Risk of Subsequent Fusion After Isolated Decompression of Lumbar Facet Cysts.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar facet cysts represent a potential source of nerve root compression in elderly patients. Isolated decompression without fusion has proven to be a reasonable treatment option in properly indicated patients. However, the risk of lumbar fusion after isolated decompression and facet cyst excision has yet to be elucidated. METHODS: The PearlDiver database was reviewed for patients undergoing isolated laminectomy for lumbar facet cyst from January 2015 to December 2018 using Current Procedural Terminology coding. Patients undergoing concomitant fusion or additional decompression, as well as those diagnosed with preexisting spondylolisthesis or without a minimum of 5-year follow-up, were excluded. Rates of subsequent lumbar fusion and potential risk factors for subsequent fusion were identified. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, chi square test, and multivariate logistic regression. Results were considered significant at P < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 10,707 patients were ultimately included for analysis. At 5-year follow-up, 727 (6.79%) of patients underwent subsequent lumbar fusion after initial isolated decompression. Of these, 301 (2.81% of total patients, 41.4% of fusion patients) underwent fusion within the first year after decompression. Multivariate analysis identified chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and osteoarthritis as risk factors for requiring subsequent lumbar fusion at 5 years following the index decompression procedure ( P < 0.033; all). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing isolated decompression for lumbar facet cysts undergo subsequent lumbar fusion at a 5-year rate of 6.79%. Risk factors for subsequent decompression include chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. This study will assist spine surgeons in appropriately counseling patients on expected postoperative course and potential risks of isolated decompression.

Medicare procedural costs in ambulatory surgery centers versus hospital outpatient departments for spine surgeries.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of outpatient spine surgery, with reports of equivalent to improved patient outcomes compared with inpatient procedures. This has resulted in the increased use of outpatient surgery over time. However, there remains a paucity of literature evaluating the difference in costs between ambulatory surgery center (ASC)- and hospital outpatient department (HOPD)-based procedures for Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Publicly available data from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were accessed via the Medicare Procedure Price Lookup tool. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify spine-specific procedures approved for the outpatient setting by CMS. Procedures were grouped into decompression (cervical, thoracic, and lumbar), fusion/instrumentation (cervical, lumbar, and sacroiliac), and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty cohorts, as well as an overall cohort. Data regarding total costs, facility fees, surgeon reimbursement, Medicare payments, and patient copayments were extracted for each procedure. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate means and standard deviations. Differences between ASC- and HOPD-associated costs were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Twenty-one individual CPT codes approved by Medicare for the ASC and/or HOPD setting were identified. Decompression procedures were associated with a significantly lower total cost ($4183 ± $411.07 vs $7583.67 ± $410.89, p < 0.001), facility fees ($2998 ± $0 vs $6397 ± $0, p < 0.001), Medicare payments ($3345.75 ± $328.80 vs $6064.75 ± $328.80, p < 0.001), and patient payments ($835.58 ± $82.13 vs $1515.58 ± $82.13, p < 0.001) in ASCs compared with HOPDs. Fusion/instrumentation procedures had significantly lower facility fees ($10,436.6 ± $2347.51 vs $14,161 ± $2147.07, p = 0.044) and Medicare payments ($9501.2 ± $1732.42 vs $13,757 ± $2037.58, p = 0.009) in ASCs, as well as a trend toward lower total costs ($11,876.8 ± $2165.22 vs $15,601.2 ± $2016.06, p = 0.076). Patient payments in the HOPD setting were significantly lower in the fusion/instrumentation cohort ($1843.6 ± $73.42 vs $2374.4 ± $433.48, p = 0.009). In the kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty cohort, there was no statistically significant difference between ASCs and HOPDs, despite lower overall costs in the ASC for all variables. Surgeon fees were the same regardless of setting for all procedures (p > 0.99). When combining decompression, fusion/instrumentation, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty CPT codes into a single cohort, ASC setting was associated with significant cost savings in total cost, facility fees, Medicare payments, and patient payments. CONCLUSIONS: In general, performing spine surgeries in ASCs is associated with cost savings compared with HOPDs. This was demonstrated for decompression and fusion/instrumentation, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty Medicare-approved outpatient procedures.

Evaluation of a Nasoenteral Feeding Tube With Balloon to Facilitate Placement.

BACKGROUND: Enteral feeding is essential for critically ill, head trauma, and burn patients who are unable to swallow. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new nasoenteral feeding tube with distal tip balloon designed to facilitate post-pyloric migration and avoid misplacement in the trachea. METHODS: A case series was conducted in 50 critically ill patients aged 19 to 89 years receiving mechanical ventilation and requiring enteral nutrition in a teaching hospital. Patients received a soft, flexible, kink-resistant nasoenteral feeding tube with a balloon near the distal tip to enhance postpyloric migration by peristalsis. The feeding tube was inserted with a novel thread technique to reduce posterior nasopharyngeal trauma and tube misplacement. Pulse oximetry provided early detection of misplacement into the trachea. Placement was verified by abdominal radiography performed shortly after the procedure and repeated within 24 hours if needed. RESULTS: Postpyloric placement was achieved at 30 minutes in 24% of patients and by the following morning in 70% of patients. Tracheal intubation occurred in 1 patient but was recognized and corrected without injury. No tube occlusion from kinking occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Early gastric or postpyloric feeding can be provided with this novel feeding tube. Its use facilitates quick bedside recognition of accidental misplacement in the trachea, reducing the chance of pneumothorax. The tip balloon reduces deeper placement into a lung and promotes distal migration into the small intestine. The design prevents occlusion from kinking, which is common with conventional feeding tubes. Nurses easily adopted the tube and insertion technique.