Differences in evaluation and management coding of outpatient clinic visits for patients undergoing elective spine surgery with use of a standardized template.

Background: In a large teaching institution with providers of various levels of training and backgrounds, and a coding department responsible for all evaluation and management (E&M) billing, variations in documentation can hinder accurate medical management and compensation. The purpose of this study is to assess differences in re-imbursement between templated and non-templated outpatient documentation for patients who eventually underwent single level lumbar microdiscectomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) both before and after the E&M billing changes were implemented in 2021. Methods: Data was collected from three spine surgeons on 41 patients who underwent a single level lumbar microdiscectomy at a tertiary care center from July 2018 to June 2019 and 35 patients seen by four spine surgeons from January through December of 2021 given the new E&M billing changes. ACDF data was collected for 52 patients between 2018 and 2019 for three spine surgeons and 30 patients from January through December of 2021 from four spine surgeons. Billing level was decided by independent coders for preoperative visits. Results: During the study period from 2018-2019 for lumbar microdiscectomy, each surgeon averaged about 14 patients. Results showed variability of billing level between the three spine surgeons (surgeon 1, 3.2±0.4; surgeon 2, 3.5±0.6; and surgeon 3, 2.9±0.8). Interestingly, even after the implementation of the 2021 E&M billing changes, there was a statistically significant increased level of billing for templated notes for lumbar microdiscectomy (P=0.013). However, this did not translate to the clinic visits for patients who underwent ACDF in 2021. When data was aggregated for all the patients from 2021 who either underwent lumbar microdiscectomy or ACDF, using a template still resulted in a statistically significant higher level of billing (P<0.05). Conclusions: Utilization of templates for clinical documentation reduces variability in billing codes. This impacts subsequent reimbursements and potentially prevents significant financial losses at large tertiary care facilities.

Intradural cervical herniated nucleus pulposus presentation and management: a case report.

Background: Intradural disc herniations (IDH) are uncommon and can be found in the cervical spine. It is commonly associated with Brown-Sequard syndrome (BSS). The case report describes cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings that assists in identifying IDH pre-operatively and discusses surgical management. Case Description: This is a case report regarding a 42-year-old obese male who developed atraumatic spontaneous bilateral upper extremity numbness, right upper extremity weakness and right lower extremity weakness. MRI showed a C6-7 herniated nucleus pulposus that focally protruded through the posterior longitudinal ligament with a beak-like projection similar to what has been described in previous reports. Clinical exam revealed an incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI) most consistent with BSS. He underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at the level of C6-7. Intra-operatively, a disc fragment was found to be embedded in the dura. Three months post-operatively, the patient had persistent weakness in his right lower extremity but no longer had any bilateral upper extremity weakness. Conclusions: An anterior cervical decompression and fusion was performed shortly after the patient presented, with adequate neurological recovery after 3 months. Advanced imaging with an MRI could lead to the diagnosis of an IDH and surgical intervention via the anterior approach could facilitate removal of the disc and adequate dura repair.

Thoracic and lumbar spine trauma classification systems fail to predict post-traumatic kyphotic deformity.

Background: Post-traumatic kyphosis of the thoracic and lumbar spine can lead to pain and decreased function. MRI has been advocated to assess ligament integrity and risk of kyphosis. Methods: All thoracic and lumbar spine MRI performed for evaluation of trauma over a 3-year period at a single institution were reviewed. Patients were included if there was an MRI showing a vertebral body fracture and follow-up radiographs. Two observers retrospectively reviewed all radiographs, CT and MRI scans, and classified injuries based on the Denis, TLICS, AO and load sharing classification systems. Change in kyphosis between injury and follow-up studies was measured. The initial radiology reports made at time of patient injury were compared to the retrospective interpretations. Results: There were 67 separate injuries in 62 patients. Kyphosis measuring ≥ 10° developed despite an intact PLC in 6/14 nonoperative cases, and 3/7 surgically treated cases; when PLC was partially injured, it developed in 6/10 cases (8 treated nonoperatively, 2 treated operatively. Thirty injuries had complete disruption of PLC by MRI, 24 treated with fusion. Kyphosis ≥ 10° developed in 3/6 treated nonoperatively, and 8/24 treated with fusion. Development of kyphosis was independent of degree of vertebral body comminution. It developed equally in patients with Grade 2 and Grade 3 Denis injuries. It developed in patients with intact PLC when multiple vertebrae were involved and/or there was compressive injury to anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL). There was high interobserver variability in assessment of severity of ligamentous injury on MRI. Conclusions: Classification systems of thoracic and lumbar spine injury and integrity of the PLC failed to predict the risk of development of post-traumatic kyphotic deformity.

Comparative Effectiveness Between Primary and Revision Foraminotomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Foraminotomy has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS), as evidenced by several small retrospective investigations. However, there is a subset of patients who have recurrent symptoms following the operation and therefore require revision surgery. Yet, despite this phenomenon, the relative efficacy of revision foraminotomy (RF) is not well elucidated due to limited literature on the quality of life (QOL) outcomes and cost associated with primary foraminotomy (PF) and RF. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of PF and RF in terms of QOL outcomes and relative costs. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at a single tertiary-care institution. The patient sample consisted of patients undergoing foraminotomy for the treatment of LFS between 2008 and 2016. The primary outcome measure was improvement in postoperative QOL, as measured by EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D), and secondary outcome measures included Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) perioperative cost as well as minimum clinically important difference (MCID). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify individuals who underwent PF or RF for LFS and to collect clinical, operative, and demographic data. QOL scores (EQ-5D, PDQ, and PHQ-9) were collected between 2008 and 2016, and perioperative financial data were extracted via the institution's cost utilization engine. Paired t tests were used to assess changes within treatment groups, and Fisher exact tests were used for intercohort comparisons. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-nine procedures were eligible: 476 (82%) PF and 103 (18%) RF. A significantly higher proportion of males underwent RF than PF (71% versus 59%, P = .03), and PF was done on a significantly higher number of vertebral levels (2.2 versus 2.0, P = .04). There were no other significant differences in demographics. Preoperatively, mean PDQ-Functional scores (50 versus 54, P = .04) demonstrated significantly poorer QOL in the RF cohort. Postoperatively, EQ-5D index showed significant improvement in both the PF (0.547→0.648, P < .0001) and the RF (0.507→0.648, P < .0001) cohorts. Similarly, total PHQ-9 improved significantly in the PF cohort (7.84→5.91, P < .001) and in the RF cohort (8.55→5.53, P = .02), as did total PDQ (PF: 77→63, P < .0001; RF: 85→70, P = .04). QOL scores were also compared between groups preoperatively and postoperatively, and the only significant difference between PF and RF was observed in the preoperative PDQ-Functional score (49.7 versus 54.3, P = .04). The proportion of patients achieving MCID was not significantly associated with cohort. Finally, perioperative cost did not differ significantly between cohorts (PF: $13,383 versus RF: $13,595, P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: Both PF and RF produced significant improvement in nearly all measures in patients with LFS. There was no significant difference in cost between PF and RF, but both PF and RF showed postoperative QOL improvements as compared with preoperative scores, indicating that RF remains a reasonable treatment option for patients with recurrent symptoms of LFS.