Projections of Single-level and Multilevel Spinal Instrumentation Procedure Volume and Associated Costs for Medicare Patients to 2050.

BACKGROUND: Instrumented spinal fusions can be used in the treatment of vertebral fractures, spinal instability, and scoliosis or kyphosis. Construct-level selection has notable implications on postoperative recovery, alignment, and mobility. This study sought to project future trends in the implementation rates and associated costs of single-level versus multilevel instrumentation procedures in US Medicare patients aged older than 65 years in the United States. METHODS: Data were acquired from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2019. Procedure costs and counts were abstracted using Current Procedural Terminology codes to identify spinal level involvement. The Prophet machine learning algorithm was used, using a Bayesian Inference framework, to generate point forecasts for 2020 to 2050 and 95% forecast intervals (FIs). Sensitivity analyses were done by comparing projections from linear, log-linear, Poisson and negative-binomial, and autoregressive integrated moving average models. Costs were adjusted for inflation using the 2019 US Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2019, the annual spinal instrumentation volume increased by 776% (from 7,342 to 64,350 cases) for single level, by 329% (from 20,319 to 87,253 cases) for two-four levels, by 1049% (from 1,218 to 14,000 cases) for five-seven levels, and by 739% (from 193 to 1,620 cases) for eight-twelve levels (P < 0.0001). The inflation-adjusted reimbursement for single-level instrumentation procedures decreased 45.6% from $1,148.15 to $788.62 between 2000 and 2019, which is markedly lower than for other prevalent orthopaedic procedures: total shoulder arthroplasty (-23.1%), total hip arthroplasty (-39.2%), and total knee arthroplasty (-42.4%). By 2050, the number of single-level spinal instrumentation procedures performed yearly is projected to be 124,061 (95% FI, 87,027 to 142,907), with associated costs of $93,900,672 (95% FI, $80,281,788 to $108,220,932). CONCLUSIONS: The number of single-level instrumentation procedures is projected to double by 2050, while the number of two-four level procedures will double by 2040. These projections offer a measurable basis for resource allocation and procedural distribution.

The cost-utility of intraoperative tranexamic acid in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing long posterior spinal fusion.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility of intraoperative tranexamic acid (TXA) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients undergoing long posterior (≥ 5 vertebral levels) spinal fusion. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was built for a hypothetical 60-year-old adult patient with spinal deformity undergoing long posterior spinal fusion. A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to obtain event probabilities, costs and health utilities at each node. Health utilities were utilized to calculate Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). A base-case analysis was carried out to obtain the incremental cost and effectiveness of intraoperative TXA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate uncertainty in our model and obtain mean incremental costs, effectiveness, and net monetary benefits. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed to identify the variables with the most impact on our model. RESULTS: Use of intraoperative TXA was the favored strategy in 88% of the iterations. The mean incremental utility ratio for using intraoperative TXA demonstrated higher benefit and lower cost while being lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold set at $50,000 per quality adjusted life years. Use of intraoperative TXA was associated with a mean incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of $3743 (95% CI 3492-3995). One-way sensitivity analysis reported cost of blood transfusions due to post-operative anemia to be a major driver of cost-utility analysis. CONCLUSION: Use of intraoperative TXAs is a cost-effective strategy to reduce overall perioperative costs related to post-operative blood transfusions. Administration of intraoperative TXA should be considered for long fusions in ASD population when not explicitly contra-indicated due to patient factors.

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.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden With Elective Orthopaedic Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical and surgical care can result in substantial financial burden for patients and families. Relatively little is known regarding OOP costs for commercially insured patients receiving orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the trends in OOP costs for common, elective orthopaedic surgeries performed in the hospital inpatient setting. METHODS: This study used an employer-sponsored insurance claims database to analyze billing data of commercially insured patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified. OOP costs associated with the surgical episode were calculated as the sum of deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance. Monetary data were adjusted to 2019 dollars. General linear regression, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis, as appropriate. RESULTS: In total, 10,225 ACDF, 28,841 PLF, 70,815 THA, and 108,940 TKA patients were analyzed. Most patients in our study sample had preferred provider organization insurance plans (ACDF 70.3%, PLF 66.9%, THA 66.2%, and TKA 67.0%). The mean OOP costs for patients, by procedure, were as follows: ACDF $3,180 (SD = 2,495), PLF $3,166 (SD = 2,529), THA $2,884 (SD = 2,100), and TKA $2,733 (SD = 1,994). Total OOP costs increased significantly from 2014 to 2019 for all procedures (P < 0.0001). Among the insurance plans examined, patients with high-deductible health plans had the highest episodic OOP costs. The ratio of patient contribution (OOP costs) to total insurer contribution (payments from insurers to providers) was 0.07 for ACDF, 0.04 for PLF, 0.07 for THA, and 0.07 for TKA. CONCLUSION: Among commercially insured patients who underwent elective spinal fusion and major lower extremity joint arthroplasty surgery, OOP costs increased from 2014 to 2019. The OOP costs for elective orthopaedic surgery represent a substantial and increasing financial burden for patients.

Is Discretionary Care Associated with Safety Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Spine Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery and its corresponding costs have increased in recent years and are variable across geographic regions. Discretionary care is the component of spending variation that is independent of illness severity, age, and regional pricing. It is unknown whether greater discretionary care is associated with improved safety for patients undergoing spine surgery, as we would expect from value-based health care. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of 5 spine surgery cohorts based on Medicare claims from 2013 to 2017. Patients were grouped into quintiles based on the Dartmouth Atlas End-of-Life Inpatient Care Index (EOL), reflecting regional spending variation attributed to discretionary care. Multivariable regression examined the association between discretionary care and safety measures while controlling for age, sex, race, comorbidity, and hospital features. RESULTS: We observed a threefold to fourfold variation in 90-day episode-of-care cost across regions, depending on the cohort. Spine-specific spending was correlated with EOL quintile, confirming that spending variation is due more to discretionary care than it is to pricing, age, or illness severity. Greater spending across EOL quintiles was not associated with improved safety, and, in fact, was associated with poorer safety in some cohorts. For example, all-cause readmission was greater in the high-spending EOL quintile relative to the low-spending EOL quintile among the "fusion, except cervical" cohort (14.2% vs. 13.1%; OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.20), the "complex fusion" cohort (28.0% vs. 25.4%; OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.30), and the "cervical fusion" cohort (15.0% vs. 13.6%; OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation in spending was not explained by differences in illness severity, age, or pricing, and increased discretionary care did not enhance safety. These findings point to inefficient use of health-care resources, a potential focus of reform. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A 24-month retrospective update: follow-up hospitalization charges and readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries using a cellular bone allograft (CBA) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2).

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to build upon previously-reported 12-month findings by retrospectively comparing 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges and potentially-relevant readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries that employed either recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) or a cellular bone allograft comprised of viable lineage-committed bone cells (V-CBA) via a nationwide healthcare system database. METHODS: A total of 16,172 patients underwent lumbar fusion surgery using V-CBA or rhBMP-2 in the original study, of whom 3,792 patients (23.4%) were identified in the current study with all-cause readmissions during the 24-month follow-up period. Confounding baseline patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics found in the original study were used to adjust multivariate regression models comparing differences in 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges (in 2020 US dollars) and lengths of stay (LOS; in days) between the groups. Differences in potentially-relevant follow-up readmissions were also compared, and all analyses were repeated in the subset of patients who only received treatment at a single level of the spine. RESULTS: The adjusted cumulative mean 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges in the full cohort were significantly lower in the V-CBA group ($99,087) versus the rhBMP-2 group ($124,389; P < 0.0001), and this pattern remained in the single-level cohort (V-CBA = $104,906 vs rhBMP-2 = $125,311; P = 0.0006). There were no differences between groups in adjusted cumulative mean LOS in either cohort. Differences in the rates of follow-up readmissions aligned with baseline comorbidities originally reported for the initial procedure. Subsequent lumbar fusion rates were significantly lower for V-CBA patients in the full cohort (10.12% vs 12.00%; P = 0.0002) and similar between groups in the single-level cohort, in spite of V-CBA patients having significantly higher rates of baseline comorbidities that could negatively impact clinical outcomes, including bony fusion. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that use of V-CBA for lumbar fusion surgeries performed in the US is associated with substantially lower 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges versus rhBMP-2, with both exhibiting similar rates of subsequent lumbar fusion procedures and potentially-relevant readmissions.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Using A Single Dose of Tranexamic Acid in Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis Patients Undergoing Long-Segment Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND Degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) patients undergoing posterior long-segment spinal fusion surgery often require perioperative blood transfusions, and previous studies have reported that increased complications and additional costs accompany these transfusions. One method for decreasing transfusions is the administration of tranexamic acid (TXA). We sought to evaluate the costs and benefits of preoperative administration of 1 g of intravenous TXA, without maintenance, in DLS patients undergoing long-segment spinal fusion surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients who received TXA (TXA group) were compared with patients who did not receive TXA (NTXA group) with regard to blood loss, units of packed red blood cells (PRBC) transfused, hemostasis costs, and perioperative complications. The benefits and costs were estimated through analysis of the spending on NTXA and TXA patients, and were compared. The difference between the cost per patient in the 2 groups was designated as the net cost-benefit. Then, both groups were substratified into non-osteotomy and osteotomy subgroups for further analysis. RESULTS Of the 173 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 54 TXA patients had significantly reduced perioperative blood loss and total hemostasis costs compared with NTXA patients (n=119). In the group without osteotomy (n=72), TXA (n=13) reduced perioperative blood loss but did not significantly decrease PRBC units and hemostasis costs. However, in patients undergoing osteotomy (n=101), a remarkable net cost savings of ¥648.77 per patient was shown in the TXA group (n=41) (P<0.001). This was because patients undergoing osteotomy in the TXA group received fewer PRBC units (3.7 vs 5.7, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS A single dose of TXA significantly decreased perioperative blood loss and total hemostasis costs for DLS patients undergoing osteotomy. Furthermore, TXA led to no additional net costs in patients without osteotomy.

Economic Burden of Hospitalizations Associated with Opioid Dependence Among Patients Undergoing Spinal Fusion.

BACKGROUND: The current study seeks to examine the association between chronic opioid use and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior lumbar fusion (PLF). METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried for patients with and without chronic opioid use undergoing ACDF or PLF for degenerative disc disease between 2012 and 2015 using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was performed to assess the association between chronic opioid use and length of stay (LOS), nonhome discharge, and hospital charge. RESULTS: A total of 391 patients undergoing ACDF and 644 patients undergoing PLF with opioid dependence were identified. On multivariable regression analysis, opioid dependence was significantly associated with an increased LOS (mean, 3.09 days vs. 2.16 days; odds ratio (OR) for prolonged LOS (>3 days), 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-3.14; P < 0.001). Although on unadjusted analyses, patients with opioid dependence undergoing ACDF were found to have higher hospital charges (mean, U.S. $18,698.42 vs. $11,378.61; P < 0.001) and higher rates of nonroutine discharge (19.18% vs. 10.21%; P < 0.001), the multivariable regression analyses found no significant association between opioid dependence and odds of hospital charges >75th percentile (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.84-2.47; P = 0.188) or nonroutine discharge (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.93-2.34; P = 0.098). For those undergoing PLF, opioid dependence was significantly associated with increased hospital charges (mean, U.S. $37,712.98 vs. $30,475.43, P < 0.001; OR for hospital charge >75th percentile, 1.78, 95% CL, 1.23-2.58, P = 0.002), LOS (mean, 3.42 days vs. 2.30 days; OR for prolonged LOS, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16-2.00; P = 0.003), and nonroutine discharge (46.89% vs. 36.47%; OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.34-2.26; P < 0.001) on both unadjusted and adjusted multivariable regression analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis using a national administrative database showed that opioid dependence may be associated with worse economic outcomes for patients undergoing ACDF and PLF.

Lifetime incremental cost-utility ratios for minimally invasive surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis relative to failed medical management compared with total hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis.

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) relative to failed medical management with the cost-effectiveness of hip and knee arthroplasty for matched cohorts of patients with osteoarthritis. Methods: A cohort of patients with DLS undergoing MIS procedures with decompression alone or decompression and instrumented fusion between 2008 and 2014 was matched to cohorts of patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) and knee OA undergoing total joint replacement. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, using prospectively collected Short Form-6 Dimension utility data. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Sixty-six patients met the inclusion criteria for the DLS cohort (n = 35 for decompression alone), with a minimum follow-up time of 1 year (mean 1.7 yr). The mean age of patients in the DLS cohort was 64.76 years, and 45 patients (68.2%) were female. For each cohort, utility scores improved from baseline to follow-up and the magnitude of the gain did not differ by group. Lifetime ICURs comparing surgical with nonsurgical care were Can$7946/QALY, Can$7104/QALY and Can$5098/QALY for the DLS, knee OA and hip OA cohorts, respectively. Subgroup analysis yielded an increased ICUR for the patients with DLS who underwent decompression and fusion (Can$9870/QALY) compared with that for the patients with DLS who underwent decompression alone (Can$5045/QALY). The rank order of the ICURs by group did not change with deterministic or probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Lifetime ICURs for MIS procedures for DLS are similar to those for total joint replacement. Future research should adopt a societal perspective and potentially capture further economic benefits of MIS procedures.

Contexte: L'objectif de cette étude était de comparer le rapport coût­efficacité de la chirurgie minimalement effractive (CME) chez les patients atteints de spondylolisthésis lombaire dégénératif (SLD) en lien avec un échec de la prise en charge médicale à celui de l'arthroplastie de la hanche et du genou pour des cohortes assorties de patients atteints d'arthrose. Méthodes: Une cohorte de patients atteints de SLD soumis à une CME avec décompression seule ou décompression avec arthrodèse entre 2008 et 2014 a été assortie à des cohortes de patients soumis à une arthroplastie totale pour arthrose de la hanche et du genou. Les rapports coût­utilité différentiels (RCUD) ont été calculés du point de vue du ministère de la Santé de l'Ontario à l'aide des données d'utilité du questionnaire Short Form­6 Dimension recueillies de manière prospective. Les coûts et les années de vie ajustées en fonction de la qualité (AVAQ) ont été actualisés à un taux de 3 % et des analyses de sensibilité ont été effectuées. Résultats: Soixante-six patients répondaient aux critères d'inclusion pour la cohorte SLD (n = 35, décompression seule), avec un suivi d'une durée minimale de 1 an (moyenne 1,7 an). L'âge moyen des gens de la cohorte SLD était de 64,76 ans, et 45 patients (68,2 %) étaient de sexe féminin. Pour chaque cohorte, les scores d'utilité se sont améliorés entre les valeurs de départ et les valeurs de suivi et l'ampleur du gain n'a pas différé entre les groupes. Les RCUD pour la vie entière entre les soins chirurgicaux et non chirurgicaux ont été 7946 $CA/QALY, 7104 $CA/QALY et 5098 $CA/QALY pour les cohortes SLD, arthrose du genou et de la hanche, respectivement. L'analyse de sous-groupes a généré un RCUD accru pour les patients atteints de SLD qui ont subi la décompression avec arthrodèse (9870 $CA/QALY) comparativement à la décompression seule (5045 $CA/QALY). Le classement des RCUD par groupe n'a pas changé en fonction des analyses de sensibilité déterministes ou probabilistes. Conclusion: Les RCUD pour la vie entière associés à la CME dans les cas de SLD sont similaires à ceux de l'arthroplastie totale. Les recherches futures devraient adopter une perspective sociétale et refléter davantage les bienfaits économiques de la CME.

Variability and contributions to cost associated with anterior versus posterior approaches to lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar interbody fusions are being performed with increased frequency in the last decade. Anterior and posterior interbody techniques have demonstrated relatively similar success rates. Nonetheless, despite increased attention to cost-effective care delivery, approach-related differences in procedural cost and predictors for these differences remain poorly defined. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the variability in cost for anterior versus posterior-based lumbar interbody fusions and to identify key predictors of procedural cost. METHODS: We evaluated the records of all patients who underwent a primary anterior (ALIF) or posterior/transforaminal (PLIF/TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with concomitant posterior fusion from 2016 to 2020 at four hospitals in a major metropolitan area. We reviewed the records of all included patients and abstracted demographics, insurance status, approach, operative time, diagnosis, surgeon, institution, open versus minimally invasive technique, and components of procedural costs. Costs based upon interbody approach were compared via multivariable adjusted analyses using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: We included 139 interbody fusion procedures; 98 were performed via posterior approach (TLIF/PLIF) and 41 using an anterior approach. Anterior techniques were associated with significantly increased costs as compared to posterior procedures (anterior, $16316 [SE 556] vs. posterior, $9415 [SE 345]; p < 0.001). This determination remained significant following multivariable adjusted analysis (regression coefficient -0.22, 95% CI -0.34, -0.10, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis also indicated that surgeon, invasiveness, and procedure time were significant predictors of total cost. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that anterior interbody techniques are, on average, 173% (anterior, $16316 [SE 556] vs. posterior, $9415 [SE 345]; p < 0.001) more expensive than posterior-based procedures. Given the relative equipoise of these different approaches for many clinical applications, these findings should be considered in an ecosystem increasingly attentive to cost effective care delivery. This work has also provided specific procedural variables for surgeons and systems to target when optimizing procedural costs.

Higher pedicle screw density does not improve curve correction in Lenke 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

PURPOSE: Higher pedicle screw density posterior spinal fusion (PSF) constructs have not been shown to result in improved curve correction in Lenke 1 and 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) but do increase cost. The purpose of this study questioned whether higher screw density constructs improved curve correction and maintenance of correction in Lenke 2 AIS. Secondary goals were to identify predictive factors for correction and postoperative magnitude of curves in Lenke 2 AIS. METHODS: We identified patients 11 to 17 years old who underwent primary PSF for Lenke 2 AIS between 2007 and 2017 who had minimum follow-up of 2 years. Demographic and radiographic data were collected to perform regression and elimination analysis. RESULTS: Thirty patients (21 females, 9 males) were analyzed. Average age and SD at time of surgery was 14.0 ± 1.8 years (range, 11-17 years), and median follow-up was 2.8 years (IQR 2.1-4.0 years). Implant density did not predict final postoperative curve magnitude. Predictors of final postoperative curve magnitude were sex and preoperative curve magnitude. Predictors of percentage of correction of major curve were sex and age at the time of surgery. Predictors of final postoperative thoracic kyphosis were sex and percent flexibility preop. Females had lower final postoperative major curve magnitude, a higher percent curve correction, and lower postoperative thoracic kyphosis. CONCLUSIONS: Increased implant density is not predictive of postoperative curve magnitude in Lenke 2 AIS. Predictors of postoperative curve magnitude are sex and preoperative curve magnitude. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective observational.

Charlson comorbidity index is predictive of postoperative clinical outcome after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND: In several previous studies, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score was associated with postoperative complications, mortality, and re-admission. There are few reports about the influence of CCI score on postoperative clinical outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of comorbidities as calculated with CCI on postoperative clinical outcomes after PLIF. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-six patients who underwent an elective primary single-level PLIF were included. Postoperative clinical outcome was evaluated with the Japanese Orthopaedic Association lumbar score (JOA score). The correlation coefficient between the CCI score and postoperative improvement in JOA score was investigated. Patients were divided into three groups according to their CCI score (0, 1, and 2+). JOA improvement rate, length of stay (LOS), and direct cost were compared between each group. Postoperative complications were also investigated. RESULTS: There was a weak negative relationship between CCI score and JOA improvement rate (r = - 0.20). LOS and direct cost had almost no correlation with CCI score. The JOA improvement rate of group 0 and group 1 was significantly higher than group 2+. LOS and direct cost were also significantly different between group 0 and group 2+. There were 14 postoperative complications. Adverse postoperative complications were equivalently distributed in each group, and not associated with the number of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: A higher CCI score leads to a poor postoperative outcome. The recovery rate of patients with two or more comorbidities was significantly higher than in patients without comorbidities. However, the CCI score did not influence LOS and increased direct costs. The surgeon must take into consideration the patient's comorbidities when planning a surgical intervention in order to achieve a good clinical outcome.

What Is the Value of Undergoing Surgery for Spinal Metastases at Dedicated Cancer Centers?

BACKGROUND: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers is an organization of 11 leading cancer institutions and affiliated hospitals that are exempt from the Medicare prospective system hospital reimbursement policies. Because of their focus on cancer care and participation in innovative cancer treatment methods and protocols, these hospitals are reimbursed based on their actual billings. The perceived lack of incentive to meet a predetermined target price and reduce costs has spurred criticism of the value of cancer care at these institutions. The rationale of our study was to better understand whether dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) deliver high-value care for patients undergoing surgical treatment of spinal metastases. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Is there a difference in 90-day complications and reimbursements between patients undergoing surgical treatment (decompression or fusion) for spinal metastases at DCCs and those treated at nonDCC hospitals? METHODS: The 2005 to 2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files database was queried using ICD-9 procedure and diagnosis codes to identify patients undergoing decompression (03.0, 03.09, and 03.4) and/or fusion (81.0X) for spinal metastases (198.5). The database does not allow us to exclude the possibility that some patients were treated with fusion for stabilization of the spine without decompression, although this is likely an uncommon event. Patients undergoing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for metastatic disease were excluded. The Medicare hospital provider identification numbers were used to identify the 11 DCCs. The study cohort was categorized into two groups: DCCs and nonDCCs. Although spinal metastases are known to occur among nonMedicare and younger patients, the payment policies of these DCCs are only applicable to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, to keep the study objective relevant to current policy and value-based discussions, we performed the analysis using the Medicare dataset. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17,776 patients in the study, 6% (1138 of 17,776) of whom underwent surgery at one of the 11 DCCs. Compared with the nonDCC group, DCC group hospitals operated on a younger patient population and on more patients with primary renal cancers. In addition, DCCs were more likely to be high-volume facilities with National Cancer Institute designations and have a voluntary or government ownership model. Patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases at DCCs were more likely to have spinal decompression with fusion than those at nonDCCs (40% versus 22%; p < 0.001) and had a greater length and extent of fusion (at least four levels of fusion; 34% versus 29%; p = 0.001). Patients at DCCs were also more likely than those at nonDCCs to receive postoperative adjunct treatments such as radiation (16% versus 13.5%; p = 0.008) and chemotherapy (17% versus 9%; p < 0.001), although this difference is small and we do not know if this meets a minimum clinically important difference. To account for differences in patients presenting at both types of facilities, multivariate logistic regression mixed-model analyses were used to compare rates of 90-day complications and 90-day mortality between DCC and nonDCC hospitals. Controls were implemented for baseline clinical characteristics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors (such as random effects). Generalized linear regression mixed-modeling was used to evaluate differences in total 90-day reimbursements between DCCs and nonDCCs. RESULTS: After adjusting for differences in baseline demographics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors, patients undergoing surgery at DCCs had lower odds of experiencing sepsis (6.5% versus 10%; odds ratio 0.54 [95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), urinary tract infections (19% versus 28%; OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), renal complications (9% versus 13%; OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.72]; p < 0.001), emergency department visits (27% versus 31%; OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.93]; p = 0.01), and mortality (39% versus 49%; OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) within 90 days of the procedure compared with patients treated at nonDCCs. Undergoing surgery at a DCC (90-day reimbursement of USD 54,588 ± USD 42,914) compared with nonDCCs (90-day reimbursement of USD 49,454 ± USD 38,174) was also associated with reduced 90-day risk-adjusted reimbursements (USD -14,802 [standard error 1362] ; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, it appears that DCCs offer high-value care, as evidenced by lower complication rates and reduced reimbursements after surgery for spinal metastases. A better understanding of the processes of care adopted at these institutions is needed so that additional cancer centers may also be able to deliver similar care for patients with metastatic spine disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. METHODS: Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bariatric Surgery Prior to Posterior Lumbar Decompression and Fusion in an Obese Population with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine if bariatric surgery prior to posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is a cost-effective strategy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Obesity poses significant perioperative challenges for DS. Treated operatively, obese patients achieve worse outcomes relative to non-obese peers. Concomitantly, they fare better with surgery than with nonoperative measures. These competing facts create uncertainty in determining optimal treatment algorithms for obese patients with DS. The role of bariatric surgery merits investigation as a potentially cost-effective optimization strategy prior to PLDF. METHODS: We simulated a Markov model with two cohorts of obese individuals with DS. 10,000 patients with body mass index (BMI) more than or equal to 30 in both arms were candidates for both bariatric surgery and PLDF. Subjects were assigned either to (1) no weight loss intervention with immediate operative or nonoperative management ("traditional arm") or (2) bariatric surgery 2 years prior to entering the same management options ("combined protocol").Published costs, utilities, and transition probabilities from the literature were applied. A willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY was used. Sensitivity analyses were run for all variables to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Over a 10-year horizon, the combined protocol was dominant ($13,500 cheaper, 1.15 QALY more effective). Changes in utilities of operative and nonoperative treatments in non-obese patients, the obesity cost-multiplier, cost of bariatric surgery, and the probability of success of nonoperative treatment in obese patients led to decision changes. However, all thresholds occurred outside published bounds for these variables. CONCLUSION: The combined protocol was less costly and more effective than the traditional protocol. Results were robust with thresholds occurring outside published ranges. Bariatric surgery is a viable, cost-effective preoperative strategy in obese patients considering elective PLDF for DS.Level of Evidence: 3.

Limited Cost Benefit of Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the utility and cost-effectiveness of multilevel lateral interbody fusion (LIF) combined with posterior spinal fusion (PSF) (L group) and conventional PSF (with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (P group) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of multilevel LIF for ASD have been reported favorable; however, the cost benefit of LIF in conjunction with PSF is still controversial. METHODS: Retrospective comparisons of 88 surgically treated ASD patients with minimum 2-year follow-up from a multicenter database (L group [n = 39] and P group [n = 49]) were performed. Demographic and radiographic data, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the direct hospitalization cost for the initial surgery and 2-year total hospitalization cost were analyzed. RESULTS: Analyses of sagittal spinal alignment showed no significant difference between the two groups at baseline and 2 years post-operation. Surgical time was longer in the L group (L vs. P: 354 vs. 268 minutes, P < 0.01), whereas the amount of blood loss was greater in the P group (494 vs. 678 mL, P = 0.03). The HRQoL was improved similarly at 2 years post-operation (L vs. P: SRS-22 total score, 3.86 vs. 3.80, P = 0.54), with comparable revision rates (L vs. P: 18% vs. 10%, P = 0.29). The total direct cost of index surgery was significantly higher in the L group (65,937 vs. 49,849 USD, P < 0.01), which was mainly due to the operating room cost, including implant cost (54,466 vs. 41,328 USD, P < 0.01). In addition, the 2-year total hospitalization cost, including revision surgery, was also significantly higher in the L group (70,847 vs. 52,560 USD, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: LIF with PSF is a similarly effective surgery for ASD when compared with conventional PSF. However, due to the significantly higher cost, additional studies on the cost-effectiveness of LIF in different ASD patient cohorts are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Use of Local Morselized Bone Autograft in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Cost Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated the financial influence of surgical site local morselized bone autograft (LMBA) on the overall cost of spinal arthrodesis procedures. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential savings from introducing LMBA in spinal fusion procedures compared with no LMBA use. METHODS: Retrospectively, cost analysis was conducted on a single-center data collected from 266 patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) ranging from L1 through S1 during a period of approximately 4 years. Cost data were obtained from individual patient invoices from the distributor. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted for different costs of allograft and LMBA. RESULTS: A total of 282 levels were grafted in 266 subjects. The total quantity of LMBA harvested was 2433.5 mL, and a total of 1610 mL of allograft (Trinity Elite, ORTHOFIX, Lewisville, Texas, USA) were used. The overall cost savings from introducing LMBA in MI-TLIF surgery were $1,094,931 over the 4-year period with mean direct cost saving of $4116.28 per patient based on reduction in allograft. Results for cost savings per patient were sensitive to different direct costs of allograft and LMBA. A >95% fusion rate was achieved based on dynamic radiographs evaluated by an independent radiologist. CONCLUSIONS: LMBA is a cost-saving bone graft extender option in MI-TLIF procedures while achieving high fusion rates. The savings are mainly achieved by reducing the amount of allograft needed and subsequent reduction in the total bone graft costs. Further research needs to be performed regarding long-term economic benefit.

Association Between Social Determinants of Health and Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Single-Level Lumbar Fusions: A Matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze association between social determinants of health (SDH) disparity on postoperative complication rates, and 30-day and 90-day all-cause readmission in patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Decreasing postoperative complication rates is of great interest to surgeons and healthcare systems. Postoperative complications are associated with poor convalescence, inferior patient reported outcomes measures, and increased health care resource utilization. Better understanding of the association between Social Determinants of Health (SDH) on postoperative outcomes maybe helpful to decrease postoperative complication rates. METHODS: MARINER 2020, an all-payer claims database, was utilized to identify patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusions between 2010 and 2018. The primary outcomes were the rates of any postoperative complication, symptomatic pseudarthrosis, need for revision surgery, or 30-day and 90-day all-cause readmission. RESULTS: The exact matched population analyzed in this study contained 16,560 patients (8280 [50.0%] patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion with an SDH disparity; 8280 [50.0%] patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion without a disparity). Both patient groups were balanced at baseline. The rate of symptomatic pseudarthrosis (1.0% vs. 0.6%, P < 0.05) or any postoperative complication (16.3% vs. 10.4%, P < 0.05) in the matched analysis was higher in the disparity group. The presence of a disparity was associated with 70% increased odds of developing any complication (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.53-1.84) or symptomatic pseudarthrosis (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.17-2.37). Unadjusted and adjusted sensitivity analyses yielded similar results as the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: Social Determinants of Health affect outcomes in spine surgery patients and are associated with an increased risk of developing postoperative complications following lumbar spine fusion.Level of Evidence: 3.

Evaluation of Benefit and Cost Utility of Immediate Postanesthesia Care Unit Radiographs to Predict Airway Compromise After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a commonly performed procedure that may be complicated by airway compromise postoperatively. This life-threatening complication may necessitate reintubation and reoperation. We evaluated the cost utility of conventional postoperative x-ray. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies have demonstrated minimal benefit in obtaining an x-ray on postoperative day 1, but there is some utility of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) x-rays for predicting the likelihood of reoperation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive patients who underwent ACDF between September 2013 and February 2017. Patients were dichotomized into those who received PACU x-rays and those who did not (control group). Primary outcomes were reoperation, reintubation, mortality, and health care costs. RESULTS: Eight-hundred and fifteen patients were included in our analysis: 558 had PACU x-rays; 257 did not. In those who received PACU x-rays, mean age was 53.7 ±â€Š11.3 years, mean levels operated on were 2.0 ±â€Š0.79, and mean body mass index (BMI) was 30.3 ±â€Š6.9. In those who did not, mean age was 51.8 ±â€Š10.9 years, mean levels operated on were 1.48 ±â€Š0.65, and mean BMI was 29.9 ±â€Š6.3. Complications in the PACU x-ray group were reintubation-0.4%, reoperation-0.7%, and death-0.3% (due to prevertebral swelling causing airway compromise). Complications in the control group were reintubation-0.4%, reoperation-0.8%, and death-0. There were no differences between groups with respect to reoperation (P = 0.92), reintubation (P = 0.94), or mortality (P = 0.49). The mean per-patient cost was significantly higher (P = 0.009) in those who received PACU x-rays, $1031.76 ±â€Š948.67, versus those in the control group, $700.26 ±â€Š634.48. Mean length of stay was significantly longer in those who had PACU x-rays (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Although there were no differences in reoperation, reintubation, or mortality, there was a significantly higher cost for care and hospitalization in those who received PACU x-rays. Further studies are warranted to validate the results of the presented study.Level of Evidence: 3.

Risk Factors Associated with 90-Day Readmissions Following Occipitocervical Fusion-A Nationwide Readmissions Database Study.

BACKGROUND: Occipitocervical fusion (OCF) procedures are increasing due to an aging population and the prevalence of trauma, rheumatoid arthritis, and tumors. Reoperation rates and readmission risk factors for cervical fusions have been established, but in relation to OCF they have not been explored. This study investigates the patterns of readmissions and complications following OCF using a national database. METHODS: The 2016 U.S. Nationwide Readmissions Database was used for sample collection. Adults (>18 years) who underwent OCF were identified using the 2016 ICD-10 coding system, and we examined the readmission rates (30-day and 90-day) and reoperation rates. RESULTS: Between January and September 2016, a total of 477 patients underwent OCF; the 30-day and 90-day readmission rates were 10.4% and 22.4%, respectively. The 90-day reoperation rate related to the index surgery was 5.7%. Mean age (68.58 years) was significantly greater in the readmitted group versus nonreadmitted group (61.76 years) (P < 0.001). The readmitted group had a significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (5.00 and 2.41, respectively) than the nonreadmitted group (3.25 and 1.15, respectively; P < 0.001). Nonelective OCF showed a higher readmission rate (29.18%) versus elective OCF (12.23%) (P < 0.001). Medicare and Medicaid patients showed the highest rates of readmission (27.27% and 20.41%, respectively). Readmitted patients had higher total health care costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nonelective OCF was found to have a readmission rate of almost 2½× that of elective OCF. Understanding risk factors associated with OCF will help with operative planning and patient optimization.