Treatment Patterns and Health Care Resource Utilization of Iatrogenic Spinal Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize the treatment patterns and the associated costs in patients with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak after spine procedures in the United States. BACKGROUND: CSF leak is a common complication after spinal procedures. However, there is a little data regarding the national patterns of treatment choice and the associated health care resource utilization. METHODS: We utilized the IBM MarketScan Research databases to retrospectively analyze adult US patients diagnosed with CSF leak within 30 days of spine procedures between 2001 and 2018. Treatment prevalence, treatment failure, and health care resource utilization data within 30 days of the CSF leak were collected. A subanalysis was performed on patients who received epidural blood patches (EBP) to better understand health care utilization attributable to this treatment modality. RESULTS: Twenty one thousand four hundred fourteen patients were identified. The most common causes of CSF leak were diagnostic spinal tap (59.2%) and laminectomy/discectomy (18.7%). With regard to treatment prevalence, 40.4% of the patients (n=8651) had conservative medical management, 46.6% (n=9987) received epidural blood patch repair, 9.6% required surgical repair (n=2066), and 3.3% (n=710) had lumbar drain/puncture. Nine hundred sixty-seven (9.7%), 150 (21.1%), and 280 (13.5%) patients failed initial EBP, lumbar drain, and surgery, respectively, and the overall failure rate was 10.9% (n=1397). The median 30-day total cost across all groups was $5,101. Patients who received lumbar drain ($22,341) and surgical repair ($30,199) had higher 30-day median total costs than EBP ($8,140) or conservative management ($17,012). The median 30-day total cost for patients whose EBP failed ($8,179) was substantially greater than those with a successful EBP repair ($3,439). CONCLUSIONS: National treatment patterns and costs for CSF leaks were described. When used in the correct patient cohort, EBP has the lower failure rates and costs than comparable alternatives. EBP may be considered more often in situations where conservative management or lumbar drains are currently being used.

Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of clinical special tests for myelopathy in patients seen for cervical dysfunction.

STUDY DESIGN: Case control study. BACKGROUND: Myelopathy is a clinical diagnosis based largely on initial examination findings during a clinical screen, followed by imaging verification of cord injury or compression. At present, few studies have examined the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination measures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of neurological tests associated with the diagnosis of myelopathy. METHODS AND MEASURES: Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of 7 frequently used tests and measures and subjective findings associated with myelopathy were examined on consecutive patients with cervical pain. Interrater reliability and diagnostic accuracy values, including posttest probability, based on a pretest probability of 40%, were calculated for each test and for combinations of tests and measures. RESULTS: Four of the 7 diagnostic tests were found to have a substantial interrater reliability. None of the single or clusters of tests yielded low negative likelihood ratios. Of the individual tests, the Babinski sign demonstrated the highest positive likelihood ratio (LR+, 4.0; 95% CI: 1.1-16.6) and posttest probability (73%) for diagnosis, but yielded only a moderate negative likelihood ratio (LR-, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.6-0.9). Combinations of tests did not yield improved accuracy values over single test results. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that 4 of 7 tests used to screen for myelopathy offered substantial levels of interrater agreement when used on individuals with cervical dysfunction. None of the tests when performed individually or in combinations are effective for screening; however, the Babinski sign did alter posttest probability more significantly than combinations of test findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnosis, Level 2b.