A randomized controlled trial of the X-Stop interspinous distractor device versus laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis with 2-year quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common and debilitating condition that is increasing in prevalence in the world population. Surgical decompression is often standard treatment when conservative measures have failed. Interspinous distractor devices (IDDs) have been proposed as a safe alternative; however, the associated cost and early reports of high failure rates have brought their use into question. The primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness and long-term quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes after treatment of LSS with the X-Stop IDD compared with surgical decompression by laminectomy. METHODS: A multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial of 47 patients with LSS was conducted; 21 patients underwent insertion of the X-Stop device and 26 underwent laminectomy. The primary outcomes were monetary cost and QOL measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire administered at 6-, 12-, and 24-month time points. RESULTS: The mean monetary cost for the laminectomy group was £2712 ($3316 [USD]), and the mean cost for the X-Stop group was £5148 ($6295): £1799 ($2199) procedural cost plus £3349 mean device cost (£2605 additional cost per device). Using an intention-to-treat analysis, the authors found that the mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain for the laminectomy group was 0.92 and that for the X-Stop group was 0.81. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -£22,145 (-$27,078). The revision rate for the X-Stop group was 19%. Five patients crossed over to the laminectomy arm after being in the X-Stop group. CONCLUSIONS: Laminectomy was more cost-effective than the X-Stop for the treatment of LSS, primarily due to device cost. The X-Stop device led to an improvement in QOL, but it was less than that in the laminectomy group. The use of the X-Stop IDD should be reserved for cases in which a less-invasive procedure is required. There is no justification for its regular use as an alternative to decompressive surgery. Clinical trial registration no.: ISRCTN88702314 (www.isrctn.com).

Cost and Complications of Single-Level Lumbar Decompression in Those Over and Under 75: A Matched Comparison.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare costs and complication rates following single-level lumbar decompression in patients under age 75 versus patients aged 75 and older. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar decompression is a common surgical treatment for lumbar pathology; however, its effectiveness can be debated in elderly patients because complication rates and costs by age group are not well-defined. METHODS: The Medicare database was queried through the PearlDiver server for patients who underwent single-level lumbar decompression without fusion as an index procedure. The 90-day complication and reoperation rates were compared between age groups after matching for sex and comorbidity burden. Same day and 90-day costs are compared. RESULTS: The matched cohort included 89,388 total patients (n = 44,694 for each study arm). Compared to the under 75 age group, the 75 and older age group had greater rates of deep venous thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.443, P = 0.042) and dural tear (OR 1.560, P = 0.043), and a lower rate of seroma complicating the procedure (OR 0.419, P = 0.009). There was no difference in overall 90-day reoperation rate in patients under age 75 versus patients aged 75 and older (9.66% vs. 9.28%, P = 0.051), although the 75 and older age group had a greater rate of laminectomy without discectomy (CPT-63047; OR 1.175, P < 0.001), while having a lower rate of laminotomy with discectomy (CPT-63042 and CPT-63030; OR 0.727 and 0.867, respectively, P = 0.013 and <0.001, respectively). The 75 and older age group had greater same day ($3329.24 vs. $3138.05, P < 0.001) and 90-day ($5014.82 vs. $4749.44, P < 0.001) mean reimbursement. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients experience greater rates of select perioperative complications, with mildly increased costs. There is no significant difference in overall 90-day reoperation rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Barbed and conventional sutures in spinal surgery patients: an economic and clinical outcomes comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To compare economic and clinical outcomes of barbed sutures versus conventional sutures alone in wound closure for patients undergoing spinal surgery. METHOD: A retrospective study using the Premier Healthcare Database. The database was searched for patients who underwent elective inpatient spinal surgery (fusion or laminectomy) for a spinal disorder between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2018 (first=index admission). Using billing records for medical supplies used during the index admission, patients were classified into mutually-exclusive groups: patients with any use of STRATAFIX (Ethicon, US) knotless tissue control devices (barbed sutures group); or patients with use of conventional sutures alone (conventional sutures group). Outcomes included the index admission's length of stay, total and subcategories of hospital costs, non-home discharge, operating room time (ORT, minutes), wound complications and readmissions within ≤90 days. Propensity score matching and generalised estimating equations were used to compare outcomes between the study groups. RESULTS: After matching, 3705 patients were allocated to each group (mean age=61.5 years [standard deviation, SD±12.9]; 54% were females). Compared with the conventional suture group, the barbed suture group had significantly lower mean ORT (239±117 minutes, versus 263±79 minutes conventional sutures, p=0.015). Operating room costs were also siginificantly lower in the barbed suture group ($6673±$3976 versus $7100±$2700 conventional sutures, p=0.020). Differences were statistically insignificant for other outcomes (all p>0.05). Subanalysis of patients undergoing fusions of ≥2 vertebral joints yielded consistent results. CONCLUSION: In this study, wound closure incorporating barbed sutures was associated with lower ORT and operating room costs, with no significant difference in wound complications or readmissions, when compared with conventional sutures alone.

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in U.S. Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Increasing costs put the value of spine surgery under scrutiny. In health economics, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are used to compare the value of competing procedures. However, inconsistent methodology prevents standardization and implementation of recommendations. The goal of this study is to perform a systematic review of all U.S. CEAs in spine surgery reported to date, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and define metrics essential for high-quality CEAs. METHODS: We followed AMSTAR systematic review methods, identifying all U.S. spine surgery CEAs reported to March 2019 with a structured, reproducible search of PubMed, Embase, and the Tufts CEA Registry. RESULTS: We identified 40 CEA studies. Twelve (30%) used outcome data from a randomized controlled trial. To calculate costs, 22 (55%) used allowed charges but costing methods were often unclear or imprecise. Studies applying discounting had mean follow-up of 5.92 years compared with 3.00 years for studies without. Eleven of 15 (73%) cervical studies compared cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, finding cervical disc arthroplasty to be cost-effective (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life year) for 1-level and 2-level procedures. Eleven of 25 lumbar studies (44%) compared operative with nonoperative interventions for intervertebral disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Lumbar studies comparing surgical with nonoperative intervention found surgery at least cost-effective for intervertebral disc herniation and lumbar stenosis, but cost-effective only for lumbar spondylolisthesis at 4 years follow-up. Most studies (70%) lacked appropriate sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Costing methodology remains obscure and inconsistent and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results incomparable. The language of costing methodology must be standardized and sensitivity analyses of outcome and cost inputs mandatory for publication.

American Society of Anesthesiologists' Status Association With Cost and Length of Stay in Lumbar Laminectomy and Fusion: Results From an Institutional Database.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the costs associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and to determine the extent to which ASA status is a predictor of increased cost and LOS following lumbar laminectomy and fusion (LLF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal fusion accounts for the highest hospital costs of any surgical procedure performed in the United States, and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status is a known risk factor for cost and length of stay (LOS) in the orthopedic literature. There is a paucity of literature that directly addresses the influence of ASA status on cost and LOS following LLF. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of an institutional database of patients undergoing single-level LLF at an academic tertiary care facility from 2006 to 2016. Univariate comparisons were made using χ tests for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables. Multivariate linear regression was utilized to estimate regression coefficients, and to determine whether ASA status is an independent risk factor for cost and LOS. RESULTS: A total of 1849 patients met inclusion criteria. For every one-point increase in ASA score, intensive care unit (ICU) LOS increased by 0.518 days (P < 0.001), and hospital length of stay increased by 1.93 days (P < 0.001). For every one-point increase in ASA score, direct cost increased by $7474.62 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ASA status is a predictor of hospital LOS, ICU LOS, and direct cost. Consideration of the ways in which ASA status contributes to increased cost and prolonged LOS can allow for more accurate reimbursement adjustment and more precise targeting of efficiency and cost effectiveness initiatives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Cost-effectiveness and Safety of Interspinous Process Decompression (Superion).

OBJECTIVE: There are several treatment options for patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis, including surgical and conservative care. Interspinous spacer decompression using the Superion device offers a less invasive procedure for patients who fail conservative treatment before traditional decompression surgery. This review assesses the current cost-effectiveness, safety, and performance of lumbar spinal stenosis treatment modalities compared with the Superion interspinous spacer procedure. METHODS: EMBASE and PubMed were searched to find studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness, safety, and performance of conservative treatment, including medicinal treatments, epidural injections, physical therapy, and alternative methods, as well as surgical treatment, including laminectomy, laminectomy with fusion, and interspinous spacer decompression. Results were supplemented with manual searches. RESULTS: Despite substantial costs, persistent conservative treatment (>12 weeks) of lumbar spinal stenosis showed only minimal improvement in pain and functionality. When conservative treatment fails, surgery is more effective than continuing conservative treatment. Lumbar laminectomy with fusion has considerably greater cost than laminectomy alone, as the length of hospital stay increases, the costs for implants are substantial, and complications increase. Although laminectomy and the Superion have comparable outcomes, the Superion implant is positioned percutaneously. This approach may minimize the direct and indirect costs of outpatient rehabilitation and absenteeism, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Superion interspinous lumbar decompression is a minimally invasive procedure for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who have failed conservative treatment. Compared with extending conservative treatment or traditional spinal surgery, interspinous lumbar decompression reduces the direct and indirect costs associated with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Laminectomy Versus Corpectomy for Spinal Metastatic Disease-Complications, Costs, and Quality Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The landmark Patchell trial established surgical decompression followed by adjuvant radiotherapy as standard-of-care for patients with spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer. However, little comparative evidence exists with regard to the choice of specific surgical approaches for these patients. We sought to conduct a comparative analysis of outcomes of surgical options for spinal metastatic disease. METHODS: This was an epidemiologic study using national administrative data from the MarketScan database. We queried the MarketScan database (2007-2016), identifying patients with a diagnosis of spinal metastasis treated with surgical decompression (N = 1054). We used descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing to compare baseline characteristics, complications, quality metrics, and costs. RESULTS: We identified patients with spinal metastases undergoing laminectomy (N = 760), corpectomy (N = 193), or both combined procedures (laminectomy and corpectomy, N = 101). No significant differences in baseline demographics, follow-up time, or primary tumor histology were observed. We found a greater 30-day postoperative complication rate among patients undergoing corpectomy (P < 0.0001), driven by increased rate of postoperative anemia and pulmonary complications. Length of stay and 30-day readmission rates did not vary between surgical approaches. Total index hospitalization and 30-day payments were greatest among patients undergoing combined procedures and lowest for patients undergoing laminectomy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight distinct complication profiles and quality outcomes associated with selection of surgical approach for patients with spinal metastases. These findings must be interpreted with a clear understanding of the limitations.

National Trends in the Surgical Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of national administrative hospital data. OBJECTIVE: This study examines national trends in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in patients with and without coexisting scoliosis between 2010 and 2014. The study also examines revision rates for LSS procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is wide variability in the surgical management of patients with LSS, with and without coexisting spinal deformity. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample Database. International Classification of Diseases 9th revision- Clinical Modification codes were used to identify all patients with a primary diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. These patients were divided into two groups: 1) LSS alone and 2) LSS with coexisting scoliosis. The two groups were examined for one of three surgical outcomes: 1) decompression alone (discectomy, laminectomy), 2) simple fusion, and 3) complex fusion (>three vertebrae or 360° fusion). The groups were then further examined for revision operations. National Inpatient Sample discharge weights were applied where relevant. RESULTS: In 2014 national estimates of discharged patients indicated 76,275 patients with a primary diagnosis of LSS (population rate, 23.9; in the elderly (65+) the age-adjusted population rate was 95.4). Of these patients, 88.5% were managed through primary surgery (34.6% decompression, 47.2% simple fusion, 5.7% complex fusion). Between 2010 and 2014, the percentage of decompression decreased from 47.5% to 34.6%, the percent of simple fusion increased from 35.3% to 47.2%, and the percent of complex fusion increased from 5.7% to 7.1% (P < 0.01). In patients with coexisting scoliosis, lumbar spinal stenosis was predominantly managed by simple fusion and complex fusion (15.5% decompression, 51.9% simple fusion, 27.3% complex fusion, in 2014). Revision rates were highest among patients without scoliosis managed with complex fusion (15.8% in 2014) compared with patients with scoliosis (8.8% in 2014). Patients with scoliosis who underwent decompression only had revision rates of 1.7% and 0.62% in 2010 and 2014, respectively. CONCLUSION: We observed a leveling-off of the rate of operation for patients with a primary diagnosis of LSS at around 88%. There was an increase in the rate of fusion and a decrease in the rate of decompression across all patient groups. We report no difference in revision rates between patients with and without scoliosis, except in those undergoing a complex fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

A Simple Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bilateral Decompression via Unilateral Approach versus Instrumented Total Laminectomy and Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

AIM: To compare the clinical and economic results of two different surgical approaches (bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and instrumented total laminectomy and fusion) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical, surgical, and economic aspects of 100 surgically treated patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Decompression was performed at 158 levels in 100 patients. The most commonly decompressed levels were L4-5 and L3-4. Significant difference was observed between pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores in both groups (p < 0.05). In Group 1 (instrumented total laminectomy and fusion), the mean surgery cost was 2539.2 USD (mean procedure cost: 1440.1 USD, mean implant cost: 1099.2 USD). In Group 2 (bilateral decompression via unilateral approach) the mean surgery cost was 998.5 USD. The cost difference was significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both instrumented total laminectomy and fusion and bilateral decompression via unilateral approach performed with and without stabilization showed similar clinical results in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. However, the cost of surgery was found to be 2.5-fold higher in the instrumented total laminectomy and fusion group. This study supports the concept that minimally invasive spine surgery is cost-effective.

Drivers of Variability in 90-Day Cost for Elective Laminectomy and Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease.

BACKGROUND: Considerable variability exists in the cost of surgery following spine surgery for common degenerative spine diseases. This variation in the cost of surgery can affect the payment bundling during the postoperative 90 d. OBJECTIVE: To determine the drivers of variability in total 90-d cost for laminectomy and fusion surgery. METHODS: A total of 752 patients who underwent elective laminectomy and fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions and were enrolled into a prospective longitudinal registry were included in the study. Total cost during the 90-d global period was derived as sum of cost of surgery, cost associated with postdischarge utilization. Multivariable regression models were built for total 90-d cost. RESULTS: The mean 90-d direct cost was $29 295 (range, $28 612-$29 973). Based on our regression tree analysis, the following variables were found to drive the 90-d cost: age, BMI, gender, diagnosis, postop imaging, number of operated levels, ASA grade, hypertension, arthritis, preop and postop opioid use, length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, 90-d readmission, outpatient physical/occupational therapy, inpatient rehab, postop healthcare visits, postop nonopioid pain medication use nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxant use. The R2 for tree model was 0.64. CONCLUSION: Utilizing prospectively collected data, we demonstrate that considerable variation exists in total 90-d cost, nearly 70% of which can be explained by those factors included in our modeling. Risk-adjusted payment schemes can be crafted utilizing the significant drivers presented here. Focused interventions to target some of the modifiable factors have potential to reduce cost and increase the value of care.

Optimizing the Volume-Value Relationship in Laminectomy: An Evidence-Based Analysis of Outcomes and Economies of Scale.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to establish evidence-based volume thresholds for surgeons and hospitals predictive of enhanced value in the setting of laminectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have attempted to characterize the relationship between volume and value; however, none to the authors' knowledge has employed an evidence-based approach to identify thresholds yielding enhanced value. METHODS: In total, 67,758 patients from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database undergoing laminectomy in the period 2009 to 2015 were included. We used stratum-specific likelihood ratio analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves to establish volume thresholds predictive of increased length of stay (LOS) and cost for surgeons and hospitals. RESULTS: Analysis of LOS by surgeon volume produced strata at: <17 (low), 17 to 40 (medium), 41 to 71 (high), and >71 (very high). Analysis of cost by surgeon volume produced strata at: <17 (low), 17 to 33 (medium), 34 to 86 (high), and >86 (very high). Analysis of LOS by hospital volume produced strata at: <43 (very low), 43 to 96 (low), 97 to 147 (medium), 148 to 172 (high), and >172 (very high). Analysis of cost by hospital volume produced strata at: <43 (very low), 43 to 82 (low), 83 to 115 (medium), 116 to 169 (high), and >169 (very high). LOS and cost decreased significantly (P < 0.05) in progressively higher volume categories for both surgeons and hospitals. For LOS, medium-volume surgeons handle the largest proportion of laminectomies (36%), whereas very high-volume hospitals handle the largest proportion (48%). CONCLUSION: This study supports a direct volume-value relationship for surgeons and hospitals in the setting of laminectomy. These findings provide target-estimated thresholds for which hospitals and surgeons may receive meaningful return on investment in our increasingly value-based system. Further value-based optimization is possible in the finding that while the highest volume hospitals handle the largest proportion of laminectomies, the highest volume surgeons do not. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fenestration surgery in the Japanese universal health insurance system.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs are a global concern, and cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions have become important. However, data regarding cost-effectiveness are limited to a few medical fields. The purpose of our study was to examine the Japanese universal health insurance system cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for lumbar fenestration surgery. METHODS: Forty-eight patients who underwent fenestration for lumbar degenerative spinal canal stenosis between July 2013 and September 2015 were included. Effectiveness was evaluated by measuring the EuroQOL 5-dimension (EQ-5D), Short-Form 8 physical component summary (PCS), and visual analog scale (VAS). Cost was analyzed from the perspective of the public healthcare payer. Effectiveness and cost were measured 1 year after surgery. QALYs were calculated by multiplying the utility value (EQ-5D) and life years. Only direct costs based on actual reimbursements were included. Cost per QALY with a 5-year time horizon with a 2% discount rate was estimated. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the time horizon (2 years or 10 years). RESULTS: Mean total cost 1 year after fenestration surgery was 1,254,300 yen (standard deviation [SD], 430,000 yen; median, 1,172,300 yen). Operative cost was 406,800 yen (SD, 251,500 yen; median, 363,000 yen). Mean gained score was 0.21 for EQ-5D (SD, 0.18; median, 0.24), 11 for PCS (SD, 10; median, 12), and -43 for VAS (SD, 34; median, -38). Cost per QALY was 1,268,600 yen. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that cost per QALY with a 10-year time horizon was 679,300 yen and that with a 2-year time horizon was 3,004,600 yen. CONCLUSIONS: Cost per QALY of lumbar fenestration with a 5-year time horizon was 1,268,600 yen (11,532 US dollar), which was below the widely accepted benchmark (cost per QALY <5,000,000-6,500,000 yen (50,000 US dollars)). Fenestration is a cost-effective intervention.

Outpatient spine surgery: defining the outcomes, value, and barriers to implementation.

Spine surgery is a key target for cost reduction within the United States health care system. One possible strategy involves the transition of inpatient surgeries to the ambulatory setting. Lumbar laminectomy with or without discectomy, lumbar fusion, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and cervical disc arthroplasty all represent promising candidates for outpatient surgeries in select populations. In this focused review, the authors clarify the different definitions used in studies describing outpatient spine surgery. They also discuss the body of evidence supporting each of these procedures and summarize the proposed cost savings. Finally, they examine several patient- and surgeon-specific considerations to highlight the barriers in translating outpatient spine surgery into actual practice.

Surgeon-Level Variability in Outcomes, Cost, and Comorbidity Adjusted-Cost for Elective Lumbar Decompression and Fusion.

BACKGROUND: The costs and outcomes following degenerative spine surgery may vary from surgeon to surgeon. Patient factors such as comorbidities may increase the health care cost. These variations are not well studied. OBJECTIVE: To understand the variation in outcomes, costs, and comorbidity-adjusted cost for surgeons performing lumbar laminectomy and fusions surgery. METHODS: A total of 752 patients undergoing laminectomy and fusion, performed by 7 surgeons, were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes and 90-d cost were analyzed. Multivariate regression model was built for high-cost surgery. A separate linear regression model was built to derive comorbidity-adjusted 90-d costs. RESULTS: No significant differences in improvement were found across all the patient-reported outcomes, complications, and readmission among the surgeons. In multivariable model, surgeons #4 (P < .0001) and #6 (P = .002) had higher odds of performing high-cost fusion surgery. The comorbidity-adjusted costs were higher than the actual 90-d costs for surgeons #1 (P = .08), #3 (P = .002), #5 (P < .0001), and #7 (P < .0001), whereas they were lower than the actual costs for surgeons #2 (P = .128), #4 (P < .0001), and #6 (P = .44). CONCLUSION: Our study provides valuable insight into variations in 90-d costs among the surgeons performing elective lumbar laminectomy and fusion at a single institution. Specific surgeons were found to have greater odds of performing high-cost surgeries. Adjusting for preoperative comorbidities, however, led to costs that were higher than the actual costs for certain surgeons and lower than the actual costs for others. Patients' preoperative comorbidities must be accounted for when crafting value-based payment models. Furthermore, designing intervention targeting "modifiable" factors tied to the way the surgeons practice may increase the overall value of spine care.

Postoperative Opioid Use, Complications, and Costs in Surgical Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on a national longitudinal database (2007-2014). OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between arthrodesis and complication rates, costs, surgical revision, and postoperative opioid prescription. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Arthrodesis in patients receiving laminectomy for lumbar spondylolisthesis remains controversial. However, population-level evidence to support the use of arthrodesis remains limited. METHODS: We identified 73,176 patient records and used coarsened exact matching to create comparable populations of patients who received laminectomy or laminectomy with arthrodesis. We use linear and logistic regression models to analyze the relationship between arthrodesis and postoperative complications, length of stay, costs, readmissions, surgical revisions, and postoperative opioid prescribing. RESULTS: Patients who underwent arthrodesis spent 1 more day in the hospital on average (P < 0.01), and had higher costs of care at their index visit ($24,126, P < 0.01), which were partially offset by lower costs of care over the 2 years following their procedure ($14,667 less in arthrodesis patients, P = 0.01). Patients with arthrodesis were less likely to have a surgical revision (odds ratio = 0.66, P < 0.01). Patients with arthrodesis used more opioids in the first 2 months following their procedure, but had comparable opioid use to patients undergoing laminectomy without arthrodesis in all other postoperative months over the next 2 years, and were not more or less likely to convert to chronic opioid use. Postoperative opioid prescription varied dramatically across states (P < 0.01); geographic variation in opioid use is substantially greater than differences in opioid use based on procedure performed. CONCLUSION: Arthrodesis is associated with reduced likelihood of surgical revision and increased use of opioids in the first 2 months following surgery, but not associated with greater or lesser opioid use beyond the initial 2 postoperative months. Geographic variation in opioid use is substantial even after accounting for patient characteristics and for whether patients underwent arthrodesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Increased Volume of Lumbar Surgeries for Herniated Intervertebral Disc Disease and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of a nationwide database. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to summarize the use of surgical methods for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc disease (HIVD) at two different time periods under the national health insurance system. The secondary objective was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis by utilizing incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The selection of surgical method for HIVD may or may not be consistent with cost effectiveness under national health insurance system, but this issue has rarely been analyzed. METHODS: The data of all patients who underwent surgeries for HIVD in 2003 (n = 17,997) and 2008 (n = 38,264) were retrieved. The surgical methods included open discectomy (OD), fusion surgery, laminectomy, and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). The hospitals were classified as tertiary-referral hospitals (≥300 beds), medium-sized hospitals (30-300 beds), or clinics (<30 beds). ICER showed the difference in the mean total cost per 1% decrease in the reoperation probability among surgical methods. The total cost included the costs of the index surgery and the reoperation. RESULTS: In 2008, the number of surgeries increased by 2.13-fold. The number of hospitals increased by 34.75% (731 in 2003 and 985 in 2008). The proportion of medium-sized hospitals increased from 62.79% to 70.86%, but the proportion of surgeries performed at those hospitals increased from 61.31% to 85.08%. The probability of reoperation was highest after laminectomy (10.77%), followed by OD (10.50%), PELD (9.20%), and fusion surgery (7.56%). The ICERs indicated that PELD was a cost-effective surgical method. The proportion of OD increased from 71.21% to 84.12%, but that of PELD decreased from 16.68% to 4.57%. CONCLUSION: The choice of surgical method might not always be consistent with cost-effectiveness strategies, and a high proportion of medium-sized hospitals may be responsible for this change. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Geographic and Hospital Variation in Cost of Lumbar Laminectomy and Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Spinal surgery costs vary significantly across hospitals and regions, but there is insufficient understanding of what drives this variation. OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors underlying the cost variation for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and lumbar fusions. METHODS: We obtained patient information (age, gender, race, severity of illness, risk of mortality, population of county of residence, median zipcode income, insurance status, elective vs nonelective admission, length of stay) and hospital data (region, hospital type, bed size, wage index) for all patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy/discectomy (n = 181 267) or lumbar fusions (n = 433 364) for degenerative conditions in the 2001 to 2013 National Inpatient Sample database. We performed unadjusted and adjusted analyses to determine which factors affect cost. RESULTS: Mean costs for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and lumbar fusion increased from $8316 and $21 473 in 2001 (in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars), to $11 405 and $29 438, respectively, in 2013. There was significant regional variation in cost, with the West being the most expensive region across all years and showing the steepest increase in cost over time. After adjusting for patient and hospital factors, the West was 23% more expensive than the Northeast for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy, and 25% more expensive than the Northeast for lumbar fusion ( P < .01). Higher wage index, smaller hospital bed size, and rural/urban nonteaching hospital type were also associated with higher cost for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and fusion ( P < .01). CONCLUSION: After adjusting for patient factors and wage index, the Western region, hospitals with smaller bed sizes, and rural/urban nonteaching hospitals were associated with higher costs for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and lumbar fusion.

Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Laminoplasty and laminectomy with fusion are two common procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Controversy remains regarding the superior surgical treatment. PURPOSE: To compare short-term follow-up of laminoplasty to laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review comparing all patients undergoing surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy by a single surgeon. PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion by a single surgeon over a 5-year period (2007-2011). OUTCOME MEASURES: Cervical alignment and range of motion on pre- and post-operative radiographs and clinical outcome measures including Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), short form-12 mental (SF-12M) and physical (SF-12P) composite scores and visual analog pain scores for neck (VAS-N) and arm (VAS-A). METHODS: Patients undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion by a single surgeon were reviewed. Cohorts of 41 laminoplasty patients and 31 laminectomy with fusion patients were selected based on strict criteria. The cohorts were well matched based on pre-operative clinical scores, radiographic measurements, and demographics. The average follow-up was 19.2 months for laminoplasty and 18.2 months for laminectomy with fusion. Evaluated outcomes included Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI), short form-12 (SF-12), visual analog pain scores (VAS), cervical sagittal alignment, cervical range of motion, length of stay, cost and complications. RESULTS: The improvement in JOA, SF-12 and VAS scores was similar in the two cohorts after surgery. There was no significant change in cervical sagittal alignment in either cohort. Range-of-motion decreased in both cohorts, but to a greater degree after laminectomy with fusion. C5 nerve root palsy and infection were the most common complications in both cohorts. Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a higher rate of C5 nerve root palsy and overall complications. The average hospital length of stay and cost were significantly less with laminoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that laminoplasty may be superior to laminectomy with fusion in preserving cervical range of motion, reducing hospital stay and minimizing cost. However, the significance of these differences remains unclear, as laminoplasty clinical outcome scores were generally comparable to laminectomy with fusion.

Complications, Readmissions, and Revisions for Spine Procedures Performed by Orthopedic Surgeons Versus Neurosurgeons: A Retrospective, Longitudinal Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of training pathway, either neurosurgical or orthopedic, on complications, readmissions, and revisions in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Training pathway has been shown to have an impact on outcomes in various surgical subspecialties. Although training pathway has not been shown to have a significant impact on spine surgery outcomes in the perioperative period, long-term results are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 197,682 patients receiving 1 of 3 common spine surgeries [lumbar laminectomy, lumbar fusion, and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)] between 2006 and 2010 was conducted. Patient data were obtained from a large claims database. Postoperative adverse effects, all-cause readmission, revision surgery rates, and intermediary payments in these cohorts of patients were compared between spine surgeons with either neurosurgical or orthopedic backgrounds. RESULTS: Patient demographics, hospital-stay characteristics, and medical comorbidities were similar between neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons. The risks of surgical complications, all-cause readmission, and revision surgery were also similar between neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons across all procedure types assessed, with several minor exceptions: neurosurgeons had marginally higher odds of any complication for lumbar fusions [odds ratio (OR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-1.20] and ACDFs (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15). Neurosurgeons also had slightly higher rates of revision surgery for concurrent lumbar laminectomy with fusion (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22), and ACDFs (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28). No associations between surgeon type and any particular complication were consistently observed for all procedure groups. There were also no associations between surgeon type and 30-day all-cause readmission. Median total intermediary payments were somewhat higher for neurosurgery patients for all procedure groups assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Few significant associations between surgeon type and patient outcomes exist in the context of spine surgery. Those which do are small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Hospital charges associated with "never events": comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and lumbar laminectomy to total joint arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE Beginning in 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) determined that certain hospital-acquired adverse events such as surgical site infection (SSI) following spine surgery should never occur. The following year, they expanded the ruling to include deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) following total joint arthroplasty. Due to their ruling that "never events" are not the payers' responsibility, CMS insists that the costs of managing these complications be borne by hospitals and health care providers, rather than billings to health care payers for additional care required in their management. Data comparing the expected costs of such adverse events in patients undergoing spine and orthopedic surgery have not previously been reported. METHODS The California State Inpatient Database (CA-SID) from 2008 to 2009 was used for the analysis. All patients with primary procedure codes indicating anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), lumbar laminectomy (LL), total knee replacement (TKR), and total hip replacement (THR) were analyzed. Patients with diagnostic and/or treatment codes for DVT, PE, and SSI were separated from patients without these complication codes. Patients with more than 1 primary procedure code or more than 1 complication code were excluded. Median charges for treatment from primary surgery through 3 months postoperatively were calculated. RESULTS The incidence of the examined adverse events was lowest for ACDF (0.6% DVT, 0.1% PE, and 0.03% SSI) and highest for TKA (1.3% DVT, 0.3% PE, 0.6% SSI). Median inpatient charges for uncomplicated LL was $51,817, compared with $73,432 for ACDF, $143,601 for PLIF, $74,459 for THR, and $70,116 for TKR. Charges for patients with DVT ranged from $108,387 for TKR (1.5 times greater than index) to $313,536 for ACDF (4.3 times greater than index). Charges for patients with PE ranged from $127,958 for TKR (1.8 times greater than index) to $246,637 for PLIF (1.7 times greater than index). Charges for patients with SSI ranged from $168,964 for TKR (2.4 times greater than index) to $385,753 for PLIF (2.7 times greater than index). CONCLUSIONS Although incidence rates are low, adverse events of spinal procedures substantially increase the cost of care. Charges for patients experiencing DVT, PE, and SSI increased in this study by factors ranging from 1.8 to 4.3 times those for patients without such complications across 5 common spinal and orthopedic procedures. Cost projections by health care providers will need to incorporate expected costs of added care for patients experiencing such complications, assuming that the cost burden of such events continues to shift from payers to providers.