Nonsurgical treatment outcomes for surgical candidates with lumbar disc herniation: a comprehensive cohort study

Prediction and Mechanisms of Spontaneous Resorption in Lumbar Disc Herniation: Narrative Review

The major symptoms of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) are low back pain, radiative lower extremity pain, and lower limb movement disorder. Patients with LDH suffer from great distress in their daily life accompanied by severe economic hardship and difficulty in self-care, with an increasing tendency in the aging population. PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies of spontaneous resorption or regression in LDH after conservative treatment and for other potential studies, which included those from inception to June 30, 2023. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize previous literatures about spontaneous resorption in LDH and to discuss the mechanisms and influencing factors in order to assess the probability of spontaneous resorption by conservative treatment. Spontaneous resorption without surgical treatment is influenced by the types and sizes of the LDH, inflammatory responses, and therapeutic factors. If the lumbar disc herniated tissue comprises a higher percentage of cartilage or modic changes have been shown on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), resorption in LDH is prevented. The bull's eye sign on enhanced MRI, which is a ring enhancement around a protruding disc, is a vital indicator for easy reabsorption. In addition, the type of extrusion and sequestration in LDH could forecast the higher feasibility of natural reabsorption. Moreover, the higher the proportion of protrusion on the intervertebral disc tissue within the spinal canal, the greater the likelihood of reabsorption. Therefore, which illustrates the feasibility of conservative treatments for LDH. Nonsurgical management of LDH with clinical symptoms is recommended by the authors.

Medicare Reimbursement Rates and Utilization Trends in Sacroiliac Joint Fusion

INTRODUCTION

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion is a surgical treatment option for SIJ pathology in select patients who have failed conservative management. More recently, minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques have been developed. This study aimed to determine the trends in procedure volume and reimbursement rates for SIJ fusion.

METHODS

Publicly available Medicare databases were assessed using the National Summary Data Files for 2010 to 2020. Files were organized according to current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. CPT codes specific to open and MIS SI joint fusion (27279 and 27280) were identified and tracked. To track surgeon reimbursements, the CMS Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was used to extract facility prices. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to evaluate trends in procedure volume, utilization, and reimbursement rates. Compound annual growth rates were calculated, and discrepancies in inflation were corrected for using the Consumer Price Index.

RESULTS

A total of 33,963 SIJ fusions were conducted in the Medicare population between 2010 and 2020, with an overall increase in procedure volume of 2,350.9% from 318 cases in 2010 to 7,794 in 2020. Since the introduction of the 27279 CPT code in 2015, 8,806 cases (31.5%) have been open and 19,120 (68.5%) have been MIS. Surgeon reimbursement for open fusions increased nominally by 42.8% (inflation-adjusted increase of 20%) from $998 in 2010 to $1,425 in 2020. Meanwhile, reimbursement for MIS fusion experienced a nominal increase of 58.4% (inflation-adjusted increase of 44.9%) from $582 in 2015 to $922 in 2020.

CONCLUSION

SIJ fusion volume in the Medicare population has increased substantially in the past 10 years, with MIS SIJ fusion accounting for most of the procedures since the introduction of the 27279 CPT code in 2015. Reimbursement rates for surgeons have also increased for both open and MIS procedures, even after adjusting for inflation.

Analysis of Conservative Treatment Trends for Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy in Korea: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study

This study aimed to analyze the trends in conservative treatment and associated medical costs for lumbar intervertebral disc disorders with radiculopathy in Korea. This population-based cross-sectional study included patients aged ≥ 20 years with at least one "intervertebral disc disorder with radiculopathy" claim (Korean Standard Classification of Diseases (KCD)-7 code: M511) who sought treatment from tertiary, general, or Korean Medicine hospitals or clinics between 2010 and 2019 and whose data were extracted from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service National Patients Sample database. Intervention frequency, ratio, and medical costs, including medication, were analyzed. The number of patients with lumbar intervertebral disc disorders and radiculopathy undergoing conservative treatment increased by >30%, and medical costs increased from USD 3,342,907 to USD 5,600,456 during the 10-year period. The non-surgical treatments mainly used were medication and physiotherapy, and the most commonly prescribed medication was non-opioid analgesics. Meanwhile, the number of patients who used nerve plexus and root and ganglion nerve blocks showed the most significant increase. In conclusion, the number of patients with radiculopathy who received nerve blocks, particularly nerve plexus and root and ganglion nerve blocks, and related expenditure increased, implying a gradual shift in medical decisions from systemic pain reduction to specific and targeted pain treatments. Future studies and clinical practice guidelines may require further inspection of real-world practice to advise optimal treatment choices for an effective treatment plan.

Cost-utility analysis of endoscopic lumbar discectomy following a uniform clinical pathway in the Korean national health insurance system

INTRODUCTION

Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is a type of minimally invasive spinal surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Sufficient evidence exists to recommend FELD as an alternative to standard open microdiscectomy, and some patients prefer FELD due to its minimally invasive nature. However, in the Republic of Korea, the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) controls the reimbursement and use of supplies for FELD, but FELD is not currently reimbursed by the NHIS. Nonetheless, FELD has been performed upon patients' request, but providing FELD for patients' sake is inherently an unstable arrangement in the absence of a practical reimbursement system. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of FELD to suggest appropriate reimbursements.

METHOD

This study was a subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data including 28 patients who underwent FELD. All patients were NHIS beneficiaries and followed a uniform clinical pathway. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed with a utility score using the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument. The costs included direct medical costs incurred at the hospital for 2 years and the price of the electrode ($700), although it was not reimbursed. The costs and QALYs gained were used to calculate the cost per QALY gained.

RESULT

Patients' mean age was 43 years and one-third (32%) were women. L4-5 was the most common surgical level (20/28, 71%) and extrusion was the most common type of LDH (14, 50%). Half of the patients (15, 54%) had jobs with an intermediate level of activity. The preoperative EQ-5D utility score was 0.48±0.19. Pain, disability, and the utility score significantly improved starting 1 month postoperatively. The average EQ-5D utility score during 2 years after FELD was estimated as 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.85). For 2 years, the mean direct costs were $3,459 and the cost per QALY gained was $5,241.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility analysis showed a quite reasonable cost per QALY gained for FELD. A comprehensive range of surgical options should be provided to patients, for which a practical reimbursement system is a prerequisite.

Lumbar Disc Herniation: Diagnosis and Management

Lumbar disc herniations are common causes of lower back, neurological dysfunction, and buttock/leg pain. Herniation refers to the displacement of the nucleus pulposus of the intervertebral disc through the annulus fibrosus, thereby causing pressure on the neural elements. The sequalae of lumbar disc herniations range in severity from mild low back and buttock pain to severe cases of inability to ambulate and cauda equina syndrome. Diagnosis is achieved with a thorough history and physical along with advanced imaging. Treatment plans are dictated by corresponding patient symptoms and exam findings with their imaging. Most patients can experience relief with non-surgical measures. However, if symptoms persist or worsen, surgery may be appropriate.

Reoperations after primary and revision lumbar discectomy: study of a national-level cohort with eight years follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Published rates for disc reherniation following primary discectomy are around 6%, but the ultimate reoperation outcomes in patients after receiving revision discectomy are not well understood. Additionally, any disparity in the outcomes of subsequent revision discectomy (SRD) versus subsequent lumbar fusion (SLF) following primary/revision discectomy remains poorly studied.

PURPOSE

To determine the 8-year SRD/SLF rates and time until SRD/SLF after primary/revision discectomy respectively.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients undergoing primary or revision discectomy, with records in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database from the years 2010 to 2019.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Subsequent surgery type and time to subsequent surgery.

METHODS

Patients were grouped into primary or revision discectomy cohorts based off of the nature of "index" procedure (primary or revision discectomy) using ICD9/10 and CPT procedure codes from 2010 to 19 insurance data sets in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database. Preoperative demographic data was collected. Outcome measures such as subsequent surgery type (fusion or discectomy) and time to subsequent surgery were collected prospectively in PearlDiver Mariner database. Statistical analysis was performed using BellWeather statistical software. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of time to SLF/SRD was performed on each cohort, and log-rank test was used to compare the rates of SLF/SRD between cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 20,147 patients were identified (17,849 primary discectomy, 2,298 revision discectomy). The 8-year rates of SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01) and SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) were higher after revision versus primary discectomy. Time to SLF was shorter after revision versus primary discectomy (709 vs. 886 days, p<.01). After both primary and revision discectomy, the 8-year rate of SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) is greater than SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to primary discectomy, revision discectomy has higher rates of SLF (10.4% vs. 6.2%), and faster time to SLF (2.4 vs. 1.9 years) at 8-year follow up.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Compared with Open TLIF for Acute Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Retrospective Single-Center Study with Long-Term Follow-Up

OBJECTIVES

In a retrospective study, we sought to compare the clinical efficacy and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of minimally invasive (MI) and open (O) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of cauda equina syndrome (CES) caused by lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

In total, 116 patients with CES associated with disc herniation underwent decompression and stabilization surgery from January 2005 to January 2020 in a single-center study, and data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the O-TLIF and the MI-TLIF group. The perioperative clinical data and MRI assessment were used to assess the efficacy of the respective surgical methods preoperatively and with a minimum follow-up of 30 months.

RESULTS

As expected, the O-TLIF group had statistically significantly longer surgery times and hospital stay, more bleeding, and perioperative surgical complications than the MI-TLIF group. At a minimum follow-up period of 30 months, the MI-TLIF group had significantly better Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale, and Short-Form-36, and neurologic CES symptoms than the O-TLIF group. The postoperative MRIs revealed a statistically significant difference in the multifidus muscle area in MI group compared with the O group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute CES caused by disc herniation, MI-TLIF, with decreased disruption of paravertebral tissues and postoperative pain syndrome, results in earlier mobilization and rehabilitation with better long-term clinical outcomes compared with O-TLIF.

Clinical Efficacy of Mechanical Traction as Physical Therapy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study is aimed at exploring the clinical effect of mechanical traction on lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

Related literatures were retrieved from PubMed, Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CNKI databases. Inclusion of literature topic was comparison of mechanical traction and conventional physical therapy for lumbar disc herniation. Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included RCT studies. The Chi-square test was used for the heterogeneity test, and a random effect model was used with heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to explore the causes of heterogeneity. If there was no heterogeneity, the fixed effect model was used, and funnel plots were used to test publication bias.

Results

Visual analog scale (VAS) in the mechanical traction group was lower than that in the conventional physical therapy group (MD = −1.39 (95% CI (-1.81, -0.98)), Z = 6.56, and P < 0.00001). There was no heterogeneity among studies (Chi² = 6.62, P = 0.25, and I² = 24%) and no publication bias. Oswestry disability index (ODI) in the mechanical traction group was lower than that in the conventional physical therapy group (MD = −6.34 (95% CI (-10.28, -2.39)), Z = 3.15, and P = 0.002). There was no heterogeneity between studies (Chi² = 6.27, P = 0.18, and I² = 36%) and no publication bias. There was no significant difference in Schober test scores between the mechanical traction group and the conventional physical therapy group (MD = −0.40 (95% CI (-1.07, 0.28)), Z = 1.16, and P = 0.25). There was no heterogeneity among studies (Chi² = 1.61, P = 0.66, and I² = 0%) and no publication bias.

Conclusion

Mechanical traction can effectively relieve lumbar and leg pain and improve ODI in patients with lumbar disc herniation but has no significant effect on spinal motion. The therapeutic effect of mechanical traction was significantly better than that of conventional physical therapy. Lumbar traction can be used in conjunction with other traditional physical therapy.

Treatment Effect of CT-Guided Periradicular Injections in Context of Different Contrast Agent Distribution Patterns

Acutely manifesting radicular pain syndromes associated with degenerations of the lower spine are frequent ailments with a high rate of recurrence. Part of the conservative management are periradicular infiltrations of analgesics and steroids. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dependence of the clinical efficacy of CT-guided periradicular injections on the pattern of contrast distribution and to identify the best distribution pattern that is associated with the most effective pain relief. Using a prospective study design, 161 patients were included in this study, ensuring ethical standards. Statistical analysis was performed, with the level of statistical significance set at p = 0.05. A total of 37.9% of patients experienced significant but not long-lasting (four weeks on average) complete pain relief. A total of 44.1% of patients experienced prolonged, subjectively satisfying pain relief of more than four weeks to three months. A total of 18% of patients had complete and sustained relief for more than six months. A significant correlation exists between circumferential, large area contrast distribution including the zone of action between the disc and affected nerve root contrast distribution pattern with excellent pain relief. Our results support the value of CT-guided contrast injection for achieving a good efficacy, and, if necessary, indicative repositioning of the needle to ensure a circumferential distribution pattern of corticosteroids for the sufficient treatment of radicular pain in degenerative spine disease.

Direct medical costs after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal disease: A nationwide matched cohort study with a 10-year follow-up

Objective

The demand for treating degenerative lumbar spinal disease has been increasing, leading to increased utilization of medical resources. Thus, we need to understand how the budget of insurance is currently used. The objective of the present study is to overview the utilization of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) by providing the direct insured cost between patients receiving surgery and patients receiving nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

The NHIS-National Sample Cohort was utilized to select patients with lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or spondylolysis. A matched cohort study design was used to show direct medical costs of surgery (n = 2,698) and nonsurgical (n = 2,698) cohorts. Non-surgical treatment included medication, physiotherapy, injection, and chiropractic. The monthly costs of the surgery cohort and nonsurgical cohort were presented at initial treatment, posttreatment 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and yearly thereafter for 10 years.

Results

The characteristics and matching factors were well-balanced between the matched cohorts. Overall, surgery cohort spent $50.84/patient/month, while the nonsurgical cohort spent $29.34/patient/month (p<0.01). Initially, surgery treatment led to more charge to NHIS ($2,762) than nonsurgical treatment ($180.4) (p<0.01). Compared with the non-surgical cohort, the surgery cohort charged $33/month more for the first 3 months, charged less at 12 months, and charged approximately the same over the course of 10 years.

Conclusion

Surgical treatment initially led to more government reimbursement than nonsurgical treatment, but the charges during follow-up period were not different. The results of the present study should be interpreted in light of the costs of medical services, indirect costs, societal cost, quality of life and societal willingness to pay in each country. The monetary figures are implied to be actual economic costs but those in the reimbursement system instead reflect reimbursement charges from the government.