different compared to occurrence rates due to salary and early retirement age differences between genders. CONCLUSION: Despite a significant decrease in DP-associated expenditures due to SDs after 1993, the annual expenditures have stayed on a high level in Finland.

Burden of disease of reoperations in instrumental spinal surgeries in Germany.

PURPOSE: To estimate the incidence of instrumental spinal surgeries (ISS) and consecutive reoperations and to calculate the related resource utilization and costs. METHODS: ISS and subsequent reoperations were identified retrospectively using surgery codes in claims data. The study period included January 01, 2009 to December 31, 2011. The reoperation rate was calculated for 1 year after the primary ISS. Resource utilization and costs were analyzed by group comparison. RESULTS: A total of 3316 incident ISS patients were identified in 2010 with an annual reoperation rate of 9.98% (95% CI 8.98-11.02%). Mean costs per patient were €11,331 per ISS and €11,370 per reoperation, with €8432 directly attributed to the reoperation and €2938 to additional resources. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of ISS and subsequent reoperations have a significant impact on health insurances budgets. The annual cost of reoperations exceeds the direct cost of the primary surgery driven by the need for further inpatient and outpatient care.

[Surgery for chronic low back pain: good option? Better than conservative treatment?]

The goal of this article is to assess, using the literature and our own experience, whether surgery is a reasonable option in the management of non-specific or degenerative chronic low back pain. The usual starting points for low back pain are without doubt the intervertebral disc and the facet joints, but the actual etiology is often difficult to determine. Moreover, psychogenic factors may amplify clinical symptoms. In our experience, thorough clinical, psychological, and socioprofessional assessment along with relevant imaging studies, parti- cularly MRI to look for inflammatory disc disease and EOS system to evaluate sagittal balance, leads to surgical indication in only 5 % of the patients with chronic low back pain. In these cases, surgery is aimed at short-circuiting ideally one, but sometimes two, interver- tebral segment by a conventional rigid fixation (arthrodesis), or by more recent non-rigid fixation techniques (disc replacement or interspinous dynamic stabilization). Their preven- tive effect on accelerated degeneration of adjacent segment appears to be moderate at best. The problem is to compare the results of surgical and conservative treatment: The analysis of publications concerning comparative randomized studies and personal studies shows that surgery is useful in only a small proportion of well selected patients with chronic low back pain, compared with physical and cognitive-behavioral management techniques.

Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research.

OBJECT: Cost-effectiveness research in spine surgery has been a prominent focus over the last decade. However, there has yet to be a standardized method developed for calculation of costs in such studies. This lack of a standardized costing methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an intervention for a specific diagnosis. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review all cost-effectiveness studies published on spine surgery and compare and contrast various costing methodologies used. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature related to spine surgery. All cost-effectiveness analyses pertaining to spine surgery were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis registry database of the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy, and the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed to determine the study subject, methodology, and results. Data were collected from each study, including costs, interventions, cost calculation method, perspective of cost calculation, and definitions of direct and indirect costs if available. RESULTS: Thirty-seven cost-effectiveness studies on spine surgery were included in the present study. Twenty-seven (73%) of the studies involved the lumbar spine and the remaining 10 (27%) involved the cervical spine. Of the 37 studies, 13 (35%) used Medicare reimbursements, 12 (32%) used a case-costing database, 3 (8%) used cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs), 2 (5%) used a combination of Medicare reimbursements and CCRs, 3 (8%) used the United Kingdom National Health Service reimbursement system, 2 (5%) used a Dutch reimbursement system, 1 (3%) used the United Kingdom Department of Health data, and 1 (3%) used the Tricare Military Reimbursement system. Nineteen (51%) studies completed their cost analysis from the societal perspective, 11 (30%) from the hospital perspective, and 7 (19%) from the payer perspective. Of those studies with a societal perspective, 14 (38%) reported actual indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in cost have a direct impact on the value equation for concluding whether an intervention is cost-effective. It is essential to develop a standardized, accurate means of calculating costs. Comparability and transparency are essential, such that studies can be compared properly and policy makers can be appropriately informed when making decisions for our health care system based on the results of these studies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in minimally invasive spine surgery.

OBJECT: Medical care has been evolving with the increased influence of a value-based health care system. As a result, more emphasis is being placed on ensuring cost-effectiveness and utility in the services provided to patients. This study looks at this development in respect to minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) costs. METHODS: A literature review using PubMed, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) was performed. Papers were included in the study if they reported costs associated with minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). If there was no mention of cost, CEA, cost-utility analysis (CUA), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), quality, or outcomes mentioned, then the article was excluded. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reporting costs associated with MISS in 12,425 patients (3675 undergoing minimally invasive procedures and 8750 undergoing open procedures) were identified through PubMed, the CEA Registry, and NHS EED. The percent cost difference between minimally invasive and open approaches ranged from 2.54% to 33.68%-all indicating cost saving with a minimally invasive surgical approach. Average length of stay (LOS) for minimally invasive surgery ranged from 0.93 days to 5.1 days compared with 1.53 days to 12 days for an open approach. All studies reporting EBL reported lower volume loss in an MISS approach (range 10-392.5 ml) than in an open approach (range 55-535.5 ml). CONCLUSIONS: There are currently an insufficient number of studies published reporting the costs of MISS. Of the studies published, none have followed a standardized method of reporting and analyzing cost data. Preliminary findings analyzing the 14 studies showed both cost saving and better outcomes in MISS compared with an open approach. However, more Level I CEA/CUA studies including cost/QALY evaluations with specifics of the techniques utilized need to be reported in a standardized manner to make more accurate conclusions on the cost effectiveness of minimally invasive spine surgery.

A socioeconomic analysis of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgery: national use, regional variation, and patient outcomes.

OBJECT: In the United States in recent years, a dramatic increase in the use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) during spine surgeries has been suspected. Myriad reasons have been proposed, but no clear evidence confirming this trend has been available. In this study, the authors investigated the use of IONM during spine surgery, identified patterns of geographic variation, and analyzed the value of IONM for spine surgery cases. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried for all spine surgeries performed during 2007-2011. Use of IONM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code 00.94) was compared over time and between geographic regions, and its effect on patient independence at discharge and iatrogenic nerve injury was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 443,194 spine procedures were identified, of which 85% were elective and 15% were not elective. Use of IONM was recorded for 31,680 cases and increased each calendar year from 1% of all cases in 2007 to 12% of all cases in 2011. Regional use of IONM ranged widely, from 8% of cases in the Northeast to 21% of cases in the West in 2011. Iatrogenic nerve and spinal cord injury were rare; they occurred in less than 1% of patients and did not significantly decrease when IONM was used. CONCLUSIONS: As costs of spine surgeries continue to rise, it becomes necessary to examine and justify use of different medical technologies, including IONM, during spine surgery.

Defining the value of spine care.

The increased cost and frequency of spine-related procedures, expanding indications, and regional variation in care has led to a shift toward delivery of value-based spine care. In this model, payers show preference for interventions and treatments with proven value and incentivize providers who use such interventions and demonstrate value in their practices. Thus, spine care providers must understand how to determine the value of interventions and treatments. Determining value (ie, cost and quality of care, measured over time) can be challenging in the setting of spine care. Data collection and reporting are complicated by variation in diagnostic coding and surgical techniques. Typically, outcomes in spine care are based on subjective patient-reported measures that are influenced by concomitant orthopaedic, medical, and psychological disease. Health utility is a preferable measure of quality that can be converted into quality-adjusted life years and used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Although no standard currently exists, estimates of cost should include both direct and indirect costs of care over an adequate time horizon.

Value-based care in the management of spinal disorders: a systematic review of cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal disorders are a major cause of disability and compromise in health-related quality of life. The direct and indirect costs of treating spinal disorders are estimated at more than $100 billion per year. With limited resources, the cost-utility of interventions is important for allocating resources. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature on cost-utility for nonoperative and operative interventions for treating spinal disorders. METHODS: We searched four databases for cost-utility analysis studies on low back pain management and identified 1004 items. The titles and abstracts of 752 were screened before selecting 27 studies for inclusion; full texts of these 27 studies were individually evaluated by five individuals. RESULTS: Studies of nonoperative treatments demonstrated greater value for graded activity over physical therapy and pain management; spinal manipulation over exercise; behavioral therapy and physiotherapy over advice; and acupuncture and exercise over usual general practitioner care. Circumferential fusion and femoral ring allograft had greater value than posterolateral fusion and titanium cage, respectively. The relative cost-utility of operative versus nonoperative interventions was variable with the most consistent evidence indicating superior value of operative care for treating spinal disorders involving nerve compression and instability. CONCLUSION: The literature on cost-utility for treating spinal disorders is limited. Studies addressing cost-utility of nonoperative and operative management of low back pain encompass a broad spectrum of diagnoses and direct comparison of treatments based on cost-utility thresholds for comparative effectiveness is limited by diversity among disorders and methods to assess cost-utility. Future research will benefit from uniform methods and comparison of treatments in cohorts with well-defined pathology.

Publication patterns of comparative effectiveness research in spine neurosurgery.

OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to investigate publication patterns for comparative effectiveness research (CER) on spine neurosurgery. METHODS: The authors searched the PubMed database for the period 1980-2012 using the key words "cost analysis," "utility analysis," "cost-utility," "outcomes research," "practical clinical research," "comparator trial," and "comparative effectiveness research," linked with "effectiveness" and "spine neurosurgery." RESULTS: From 1980 through April 9, 2012, neurosurgery CER publications accounted for 1.38% of worldwide CER publications (8657 of 626,330 articles). Spine neurosurgery CER accounted for only 0.02%, with 132 articles. The journal with the greatest number of publications on spine neurosurgery CER was Spine, followed by the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. The average annual publication rate for spine neurosurgery CER during this period was 4 articles (132 articles in 33 years), with 68 (51.52%) of the 132 articles being published within the past 5 years and a rising trend beginning in 2008. The top 3 contributing countries were the US, Turkey, and Japan, with 68, 8, and 7 articles, respectively. Only 8 regular articles (6.06%) focused on cost analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of publications using CER methodology in spine neurosurgery. Few articles address the issue of cost analysis. The promotion of continuing medical education in CER methodology is warranted. Further investigations to address cost analysis in comparative effectiveness studies of spine neurosurgery are crucial to expand the application of CER in public health.

Cost-effectiveness of confirmatory techniques for the placement of lumbar pedicle screws.

OBJECT: There is considerable variation in the use of adjunctive technologies to confirm pedicle screw placement. Although there is literature to support the use of both neurophysiological monitoring and isocentric fluoroscopy to confirm pedicle screw positioning, there are no studies examining the cost-effectiveness of these technologies. This study compares the cost-effectiveness and efficacy of isocentric O-arm fluoroscopy, neurophysiological monitoring, and postoperative CT scanning after multilevel instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from 4 spine surgeons who used 3 different strategies for monitoring of pedicle screw placement in multilevel lumbar degenerative disease. A decision analysis model was developed to analyze costs and outcomes of the 3 different monitoring strategies. A total of 448 surgeries performed between 2005 and 2010 were included, with 4 cases requiring repeat operation for malpositioned screws. A sample of 64 of these patients was chosen for structured interviews in which the EuroQol-5D questionnaire was used. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life years were calculated based on the incidence of repeat operation and its negative effect on quality of life and costs. RESULTS: The decision analysis model demonstrated that the O-arm monitoring strategy is significantly (p < 0.001) less costly than the strategy of postoperative CT scanning following intraoperative uniplanar fluoroscopy, which in turn is significantly (p < 0.001) less costly than neurophysiological monitoring. The differences in effectiveness of the different monitoring strategies are not significant (p = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the O-arm for confirming pedicle screw placement is the least costly and therefore most cost-effective strategy of the 3 techniques analyzed.

Early retirement and the financial assets of individuals with back problems.

This paper quantifies the relationship between early retirement due to back problems and wealth, and contributes to a more complete picture of the full costs associated with back problems. The output data set of the microsimulation model Health&WealthMOD was analysed. Health&WealthMOD was specifically designed to measure the economic impacts of ill health on Australian workers aged 45-64 years. People aged 45-64 years who are out of the labour force due to back problems have significantly less chance of having any accumulated wealth. While almost all individuals who are in full-time employment with no chronic health condition have some wealth accumulated, a significantly smaller proportion (89%) of those who have retired early due to back problems do. Of those who have retired early due to back problems who do have some wealth, on average the total value of this wealth is 87% less (95% CI: -90 to -84%) than the total value of wealth accumulated by those who have remained in full-time employment with no health condition controlling for age, sex and education. The financial burden placed on those retiring early due to back problems is likely to cause financial stress in the future, as not only have retired individuals lost an income stream from paid employment, but they also have little or no wealth to draw upon. Preventing early retirement due to back problems will increase the time individuals will have to amass savings to finance their retirement and to protect against financial shocks.

Role of 'low cost Indian implants' in our practice: our experience with 1,572 pedicle screws.

PURPOSE: As Indian spine surgeons, we have to choose between 'foreign implants' and 'Indian implants'. An Indian four pedicle screw rod construct costs 330 US dollars (one-third that of a similar foreign construct). About 60% of patients cannot afford expensive foreign implants. There is little written data evaluating how these Indian implants fare. The purpose of our study was to evaluate implant failure rate with Indian implants and compare it to foreign implants. METHODS: We analysed results of 1,572 titanium pedicle screws used in 239 patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients were divided into Indian and foreign implant groups. Radiological failures were classified as (1) surgery and disease failure, (2) bone failure and (3) implant failure. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between implant failure rate for Indian and foreign implants. RESULTS: A total of 128 (53.56%) of patients could not afford foreign implants. We used 679 foreign and 893 Indian pedicle screws. In foreign implant group, there was a single incident of implant failure (0.15%). In Indian implant group, there were five such incidents (0.56%). CONCLUSIONS: (1) Rate of failure for 'low cost' Indian implants is very low (approximately 1 implant complication for every 200 screws). (2) There is no statistically significant difference in failure rates for Indian implants and foreign implants (P-value = 0.2438). We recommend that Indian implants are a safe and viable option to make spine surgery cost effective in the Indian scenario.

[REDIA--impacts of DRG introduction in the acute sector on medical rehabilitation]. / REDIA - Auswirkungen der DRG-Einführung auf die Rehabilitation.

The REDIA study is the only long-term (2003-2009), prospective, multicentre study analyzing the impact of the DRG system on quality and costs in rehabilitation facilities. In 2004, Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) were implemented on a mandatory basis in the German healthcare system as a reimbursement scheme for hospitals based on administered prices for procedures. Experiences from other countries revealed that introduction of DRG does not only have a significant impact on hospitals but also on rehabilitation facilities. The study approach ensures a comprehensive analysis as it considers major clinical, therapeutic, psychological and economic aspects. The REDIA study is the only nationwide empirical study that includes all stages of the implementation process: before DRG implementation, during the convergence phase and following implementation. An indication-specific comparison of the phases showed significantly shorter stays in the acute sector as well as shorter transition times between the sectors, resulting in admission of patients into rehabilitative care at an earlier stage of their recovery process. Significant diversions of treatment efforts from the acute sector to the rehabilitative sector have been proven in terms of increased nursing efforts and potential changes in the therapeutic and medical treatments to be provided.