RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Break-even cost analysis. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin powder for preventing infection following lumbar laminectomy. METHODS: The product cost of vancomycin powder was obtained from our institution's purchasing records. Infection rates and revision costs for lumbar laminectomy and lumbar laminectomy with fusion were obtained from the literature. A break-even analysis was then performed to determine the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in infection rate to make prophylactic application of vancomycin powder cost-effective. Analysis of lumbar laminectomy with fusion was performed for comparison. RESULTS: Costing $3.06 per gram at our institution, vancomycin powder was determined to be cost-effective in lumbar laminectomy if the infection rate of 4.2% decreased by an ARR of 0.015%. Laminectomy with fusion was also determined to be cost-effective at the same cost of vancomycin powder if the infection rate of 8.5% decreased by an ARR of 0.0034%. The current highest cost reported in the literature, $44.00 per gram of vancomycin powder, remained cost-effective with ARRs of 0.21% and 0.048% for laminectomy and laminectomy with fusion, respectively. Varying the baseline infection rate did not influence the ARR for either procedure when the analysis was performed using the product cost of vancomycin at our institution. CONCLUSIONS: This break-even analysis demonstrates that prophylactic vancomycin powder can be highly cost-effective for lumbar laminectomy. At our institution, vancomycin powder is economically justified if it prevents at least one infection out of 6700 lumbar laminectomy surgeries.
RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only one of the levels or at both. METHODS: A total of 416 patients were identified who underwent 2-level PLF with a TLIF at either one of those levels (n = 183) or at both (n = 233) with greater than 1-year follow-up. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data was reviewed for each patient. These included age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charleston Comorbidity Index, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: Each cohort underwent 24 reoperations. Although the number of overall reoperations was not significantly different (P > .05), among the reoperation types, there were significantly more reoperations for adjacent segment disease in the 2-level group compared to the 1-level group (19 vs 12, P = .04). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between the groups (P > .05). Although both groups experienced significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (P < .001) and Short Form-12 health questionnaire (P < .001), there were no differences between improvements for 1- versus 2-level cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing 2-level PLF in the setting of a TLIF, using a TLIF at one versus both levels does not seem to influence reoperation rates or outcomes. However, reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease are increased in the setting of a 2-level PLF augmented by a 2-level TLIF.
