Current Trends and Socioeconomic Disparities in the Utilization of Spine Augmentation for Patients With Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fracture: A Nationwide Inpatient Sample Analysis From 2012 to 2016.

INTRODUCTION: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) is a growing health care problem in today's aging population. Since the advent of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty, these interventions have been commonly utilized in the treatment of symptomatic OVCF. However, the use of these interventions varies because there is not a standard of care for the management of OVCF. There remain disparities in the use of these procedures as treatment for OVCFs in the United States. METHODS: The 2012 to 2016 Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried for all patients admitted for OVCF. These patients were then grouped based on whether they received conservative vs surgical (kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty) management and compared with respect to various socioeconomic factors including race, insurance coverage, income quartile, hospital control, and geography. Propensity score matching was utilized to control for potential baseline confounders as well as the influence of other endpoints. RESULTS: The search criteria identified 35,199 patients admitted with OVCF, of whom 7900 (22.4%) received spine augmentation. Blacks/African Americans (risk ratios [RR] = 0.79, P < 0.001), Hispanics/Latinos (RR = 0.82, P < 0.001), Asians/Pacific Islanders (RR = 0.81, P = 0.048), and unknown/other races (RR = 0.88, P = 0.037) were less likely to receive surgical management than whites/Caucasians. When compared with Medicare patients, those with Medicaid (RR = 0.76, P < 0.001) were less likely to receive surgery while privately insured patients were more likely (RR = 1.06, P = 0.42). Patients in the West (RR = 0.90, P < 0.001) were less likely to receive surgery for OVCF than those in the Northeast. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of socioeconomic disparities exists in the use of spinal augmentation for the management of OVCF in the United States, limiting patient access to a potentially beneficial procedure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Retrospective Analysis.