Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research

Lumbar Laminotomy: Variables Affecting 90-day Overall Reimbursement

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar laminotomy/diskectomy is a common procedure performed to address radiculopathy that persists despite conservative treatment. Understanding cost/reimbursement variability and its drivers has the potential to help optimize related healthcare delivery. The goal of this study was to assess variability and factors associated with reimbursement through 90 days after single-level lumbar laminotomy/diskectomy.

METHODS

Lumbar laminotomies/diskectomies were isolated from the 2010 to 2021 PearlDiver M151 data set. Exclusion criteria included patients younger than 18 years; other concomitant spinal procedures; and indications of trauma, oncologic, or infectious diagnoses. Patient, surgical, and perioperative data were abstracted. These variables were examined using a multivariable linear regression model with Bonferroni correction to determine factors independently correlated with reimbursement.

RESULTS

A total of 28,621 laminotomies/diskectomies were identified. The average ± standard deviation 90-day postoperative reimbursement was $9,453.83 ± 19,343.99 and, with a non-normal distribution, the median (inner quartile range) was $3,314 ($5,460). By multivariable linear regression, variables associated with greatest increase in 90-day postoperative reimbursement were associated with admission (with the index procedure [+$11,757.31] or readmission [+$31,248.80]), followed by insurance type (relative to Medicare, commercial +$4,183.79), postoperative adverse events (+$2,006.60), and postoperative emergency department visits (+$1,686.89) ( P < 0.0001 for each). Lesser associations were with Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (+$286.67 for each point increase) and age (-$24.65 with each year increase) ( P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively).

DISCUSSION

This study assessed a large cohort of lumbar laminotomies/diskectomies and found substantial variations in reimbursement/cost to the healthcare system. The largest increase in reimbursement was associated with admission (with the index procedure or readmission), followed by insurance type, postoperative adverse events, and postoperative emergency department visits. These results highlight the need to balance inpatient versus outpatient surgeries while limiting postoperative readmissions to minimize the costs associated with healthcare delivery.

The immediate effect of cervical rotation-traction manipulation on cervical paravertebral soft tissue: a study using soft tissue tension cloud chart technology

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the reliability of the Soft Tissue Tension Cloud Chart (STTCC) technology, an original method combining multi-point Cervical Paravertebral Soft Tissue Test (CPSTT) with MATLAB software, we conducted a preliminary analysis on the immediate effects of Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMT) on cervical paravertebral soft tissue.

METHODS

30 patients with Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy (CSR) were included in this study. We analyzed the differences in CPSTT before and after treatment with Cervical Rotation-Traction Manipulation (CRTM), a representative OMT technique in Traditional Chinese Medicine, using the STTCC technology.

RESULTS

The STTCC results demonstrated that post-treatment CPSTT levels in CSR patients were significantly lower than pre-treatment levels after application of CRTM, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). Additionally, pre-treatment CPSTT levels on the symptomatic side (with radicular pain or numbness) were higher across the C5 to C7 vertebrae compared to the asymptomatic side (without symptoms) (P < 0.001). However, this difference disappeared after CRTM treatment (P = 0.231).

CONCLUSIONS

The STTCC technology represents a reliable method for analyzing the immediate effects of OMT. CSR patients display uneven distribution of CPSTT characterized by higher tension on the symptomatic side. CRTM not only reduces overall cervical soft tissue tension in CSR patients, but can also balance the asymmetrical tension between the symptomatic and asymptomatic sides.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was approved by the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (Website: . https://www.chictr.org.cn .) on 20/04/2021 and the Registration Number is ChiCTR2100045648.

Cost and Effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy versus Microscope-Assisted Tubular Discectomy for L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost and effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and microscope-assisted tubular discectomy (MATD) for patients with L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

The medical and financial records of patients diagnosed with L5/S1 LDH and who underwent either PEID or MATD from April 2021 to April 2022 were retrospectively collected. Demographic and baseline information, perioperative observational index, clinical outcomes, and inpatient costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included, with 30 patients in the PEID group and 30 patients in the MATD group. No significant difference was found in demographic and baseline information between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The PEID group showed significantly shorter incision length, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and higher intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency compared with the MATD group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, and 36-Item Short-Form Survey score between PEID and MATD groups before the surgery and at any follow-up time points (P > 0.05). The total cost, surgery cost, and surgical instruments/materials cost were significantly higher in the PEID group compared with the MATD group (P < 0.05). In contrast, the drug and nursing costs were significantly higher in the MATD group than in the PEID group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PEID and MATD provide equivalent clinical efficacy and safety in treating LDH at L5/S1 segment within a 1-year follow-up. However, PEID is less invasive and MATD is less costly. No one surgical technique is superior in all aspects and patients should make decisions according to their top concern.

Advocating uniformity in spine surgery: a practical disease-specific guideline for trial-based economic evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Despite the availability of general and national guidelines for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations, there is heterogeneity in economic evolutions concerning spine surgery. This is partly the result of differing levels of adherence to the existing guidelines and the lack of disease-specific recommendations for economic evaluations. The extensive heterogeneity in study design, follow-up duration and outcome measurements limit the comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery. This study has three objectives: (1) to create disease-specific recommendations for the design and conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery, (2) to define recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery as a complement to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and (3) to discuss methodological challenges and defining the need for future research.

DESIGN

A modified Delphi method according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

SETTING

A four-step process was followed to create and validate disease-specific statements and recommendations for the conduct and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. Consensus was defined as >75% agreement.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 20 experts were included in the expert group. Validation of the final recommendations was obtained in a Delphi panel, which consisted of 40 researchers in the field who were not included in the expert group.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure is a set of recommendations for the conduct and reporting, as a complement to the CHEERS 2022 checklist, of economic evaluations in spine surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 31 recommendations are made. The Delphi panel confirmed consensus on all of the recommendations in the proposed guideline.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an accessible and practical guideline for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. This disease-specific guideline is a complement to existing guidelines, and should aid in reaching uniformity and comparability.

Long-Term Survivorship of Cervical Spine Procedures; A Survivorship Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a meta-analysis on the survivorship of commonly performed cervical spine procedures to develop survival function curves for (i) second surgery at any cervical level, and (ii) adjacent level surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Articles with cohorts of greater than 20 patients followed for a minimum of 36 months and with available survival data were included. Procedures included were anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc arthroplasty (ADR), laminoplasty (LAMP), and posterior laminectomy and fusion (PDIF). Reconstructed individual patient data were pooled across studies using parametric Bayesian survival meta-regression.

RESULTS

Of 1829 initial titles, 16 citations were included for analysis. 73 811 patients were included in the second surgery analysis and 2858 patients in the adjacent level surgery analysis. We fit a Log normal accelerated failure time model to the second surgery data and a Gompertz proportional hazards model to the adjacent level surgery data. Relative to ACDF, the risk of second surgery was higher with ADR and PDIF with acceleration factors 1.73 (95% CrI: 1.04, 2.80) and 1.35 (95% CrI: 1.25, 1.46) respectively. Relative to ACDF, the risk of second surgery was lower with LAMP with deceleration factor .06 (95% CrI: .05, .07). ADR decreased the risk of adjacent level surgery with hazard ratio .43 (95% CrI: .33, .55).

CONCLUSIONS

In cases of clinical equipoise between fusion procedures, our analysis suggests superior survivorship with anterior procedures. For all procedures, laminoplasty demonstrated superior survivorship.

A Multi-Disciplinary Review of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Practical Considerations for Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

A multi-disciplinary review.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a roadmap for implementing time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for spine surgery. This is achieved by organizing and scrutinizing publications in the spine, neurosurgical, and orthopedic literature which utilize TDABC and related methodologies.

METHODS

PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles. The articles were selected by two independent researchers. After article selection, data was extracted and summarized into research domains. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) systematic review process was followed.

RESULTS

Of the 524 articles screened, thirty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Each included article was examined and reviewed to define the primary research question and objective. Comparing different procedures was the most common primary objective. Direct observation along with one other strategy (surveys, interviews, surgical database, or EMR) was most commonly employed during process map development. Across all surgical subspecialties (spine, neurologic, and orthopedic surgery), costs were divided into direct cost, indirect cost, cost to patient, and total costs. The most commonly calculated direct costs included personnel and supply costs. Facility costs, hospital overhead costs, and utilities were the most commonly calculated indirect costs. Transportation costs and parental lost wages were considered when calculating cost to patient. The total cost was a sum of direct costs, indirect costs, and costs to the patient.

CONCLUSION

TDABC provides a common platform to accurately estimate costs of care delivery. Institutions embarking on TDABC for spine surgery should consider the breadth of methodologies highlighted in this review to determine which type of calculations are appropriate for their practice.

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment

OBJECTIVES

The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.

RESULTS

130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

Patient-level payment patterns prior to single level lumbar decompression are associated with resource utilization, postoperative payments, and adverse events

BACKGROUND

Understanding patient-specific trends in costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) surrounding lumbar spine surgery is critically needed to better inform surgical decision making and the development of targeted interventions.

PURPOSE

1) Identify subgroups of patients following distinct patterns in direct healthcare payments pre- and postoperatively, 2) determine whether these patterns are associated with patient and surgical factors, and 3) examine whether preoperative payment patterns are related to postoperative payments, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database (IBM Marketscan Research Databases 2007-2015).

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adults undergoing primary single-level decompression surgery for lumbar stenosis (n=12,394).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Direct healthcare payments, HCRU payments (15 categories), 90-day complications and all-cause readmission, 2-year reoperation METHODS: Group-based trajectory modeling is an application of finite mixture modeling that is able to identify meaningful subgroups within a population that follow distinct developmental trajectories over time. We used this technique to identify subgroups of patients following distinct profiles in preoperative direct healthcare payments. A separate analysis was performed to identify distinct profiles in payments postoperatively. Patient and surgical factors associated with these payment profiles were assessed with multinomial logistic regression, and associations with adverse events were assessed with risk-adjusted multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 4 preoperative patient payment subgroups following distinct profiles in payments: Pre-Low (5.8% of patients), Pre-Early-Rising (4.8%), Pre-Medium (26.1%), and Pre-High (63.3%). Postoperatively, 3 patient subgroups were identified: Post-Low (8.9%), Post-Medium (29.6%), and Post-High (61.4%). Patients following the higher-cost pre- and postoperative payment profiles were older, more likely female, and had a greater physical and mental comorbidity burden. With each successively higher preoperative payment profile, patients were increasingly likely to have high postoperative payments, use more HCRU (particularly high-cost services such as inpatient admissions, ER, and SNF/IRF care), and experience postoperative adverse events. Following risk adjustment for patient and surgical factors, patients following the Pre-High payment profile had 209.5 (95% CI: 144.2, 309.7; p<.001) fold greater odds for following the Post-High payment profile, 1.8 (1.3, 2.5; p=.003) fold greater odds for 90-day complications, and 1.7 (1.2, 2.6; p=.035) fold greater odds for 2-year reoperation relative to patients following the Pre-Low payment profile.

CONCLUSIONS

There are identifiable subgroups of patients who follow distinct profiles in direct healthcare payments surrounding lumbar decompression surgery. These payment profiles are related to patient age, sex, and physical and mental comorbidities. Notably, preoperative payment profiles may provide prognostic value, as they are associated with postoperative costs, HCRU, and adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Predictive Analysis of Healthcare Resource Utilization after Elective Spine Surgery

Introduction

The management of degenerative spine pathology continues to be a significant source of costs to the US healthcare system. Besides surgery, utilization of healthcare resources after spine surgery drives costs. The responsibility of managing costs is gradually shifting to patients and providers. Patient-centered predictors of healthcare utilization after elective spine surgery may identify targets for cost reduction and value creation. Therefore, our study aims to quantify patterns of healthcare utilization and identify risk factors that predict high healthcare utilization after elective spine surgery.

Methods

A total of 623 patients who underwent elective spine surgery at a tertiary academic medical center by one of three fellowship-trained orthopedic spine surgeons between 2013 and 2018 were identified in this retrospective cohort study. Healthcare utilization was quantified including advanced spine imaging, emergency and urgent care visits, hospital readmission, reoperation, PT/OT referrals, opioid prescriptions, epidural steroid injections, and pain management referrals. Patient variables, namely, the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification system, were assessed as potential predictors for healthcare utilization.

Results

Among all patients, a wide range of health utilization was identified. Age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and American Society of Anesthesiology class were identified as positive predictors of postoperative healthcare utilization including emergency department visits, spine imaging studies, opioid and nerve blocker prescriptions, inpatient rehabilitation, any referrals, and pain management referrals.

Conclusions

Markers of patient health-such as CCI and ASA class-may be used to predict healthcare utilization following elective spine surgery. Identifying at-risk patients and addressing these challenges prior to surgery is an important step to deliver efficient postoperative care.

Level of Evidence

3.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs 2 years pre- and post-lumbar spine surgery for stenosis: a national claims cohort study of 22,182 cases

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Improved understanding of the pre- and postoperative trends in costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) is needed to better inform patient expectations and aid in the development of strategies to minimize the significant healthcare burden associated with lumbar spine surgery.

PURPOSE

Examine the time course of costs and HCRU in the 2 years preceding and following elective lumbar spine surgery for stenosis in a large national claims cohort.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database (IBM® Marketscan® Research Databases 2007-2015).

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients undergoing elective primary single-level lumbar surgery for stenosis with at least 2 years of continuous health plan enrollment pre- and postoperatively.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Functional measures, including monthly rates of HCRU (15 categories), monthly gross covered payments (including payments made by the health plan and deductibles and coinsurance paid by the patient) overall, by HCRU category, and by spine versus non-spine-related.

METHODS

All available patients were utilized for analysis of HCRU. For analysis of payments, only patients on noncapitated health plans providing accurate financial information were analyzed. Payments were converted to 2015 United States dollars using the medical care component of the consumer price index. Trends in payments and HCRU were plotted on a monthly basis pre- and post-surgery and assessed with regression models. Relationships with demographics, surgical factors, and comorbidities were assessed with multivariable repeated measures generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Median monthly healthcare payments 2 years prior to surgery were $275 ($22, $868). Baseline HCRU at 2 years preoperatively was stable or only gradually rising (office visits, prescription drug use), but began an increasingly steep rise in many categories 6 to 12 months prior to surgery. Monthly payments began an increasingly steep rise 6 months prior to surgery, reaching a peak of $1,402 ($634, $2,827) in the month prior to surgery. This was driven by an increase in radiology, office visits, PT, injections, prescription medications, ER encounters, and inpatient admissions. Payments dropped dramatically immediately following surgery. Over the remainder of the 2 years, the median total payments declined only slightly, as a continued decline in spine-related payments was offset by gradually increased non-spine related payments as patients aged. By 2 years postoperatively, the percentage of patients using PT and injections returned to within 1% of the baseline levels observed 2 years preoperatively; however, spine-related prescription medication use remained elevated, as did other categories of HCRU (radiology, office visits, lab/diagnostic services, and also rare events such as inpatient admissions, ER encounters, and SNF/IRF). Patients with a fusion component to their surgeries had higher payments and HCRU preoperatively, and this did not resolve postoperatively. Variations in payments and HCRU were also evident among plan types, with patients on comprehensive medical plans-predominantly employer-sponsored supplemental Medicare coverage-utilizing more inpatient, ER, and inpatient rehabilitation & skilled nursing facilities. Patients on high-deductible plans had fewer payments and HCRU across all categories; however, we are unable to distinguish whether this is because they used fewer of these services or if they were paying for these services out of pocket without submitting to the payer. By 2 years postoperatively, 51% of patients had no spine-related monthly payments, while 33% had higher and 16% had lower monthly payments relative to 2 years preoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to characterize time trends in direct healthcare payments and HCRU over an extended period preceding and following spine surgery. Differences among plan types potentially highlight disparities in access to care and plan-related financial mediators of patients' healthcare resource utilization.

Cost analysis of primary single-level lumbar discectomies using the Value Driven Outcomes database in a large academic center

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Improving value is an established point of emphasis to reduce the rapidly rising health care costs in the United States. Back pain is a major driver of costs with a substantial fraction caused by lumbar radiculopathy. The most common surgical treatment for lumbar radiculopathy is microdiscectomy. Research is sparse regarding variables driving cost in microdiscectomies and often limited by cost data derived from payer-based Medicare data.

PURPOSE

To identify targets for cost reduction by determining variables associated with significant cost variation in microdiscectomies, using cost data derived from the Value Driven Outcomes tool and actual system costs.

STUDY DESIGN

Single-center, retrospective study of prospectively collected registry data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Six hundred twenty-two patients identified by CPT code and manually screened for initial, unilateral, single-level lumbar discectomy performed between 2014 and 2018 at a single institution.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures include total direct cost, clinical length of stay, and OR minutes. Total Direct Cost was further differentiated into facility and nonfacility costs.

METHODS

Univariate and multivariate generalized linear models (GLM) were used to identify variables associated with variation in primary outcome measures. Costs were normalized by mean cost for patients with normal body mass index (BMI) and a healthy American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. Average marginal effects were reported as percentage of normalized costs.

RESULTS

Advanced age, male gender, Hispanic, black, unemployment, obesity, higher ASA class, insurance status, and being retired were positively associated with costs in univariate analysis. Asian, Native American, outpatient procedures, and being a student were associated with decreases in costs. In multivariate analysis, we found that obesity led to higher average marginal total direct (9%), total facility (15%), and facility OR costs (22%), as well as 24 more OR minutes per surgery. While being overweight was not associated with greater total direct costs, it was associated with higher total facility (8%), and facility OR costs (12%), with 11 more OR minutes per surgery. Age was associated with a longer LOS but not with OR costs. As expected, outpatient surgical costs, LOS, and OR time were significantly lower than inpatient procedures. Severe systematic disease was associated with greater total and nonfacility costs. In addition, Medicare patients had higher facility costs (14%) compared to privately insured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant drivers of total direct cost in multivariate GLM analysis were obesity, severe systemic disease and inpatient surgery. Average LOS was increased due to age and inpatient status, conversely it was decreased by unemployment and retirement. Significant variables in OR time were male sex, Hispanic race and both obese and overweight BMIs.

Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The number of performed instrumented lumbar spine surgeries and associated health-care-related costs has increased over the last decades, and will increase further in the future. With the consistent growth of health-care-related costs, cost-effectiveness of surgical techniques is of major relevance. Common indications for instrumented lumbar spine surgery are spondylolisthesis and degenerative disease. A commonly used technique is the open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF). Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in the minimally invasive variation of this technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [MITLIF]). Currently available literature describes that MITLIF has comparable or even better clinical results compared to OTLIF. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF and OTLIF is important considering the growing health-care related costs, although no consensus has been reached regarding the most cost-effective technique. In this systematic review, previous literature concerning costs and cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was compared with MITLIF in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the current literature on cost-effectiveness of OTLIF compared MITLIF to in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

STUDY SAMPLE

Clinical studies reporting costs or cost-effectiveness for either OTLIF or MITLIF in patients with spondylolisthesis, lumbar instability, or degenerative disease were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The following data items were evaluated: study design, study population, utility measurement tool, gained quality adjusted life years (QALYs), cost sources, health care and societal perspective costs, total costs, costs per QALY (cost-effectiveness) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, Econlit and Web of Science on studies reporting OTLIF or MITLIF, spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability or degenerative disease, and costs. Relevant studies were selected and reviewed independently by two authors. For comparison, all costs were converted to American dollars with the reference year 2018.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, a total of 892 studies were identified. Eventually, 32 studies were included. Nine studies compared OTLIF and MITLIF directly. All studies mentioned health care perspective costs. Seven studies mentioned societal perspective costs. Cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was mentioned in five studies, ranging from $47,303/QALY to $218,766/QALY. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF was mentioned in one study, $121,105/QALY. Meta-analysis of hospital perspective costs showed a significant overall effect in favor of MITLIF, with a mean difference of $2,650. There was great heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion factors, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. Overall quality of studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

OTLIF and MITLIF appear to be expensive interventions when using a threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results of this study and previous literature suggest that MITLIF is more cost-effective compared to OTLIF. Considering the increase in health care costs of instrumented spine surgery, cost-effectiveness could be one of the factors in surgical decision-making. Prospective randomized studies directly comparing cost-effectiveness of OTLIF and MITLIF from both hospital and societal perspectives are needed to obtain higher level of evidence.

Current State of Health Economic Analyses for Low-Grade Glioma Management: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Health economic analyses help determine the value of a medical intervention by assessing the costs and outcomes associated with it. The objective of this study was to assess the level of evidence in economic evaluations for low-grade glioma (LGG) management.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of English articles in Medline, Embase, The Central Registration Depository, EconPapers, and EconLit. The results were screened, and data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers for studies reporting economic evaluations for LGG. The quality of each study was evaluated using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist, the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al. (2005), and the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument.

RESULTS

Three studies met our inclusion criteria. The adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values for the included studies ranged from $3934 to $9936, but each evaluated a different aspect of LGG management. All had a good quality of reporting per the CHEERS checklist. Based on the Cooper et al. hierarchy scale, the quality of data use was lacking most for utilities. The quality of study design was scored as 82, 92, and 100 for each study using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a limited number of economic evaluations were identified, the studies evaluated here were well designed. The interventions assessed were all considered cost-effective, but pooled analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity in the interventions assessed. Given the importance of value and cost-effectiveness in medical care, more evidence is needed in this area.

The Value of Cement Augmentation in Patients With Diminished Bone Quality Undergoing Thoracolumbar Fusion Surgery: A Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

Osteoporosis predisposes patients undergoing thoracolumbar (TL) fusion to complications and revision surgery. Cement augmentation (CA) improves fixation of pedicle screws to reduce these complications. The goal of this study was to determine the value and cost-effectiveness of CA in TL fusion surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using an electronic database search to identify articles discussing the cost or value of CA. As limited information was available, the review was expanded to determine the mean cost of primary TL fusion, revision TL fusion, and the prevalence of revision TL fusion to determine the decrease of revision surgery necessary to make CA cost-effective.

RESULTS

Two studies were identified discussing the cost and value of CA. The mean cost of CA for two vertebral levels was $10 508, while primary TL fusion was $87 346 and revision TL fusion was $76 825. Using a mean revision rate of 15.4%, the use of CA for TL fusion would need to decrease revision rates by 13.7% to be cost-effective. Comparison studies showed a decreased revision rate of 11.3% with CA, which approaches this value.

CONCLUSION

CA for TL fusion surgery improves biomechanical fixation of pedicle screws and decreases complications and revision surgery in patients with diminished bone quality. The costs of CA are substantial and reported decreases in revision rates approach but do not reach the calculated value to be a cost-effective technique. Future studies will need to focus on the optimal CA technique to decrease complications, revisions, and costs.

Superior Osteo-Inductive and Osteo-Conductive Properties of Trabecular Titanium vs. PEEK Scaffolds on Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Proof of Concept for the Use of Fusion Cages

Fusion cages composed of titanium and its alloys are emerging as valuable alternative to standard polyetheretherketone (PEEK) ones routinely used in cervical and lumbar spine surgery. Aim of this study was to evaluate osteo-inductive and osteo-conductive ability of an innovative trabecular titanium (T-Ti) scaffold on human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs), in both absence and presence of biochemical osteogenic stimuli. Same abilities were assessed on PEEK and standard 2D plastic surface, the latter meant as gold-standard for in vitro differentiation studies. hMSCs adhered and colonized both T-Ti and PEEK scaffolds. In absence of osteogenic factors, T-Ti triggered osteogenic induction of MSCs, as demonstrated by alkaline phosphatase activity and calcium deposition increments, while PEEK and standard 2D did not. Addition of osteogenic stimuli reinforced osteogenic differentiation of hMSCs cultured on T-Ti in a significantly higher manner with respect to standard 2D plastic culture surfaces, whereas PEEK almost completely abolished the process. T-Ti driven differentiation towards osteoblasts was confirmed by gene and marker expression analyses, even in absence of osteogenic stimuli. These results clearly indicate superior in vitro osteo-inductive and osteo-conductive capacity of T-Ti compared to PEEK, and make ground for further studies supporting the use of T-Ti cages to improve bone fusion.

Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review

Introduction

The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.

Methods

Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.

Results

Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results.

Trial registration

Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Economics of Cervical Disc Replacement

BACKGROUND

Although extensive reports of clinical outcome after cervical disc replacement (CDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion exist, few reviews of the cost-effectiveness research in cervical spine surgery exist. The purpose of this study was to review the concepts of cost-effectiveness research, the various approaches to cost-effectiveness studies in the context of cervical spine surgery, and some of the literature results.

METHODS

Review article describing cost-effectiveness research concepts, methodology, and results. The article reviews the concept of value, cost, utility, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and recent research.

RESULTS

Mixed data on cost-effectiveness of CDR compared with fusion exist. Notably, several studies performed within the last 5 years that use prospectively collected utility scores, costs, and adverse event calculations demonstrate a significant cost savings associated with CDR compared with fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The recent literature confirms that, in properly selected patients, CDR is more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease. The primary driver of the differential in cost effectiveness is the difference in secondary surgery rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In properly selected patients, CDR is more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease.

A cost utility analysis of treating different adult spinal deformity frailty states

The aim of this study was to investigate the cost utility of treating non-frail versus frail or severely frail adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. 79 surgical ASD patients >18 years with available frailty and ODI data at baseline and 2-years post-surgery (2Y) were included. Utility data was calculated using the ODI converted to the SF-6D. QALYs utilized a 3% discount rate to account for decline to life expectancy (LE). Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database. ICER was compared between non-operative (non-op.) and operative (op.) NF and F/SF patients at 2Y and LE. When compared to non-operative ASD, the ICER was $447,943.96 vs. $313,211.01 for NF and F/SF at 2Y, and $68,311.35 vs. $47,764.61 for NF and F/SF at LE. Frail and severely frail patients had lower cost per QALY compared to not frail patients at 2Y and life expectancy, and had lower ICER values when compared to a non-operative cohort of ASD patients. While these results support operative correction of frail and severely frail patients, it is important to note that these patients are often at worse baseline disability, which is closely related to frailty scores, and have more opportunity to improve postoperatively. Furthermore, there may be a threshold of frailty that is not operable due to the risk of severe complications that is not captured by this analysis. While future research should investigate economic outcomes at extended follow up times, these findings support the cost effectiveness of ASD surgery at all frailty states.

Clinical Level of Evidence Presented at the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) Annual Meeting Over 10 Years (2008-2017): A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

We systematically reviewed the level of clinical evidence presented at Cervical Spine Research Society annual meetings from 2008 through 2017.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The Cervical Spine Research Society is dedicated to advancing knowledge of the cervical spine to promote evidence-based care. Research presented at these meetings impacts clinical practice.

METHODS

A total of 774 paper abstracts presented at Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) annual meetings were independently assessed by two reviewers. Reviewers designated a clinical level of evidence (LOE) to each included abstract from level I to level IV based on criteria set forth by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Reviewer agreement was assessed using Cohens Kappa coefficient (k) and disagreements were discussed until a consensus was reached. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess for differences in LOE grades. Chi-squared testing was used to assess nonrandom changes in level of evidence and in excluded studies.

RESULTS

A total of 583 abstracts were included. Over the last 10 CSRS meetings, 5.15% of presentations were level I, 27.8% level II, 27.4% level III, and 39.6% level IV. The average LOE from 2008 to 2017 was 3.02 (median = 3). Additionally, 49.7% were therapeutic studies, 37.6% prognostic studies, and 12.7% diagnostic studies. When comparing the first 5 years (2008-2012) to the last 5 years (2013-2017), we observed a significant increase in Level II (P = 0.007) evidence and a corresponding decrease in level IV evidence (P < 0.001). The average LOE improved from 3.14 (2008-2012) to 2.91 (2013-2017); there was a significant improvement in LOE between the two periods (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Emphasis on evidence-based medicine within cervical spine research has positively influenced the clinical level of evidence disseminated at CSRS annual meetings between 2008 and 2017. Continued focus on higher quality Level I studies is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

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.

Financial Aspects of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review of Recent Literature

Recently, there has been significant interest in understanding the cost-effectiveness of treatments in spine surgery as health care systems in the United States move toward value-based care and alternative payment models. Previous studies have shown comparable outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy fusion; however, there is a lack of consensus on the cost-effectiveness of CDA to support full adoption. Evidence of the limitations of these cost-analysis studies also exists in the literature, including industry funding, potential selection bias, and varying methods of calculating value. The goal of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the cost-effectiveness of CDA compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and potential limitations with cost-analysis studies in spine surgery.

Integrated care programmes for sport and work participation, performance of physical activities and quality of life among orthopaedic surgery patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Objectives

Orthopaedic surgery is primarily aimed at improving function and pain reduction. Additional integrated care may enhance patient’s participation in sports and work, possibly improving performance of physical activities and quality of life (QoL). We aimed to assess the effectiveness of integrated care among orthopaedic surgery patients.

Design

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Data source

Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL (until 17 June 2019).

Eligibility for selecting studies

We searched for controlled studies on integrated care interventions consisting of active referral to case managers, rehabilitation with participation-based goals and/or e/mHealth, with outcomes of sports and work participation, performance of physical activities and/or QoL. Outcomes were normalised to 0–100 scales and statistically pooled.

Results

Seventeen articles (n=2494) of moderate quality were included reporting on patients receiving back, upper limb, knee or hip surgery. Only one study reported on return to sports and found no significant benefit. For return to work, one study did (90% vs 82%) and one did not (relative risk=1.18 (0.80 to 1.70)) observe significant benefits. Integrated care showed small effects for improving performance of physical activities (2.69 (–0.20 to 5.58); eight studies, n=1267) and QoL (2.62 (1.16 to 5.05); nine studies, n=1158) compared with usual care.

Summary/Conclusion

We found insufficient and inconsistent evidence for the effectiveness of integrated care for orthopaedic surgery patients regarding sport and work participation. Small effects were found for performance of physical activities and QoL. High quality research on integrated care focusing on sports and work participation is needed before integrated care can be implemented for orthopaedic surgery patients.

Propensity-matched Comparison of Outcomes and Costs After Macroscopic and Microscopic Anterior Cervical Corpectomy Using a National Longitudinal Database

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of national longitudinal database.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of operating microscope utilization in anterior cervical corpectomy (ACC).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The operating microscope allows for superior visualization and facilitates ACC with less manipulation of tissue and improved decompression of neural elements. However, many groups report no difference in outcomes with increased cost associated with microscope utilization.

METHODS

A longitudinal database (MarketScan) was utilized to identify patients undergoing ACC with or without microscope between 2007 and 2016. Propensity matching was performed to normalize differences between the two cohorts. Outcomes and costs were subsequently compared.

RESULTS

A total of 11,590 patients were identified for the "macroscopic" group, while 4299 patients were identified for the "microscopic" group. For the propensity-matched analysis, 4298 patients in either cohort were successfully matched according to preoperative characteristics. Hospital length of stay was found to be significantly longer in the macroscopic group than the microscopic group (1.86 nights vs. 1.56 nights, P < 0.0001). Macroscopic ACC patients had an overall higher rate of readmissions [30-day: 4.2% vs. 3.2%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.76 (0.61-0.96), P = 0.0223; 90-day: 7.0% vs. 5.9%, OR = 0.82 (0.69-0.98), P = 0.0223]. Microscopic ACC patients had a higher rate of discharge to home [86.6% vs. 92.5%, OR = 1.91 (1.65-2.21), P < 0.0001] and lower rates of new referrals to pain management [1.0% vs. 0.4%, OR = 0.42 (0.23-0.74), P = 0.0018] compared with macroscopic ACC. Postoperative complication rate was not found to be significantly different between the groups. Finally, total initial admission charges were not significantly different between the macroscopic and microscopic groups ($30,175 vs. $29,827, P = 0.9880).

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that the use of the operating microscope for ACC is associated with decreased length of stay, readmissions, and new referrals to pain management, as well as higher rate of discharge to home.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Operating Costs of Full-endoscopic Lumbar Spine Surgery in Japan

For full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy, operating costs are also important because expensive equipment are necessary. We surveyed the operating costs of surgical equipment necessary for full-endoscopic surgery together with surgical procedure reimbursement fees. A total of 295 cases of full-endoscopic surgery via a transforaminal approach were retrospectively analyzed. We calculated the frequency of damage and the unit purchase price of devices such as endoscopes, and surgical instruments such as grasping forceps for nucleotomy, high-speed drill bar, and bipolar forceps, and examined the operating costs in Japanese yen against the procedure fee per case. Endoscope breakage occurred seven times, and a payment of ¥760,000 was necessary for trade-in and purchase of a new endoscope. The total breakage number of grasping forceps was 58, and the purchase price per unit was ¥116,000. Therefore, a total of ¥12,020,000 was required for the 295 cases, and the calculated operating cost that accompanies equipment breakage was ¥40,000 per case. In addition, about ¥118,000 was required for disposable bipolar forceps and high-speed drill bar to be used intraoperatively for each case. Thus, for one case it is calculated that total ¥158,000 is utilized for equipment from the surgical reimbursement fee per case specified by the Japanese Ministry of Health being ¥303,900. Minimally invasive procedures provide great benefit to patients; however, the eventual contribution to hospital profits is small and may not be sufficient. To resolve this issue, the cost of surgical equipment should be lowered and/or the surgical reimbursement fee of the full-endoscopic surgery should be raised.

Use of Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scoring to predict patient satisfaction and return to work up to 1 year after lumbar fusion: a 2-year analysis from the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative

OBJECTIVE

The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) is a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, quality-improvement collaborative. Using MSSIC, the authors sought to identify the relationship between a positive Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) screening, which is predictive of depression, and patient satisfaction, return to work, and achieving Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores up to 2 years after lumbar fusion.

METHODS

Data from a total of 8585 lumbar fusion patients were analyzed. Patient satisfaction was measured by the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index. A positive PHQ-2 score is one that is ≥ 3, which has an 82.9% sensitivity and 90.0% specificity in detecting major depressive disorder. Generalized estimating equation models were constructed; variables tested include age, sex, race, past medical history, severity of surgery, and preoperative opioid usage.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis was performed. Patients with a positive PHQ-2 score (i.e., ≥ 3) were less likely to be satisfied after lumbar fusion at 90 days (relative risk [RR] 0.93, p < 0.001), 1 year (RR 0.92, p = 0.001), and 2 years (RR 0.92, p = 0.028). A positive PHQ-2 score was also associated with decreased likelihood of returning to work at 90 days (RR 0.76, p < 0.001), 1 year (RR 0.85, p = 0.001), and 2 years (RR 0.82, p = 0.031). A positive PHQ-2 score was predictive of failure to achieve an ODI MCID at 90 days (RR 1.07, p = 0.005) but not at 1 year or 2 years after lumbar fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

A multivariate analysis based on information from a large, multicenter, prospective database on lumbar fusion patients was performed. The authors found that a positive score (≥ 3) on the PHQ-2, which is a simple and accurate screening tool for depression, predicts an inability to return to work and worse satisfaction up to 2 years after lumbar fusion. Depression is a treatable condition, and so in the same way that patients are medically optimized before surgery to decrease postoperative morbidity, perhaps patients should have preoperative psychiatric optimization to improve postoperative functional outcomes.

What Are the Costs of Cervical Radiculopathy Prior to Surgical Treatment?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the costs associated with nonoperative management (diagnosis and treatment) of cervical radiculopathy in the year prior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

While the costs of operative treatment have been previously described, less is known about nonoperative management costs of cervical radiculopathy leading up to surgery.

METHODS

The Humana claims dataset (2007-2015) was queried to identify adult patients with cervical radiculopathy that underwent ACDF. Outcome endpoint was assessment of cumulative and per-capita costs for nonoperative diagnostic (x-rays, computed tomographic [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], electromyogram/nerve conduction studies [EMG/NCS]) and treatment modalities (injections, physical therapy [PT], braces, medications, chiropractic services) in the year preceding surgical intervention.

RESULTS

Overall 12,514 patients (52% female) with cervical radiculopathy underwent ACDF. Cumulative costs and per-capita costs for nonoperative management, during the year prior to ACDF was $14.3 million and $1143, respectively. All patients underwent at least one diagnostic test (MRI: 86.7%; x-ray: 57.5%; CT: 35.2%) while 73.3% patients received a nonoperative treatment. Diagnostic testing comprised of over 62% of total nonoperative costs ($8.9 million) with MRI constituting the highest total relative spend ($5.3 million; per-capita: $489) followed by CT ($2.6 million; per-capita: $606), x-rays ($0.54 million; per-capita: $76), and EMG/NCS ($0.39 million; per-capita: $467). Conservative treatments comprised of 37.7% of the total nonoperative costs ($5.4 million) with injections costs constituting the highest relative spend ($3.01 million; per-capita: $988) followed by PT ($1.13 million; per-capita: $510) and medications (narcotics: $0.51 million, per-capita $101; gabapentin: $0.21 million, per-capita $93; NSAIDs: 0.107 million, per-capita $47), bracing ($0.25 million; per-capita: $193), and chiropractic services ($0.137 million; per-capita: $193).

CONCLUSION

The study quantifies the cumulative and per-capital costs incurred 1-year prior to ACDF in patients with cervical radiculopathy for nonoperative diagnostic and treatment modalities. Approximately two-thirds of the costs associated with cervical radiculopathy are from diagnostic modalities. As institutions begin entering into bundled payments for cervical spine disease, understanding condition specific costs is a critical first step.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

A 1-Year Cost Analysis of Spinal Surgical Procedures in Spain: Neurosurgeons Versus Orthopedic Surgeons

Objective

To evaluate the direct costs of various spinal surgical procedures within 1 year of follow-up and to compare the profiles of neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons.

Methods

All spinal procedures performed within a 10-month period in patients covered by a private insurance company were included. Costs related to the spinal interventions were systematically registered in the company database. Associated costs during the 1-year follow-up were recorded.

Results

In total, 1,862 patients were included, with a total cost of €11,050,970, of whom 34.8% underwent noninstrumented lumbar decompression (€3,473), 27.1% dorsolumbar instrumented fusion (€6,619), 14.6% nucleoplasty (€1,323), 13.5% cervical surgery (€4,463), 3.4% kyphoplasty (€4,200), 2.9% scoliosis (€15,414), 1.2% oncologic surgery (€5,590), 0.5% traumatic compression (€7,844), and 4.7% (€1,343) other minor interventions (mainly rhizotomies). Approximately 42% of patients required reinterventions within the first year, with a global extra cost of €7,280,073; 11% were referred to the pain clinic, with a €114,663 cost; 55.5% were men; and the most common age range of patients who received an intervention was 65–75 years. Neurosurgeons performed 60% of all interventions. Noninstrumented lumbar operations were performed by neurosurgeons twice as often as instrumented operations, and they performed 76% of cervical operations. Orthopedic surgeons performed 2.5 times more instrumented than noninstrumented lumbar operations, and almost all scoliosis and rhizotomy procedures.

Conclusion

The direct costs of spinal surgery in Spain were generally lower than those reported in other European Union countries and the United States. Neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons had different spine surgical profiles and costs.

Cost-utility Analysis for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Conservative Treatment Versus Discectomy Versus Discectomy With Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

This study was an ambispective long-term cost-utility analysis with retrospective chart review and included the prospective completion of health questionnaires by patients.

OBJECTIVE

This was a cost-utility analysis, comparing conservative treatment, discectomy, and discectomy with spinal fusion for patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation after a previous discectomy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar disc herniation is an important health problem, with recurrence rates ranging from 5% to 15%. Management of recurrences is controversial due to a lack of high-level evidence. Cost-effectiveness analyses are useful when making clinical decisions. There are economic assessments for first herniations, but not in the context of recurrent lumbar disc herniations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients with disc herniation recurrence underwent conservative treatment (n=11), discectomy (n=20), or discectomy with fusion (n=19), and they completed the Short-Form 36, EuroQol-5D, and Oswestry Disability Index.Baseline case quality-adjusted life year (QALY) values, cost-utility ratios, and incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated on the basis of the SF-36. Direct health costs were calculated by applying the health care system perspective. Both QALY and costs were discounted at a rate of 3%. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for uncertainty variables, such as other health surveys or 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Cost-utility analysis of conservative treatment versus discectomy showed that the former is dominant, mainly because it is significantly more economical (&OV0556;904 vs. &OV0556;6718, P<0.001), while health results were very similar (3.48 vs. 3.18, P=0.887). Cost-utility analysis of discectomy versus discectomy with fusion revealed that discectomy is dominant, showing a trend to be both more economical (&OV0556;6718 vs. &OV0556;9364, P=0.054) and more effective (3.18 vs. 1.92 QALY, P=0.061).

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-utility analysis showed that conservative treatment is more cost-effective than discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation recurrence. In cases of recurrence in which conservative treatment is not feasible, and another surgery must be performed for the patient, discectomy is a more cost-effective surgical alternative than discectomy with fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

A Financial Analysis of Procedural Revenue in Outpatient Spine Clinic: An Analysis of 36,312 Patient Appointments and Subsequent Surgeries at a Single Major Academic Institution

OBJECTIVE

The economic pressures widely discussed in health care have a large impact on spine practices. This current study is the first to look at characteristics associated with revenues from an outpatient spine clinic.

METHODS

All clinic visits to spine providers were identified at a single academic institution spanning the dates June 1, 2014, to June 1, 2018. All payment information was calculated using Medicare reimbursement values for Current Procedural Terminology codes. Relevant clinical, surgical, and cost structure data was collected for each patient.

RESULTS

On average, providers had 21.9 average appointments over the course of 7.6 hours per clinic day. The average ratio of new to follow-up patients was 39.3%, with an average new patient to surgery conversion rate of 15.0%. The adjusted average total procedural revenue per new patient, controlled for scheduled appointment length and actual appointment length, was $686.02. The adjusted average procedural revenue per surgery was $3444.64 and average procedural revenue per hour in spine clinic was $552.40. With a 1% and 5% increase in new patient visits, total procedural revenue increases 2.7% and 13.5%, respectively. With a 1% and 5% increase in conversion rate, total procedural revenue increases 6.7% and 33.3%, respectively. With a decrease in new patient appointment length from 30 minutes to 25 minutes, the opportunity for 1.7 new patient appointments per day was created resulting in a net increase in procedural revenue per clinic day of $837.57.

CONCLUSIONS

Incremental changes in practice structure can significantly affect procedural revenue. Significant heterogeneity also exists among spine providers.

A Cost-utility Analysis of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation: Transforaminal versus Interlaminar

STUDY DESIGN

A cost-utility analysis (CUA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) techniques for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The annual cost of treatment for lumbar disc herniation is staggering. As the two major approaches of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD): percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) have gained recognition for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and showed similar clinical outcome. ost-utility analysis (CUA) can help clinicians make appropriate decisions about optimal health care for L5-S1 LDH.

METHODS

Fifty and 25 patients were included in the PETD and PEID groups of the study. Patients' basic characteristics, health care costs, and clinical outcome of PETD and PEID group were collected and analyzed. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated and validated by EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost per QALY gained.

RESULTS

The mean total cost of the PETD group was $5275.58 ± 292.98 and the PEID group was $5494.45 ± 749.24. No significant differences were observed in hospitalization expenses, laboratory and radiographic evaluations expenses, surgical expenses, and drug costs. Surgical equipment and materials costs, and anesthesia expense in the PEID group were significantly higher than in the PETD group (P < 0.001). Clinical outcomes, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), also showed no significant differences between the two groups. The cost-effectiveness ratio of PETD and PEID were $6816.05 ± 717.90/QALY and $7073.30 ± 1081.44/QALY, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of PEID over PETD was $21887.00/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Observed costs per QALY gained for L5-S1 LDH with PETD or PEID were similar for patients, demonstrating that the two different approaches of PELD are equally cost-effective and valuable interventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

Benefits of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for fusion in degenerative spine surgery: impact on outcome, length of stay, and patient satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) proposes a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care. Thanks to the improvement in care protocols and the fluidity of the patient pathway, the first goal of ERAS is the improvement of surgical outcomes and patient experience, with a final impact on a reduction in the hospital length of stay (LOS). The implementation of ERAS in spinal surgery is in the early stages. The authors report on their initial experience in applying an ERAS program to several degenerative spinal fusion procedures.

METHODS

The authors selected two 2-year periods: the first from before any implementation of ERAS principles (pre-ERAS years 2012–2013) and the second corresponding to a period when the paradigm was applied widely (post-ERAS years 2016–2017). Patient groups in these periods were retrospectively compared according to three degenerative conditions requiring fusion: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and posterior lumbar fusion. Data were collected on patient demographics, operative and perioperative data, LOSs, 90-day readmissions, and morbidity. ERAS-trained nurses were involved to support patients at each pre-, intra-, and postoperative step with the help of a mobile application (app). A satisfaction survey was included in the app.

RESULTS

The pre-ERAS group included 1563 patients (159 ALIF, 749 ACDF, and 655 posterior fusion), and the post-ERAS group included 1920 patients (202 ALIF, 612 ACDF, and 1106 posterior fusion). The mean LOS was significantly shorter in the post-ERAS group than in the pre-ERAS group for all three conditions. It was reduced from 6.06 ± 1.1 to 3.33 ± 0.8 days for the ALIF group (p < 0.001), from 3.08 ± 0.9 to 1.3 ± 0.7 days for the ACDF group (p < 0.001), and from 6.7 ± 4.8 to 4.8 ± 2.3 days for posterior fusion cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two periods for the ALIF (11.9% pre-ERAS vs 11.4% post-ERAS, p = 0.86) and ACDF (6.0% vs 8.2%, p = 0.12) cases, but they decreased significantly for lumbar fusions (14.8% vs 10.9%, p = 0.02). Regarding satisfaction with overall care among 808 available responses, 699 patients (86.5%) were satisfied or very satisfied, and regarding appreciation of the mobile e-health app in the perceived optimization of care management, 665 patients (82.3%) were satisfied or very satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the ERAS approach at the authors’ institution for spinal fusion for three studied conditions resulted in a significant decrease in LOS without causing increased postoperative complications. Patient satisfaction with overall management, upstream organization of hospitalization, and the use of e-health was high. According to the study results, which are consistent with those in other studies, the whole concept of ERAS (primarily reducing complications and pain, and then reducing LOS) seems applicable to spinal surgery.

COMBINING INSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA TO ASSESS HOSPITAL COSTS FOR PATIENTS RECEIVING VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICES

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe patient level costing methods and develop a database of healthcare resource use and cost in patients with AHF receiving ventricular assist device (VAD) therapy.

METHODS

Patient level micro-costing was used to identify documented activity in the years preceding and following VAD implantation, and preceding heart transplant for a cohort of seventy-seven consecutive patients listed for heart transplantation (2009-12). Clinician interviews verified activity, established time resource required for each activity, and added additional undocumented activities. Costs were sourced from the general ledger, salary, stock price, pharmacy formulary data, and from national medical benefits and prostheses lists. Linked administrative data analyses of activity external to the implanting institution, used National Weighted Activity Units (NWAU), 2014 efficient price, and admission complexity cost weights and were compared with micro-costed data for the implanting admission.

RESULTS

The database produced includes patient level activity and costs associated with the seventy-seven patients across thirteen resource areas including hospital activity external to the implanting center. The median cost of the implanting admission using linked administrative data was $246,839 (interquartile range [IQR] $246,839-$271,743), versus $270,716 (IQR $211,740-$378,482) for the institutional micro-costing (p = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

Linked administrative data provides a useful alternative for imputing costs external to the implanting center, and combined with institutional data can illuminate both the pathways to transplant referral and the hospital activity generated by patients experiencing the terminal phases of heart failure in the year before transplant, cf-VAD implant, or death.

Utilization of Time-driven Activity-based Costing to Determine the True Cost of a Single or 2-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the actual cost of performing 1- or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using actual patient data and the time-driven activity-based cost methodology.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

As health care shifts to use value-based reimbursement, it is imperative to determine the true cost of surgical procedures. Time-driven activity-based costing determines the cost of care by determining the actual resources used in each step of the care cycle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 30 patients who underwent a 1- or 2-level ACDF by 3 surgeons at a specialty hospital were prospectively enrolled. To build an accurate process map, a research assistant accompanied the patient to every step in the care cycle including the preoperative visit, the preadmission testing, the surgery, and the postoperative visits for the first 90 days. All resources utilized and the time spent with every member of the care team was recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 27 patients were analyzed. Eleven patients underwent a single-level ACDF and 16 underwent a 2-level fusion. The total cost for the episode of care was $29,299±$5048. The overwhelming cost driver was the hospital disposable costs ($13,920±$6325) which includes every item used during the hospital stay. Intraoperative personnel costs including fees for the surgeon, resident/fellow, anesthesia, nursing, surgical technician, neuromonitoring, radiology technician and orderlies, accounted for the second largest cost at $6066±$1540. The total cost excluding hospital overhead and disposables was $9071±$1939.

CONCLUSIONS

Reimbursement for a bundle of care surrounding a 1- or 2-level ACDF should be no less than $29,299 to cover the true costs of the care for the entire care cycle. However, this cost may not include the true cost of all capital expenditures, and therefore may underestimate the cost.

Cost-utility of revisions for cervical deformity correction warrants minimization of reoperations

Background

Cervical deformity (CD) surgery has become increasingly more common and complex, which has also led to reoperations for complications such as distal junctional kyphosis (DJK). Cost-utility analysis has yet to be used to analyze CD revision surgery in relation to the cost-utility of primary CD surgeries. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-utility of revision surgery for CD correction.

Methods

Retrospective review of a multicenter prospective CD database. CD was defined as at least one of the following: C2-C7 Cobb >10°, cervical lordosis (CL) >10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) >4 cm, chin-brow vertical angle (CBVA) >25°. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were calculated by EuroQol Five-Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) mapped to SF-6D index and utilized a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline to life expectancy (men: 76.9 years, women: 81.6 years). Medicare reimbursement at 30 days assigned costs for index procedures (9+ level posterior fusion, 4-8 level posterior fusion with anterior fusion, 2-3 level posterior fusion with anterior fusion, 4-8 level anterior fusion) and revision fusions (2-3 level, 4-8 level, or 9+ level posterior refusion). Cost per QALY gained was calculated.

Results

Eighty-nine CD patients were included (61.6 years, 65.2% female). CD correction for these patients involved a mean 7.7±3.7 levels fused, with 34% combined approach surgeries, 49% posterior-only and 17% anterior-only, 19.1% three-column osteotomy. Costs for index surgeries ranged from $20,001-55,205, with the average cost for this cohort of $44,318 and cost per QALY of $27,267. Eleven revision surgeries (mean levels fused 10.3) occurred up to 1-year, with an average cost of $41,510. Indications for revisions were DJK (5/11), neurologic impairment [4], infection [1], prominent/painful instrumentation [1]. Average QALYs gained was 1.62 per revision patient. Cost was $28,138 per QALY for reoperations.

Conclusions

CD revisions had a cost of $28,138 per QALY, in addition to the $27,267 per QALY for primary CD surgeries. For primary CD patients, CD surgery has the potential to be cost effective, with the caveats that a patient livelihood extends long enough to have the benefits and durability of the surgery is maintained. Efforts in research and surgical technique development should emphasize minimization of reoperation causes just as DJK that significantly affect cost utility of these surgeries to bring cost-utility to an acceptable range.

Clinical Impact and Economic Burden of Hospital-Acquired Conditions Following Common Surgical Procedures

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical impact and economic burden of the three most common hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) that occur within 30-day postoperatively for all spine surgeries and to compare these rates with other common surgical procedures.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

HACs are part of a non-payment policy by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and thus prompt hospitals to improve patient outcomes and safety.

METHODS

Patients more than 18 years who underwent elective spine surgery were identified in American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2013. Primary outcomes were cost associated with the occurrence of three most common HACs. Cost associated with HAC occurrence derived from the PearlDiver database.

RESULTS

Ninety thousand five hundred fifty one elective spine surgery patients were identified, where 3021 (3.3%) developed at least one HAC. Surgical site infection (SSI) was the most common HAC (1.4%), then urinary tract infection (UTI) (1.3%) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) (0.8%). Length of stay (LOS) was longer for patients who experienced a HAC (5.1 vs. 3.2 d, P < 0.001). When adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, LOS was 1.48 ± 0.04 days longer (P < 0.001) and payments were $8893 ± $148 greater (P < 0.001) for patients with at least one HAC. With the exception of craniotomy, patients undergoing common procedures with HAC had increased LOS and higher payments (P < 0.001). Adjusted additional LOS was 0.44 ± 0.02 and 0.38 ± 0.03 days for total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty, and payments were $1974 and $1882 greater. HACs following hip fracture repair were associated with 1.30 ± 0.11 days LOS and $4842 in payments (P < 0.001). Compared with elective spine surgery, only bariatric and cardiothoracic surgery demonstrated greater adjusted additional payments for patients with at least one HAC ($9975 and $10,868, respectively).

CONCLUSION

HACs in elective spine surgery are associated with a substantial cost burden to the health care system. When adjusted for demographic factors and comorbidities, average LOS is 1.48 days longer and episode payments are $8893 greater for patients who experience at least one HAC compared with those who do not.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Sacroiliac joint fusion health care cost comparison prior to and following surgery: an administrative claims analysis

Purpose

To assess real-world expenditures on surgical and non-surgical treatment for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain by comparing direct health care costs before and after surgery in patients who underwent an SIJ fusion (SIJF) procedure.

Materials and methods

This retrospective observational study examined administrative claims data (January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2017) for adult commercial health plan members with a medical claim for SIJF. Identified patients were included if they had continuous enrollment in the health plan for 12 months pre-SIJF (baseline period) and 12 months post-SIJF (follow-up period). The outcomes of interest were low back pain-related health care costs in the first three quarters of the baseline period (pre-surgery period; excludes the quarter immediately preceding surgery) and last three quarters of the follow-up period (post-surgery period; excludes the quarter in which SIJF was performed).

Results

Some 302 patients met inclusion criteria: 159 patients had the index SIJF in an inpatient hospital setting, 122 in an outpatient hospital setting, 18 in a surgery center, and three in other settings. Mean and median costs in the pre-surgery period were US$16,803 and US$5,849, respectively, and US$13,297 and US$2,269 in the post-surgery period. Median costs were significantly different in the pre- and post-surgery periods (P<0.001), while mean costs were not. Median health care costs in the pre-surgery and post-surgery periods were lower than the corresponding means due to the highly skewed nature of the cost data.

Conclusion

This health care claims data analysis shows the potential for lower post-operative health care costs compared to pre-operative costs in patients undergoing SIJF. Median low back pain-related costs in the post-surgery period were approximately US$400 per quarter overall and US$250 per quarter for those undergoing SIJF in the non-inpatient setting. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up will improve the precision of the cost data.

Cost-utility studies in upper limb orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of published literature

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after 1 January 1997, that studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery, that were clinical studies, and that reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale.

RESULTS

The mean total QHES score was 82 (high-quality). Over time, a greater proportion of these studies have demonstrated poorer QHES quality (scores < 75). Lower-scoring studies demonstrated several deficits, including failures in identifying reference perspectives, incorporating comparators and sensitivity analyses, discounting costs and utilities, and disclosing funding.

CONCLUSION

It will be important to monitor the ongoing quality of CEA studies in orthopaedics and ensure standards of reporting and comparability in accordance with Second Panel recommendations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1416-23.

Cost-utility analysis of cervical deformity surgeries using 1-year outcome

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Cost-utility analysis, a special case of cost-effectiveness analysis, estimates the ratio between the cost of an intervention to the benefit it produces in number of quality-adjusted life years. Cervical deformity correction has not been evaluated in terms of cost-utility and in the context of value-based health care. Our objective, therefore, was to determine the cost-utility ratio of cervical deformity correction.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter cervical deformity database. Patients with 1-year follow-up after surgical correction for cervical deformity were included. Cervical deformity was defined as the presence of at least one of the following: kyphosis (C2-C7 Cobb angle >10°), cervical scoliosis (coronal Cobb angle >10°), positive cervical sagittal malalignment (C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis >4 cm or T1-C6 >10°), or horizontal gaze impairment (chin-brow vertical angle >25°). Quality-adjusted life years were calculated by both EuroQol 5D (EQ5D) quality of life and Neck Disability Index (NDI) mapped to short form six dimensions (SF6D) index. Costs were assigned using Medicare 1-year average reimbursement for: 9+ level posterior fusions (PF), 4-8 level PF, 4-8 level PF with anterior fusion (AF), 2-3 level PF with AF, 4-8 level AF, and 4-8 level posterior refusion. Reoperations and deaths were added to cost and subtracted from utility, respectively. Quality-adjusted life year per dollar spent was calculated using standardized methodology at 1-year time point and subsequent time points relying on maintenance of 1-year utility.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients (average age: 61.2 years, 60% female, body mass index [BMI]: 30.1) were analyzed after cervical deformity correction (average levels fused: 7.2, osteotomy used: 50%). Costs associated with index procedures were 9+ level PF ($76,617), 4-8 level PF ($40,596), 4-8 level PF with AF ($67,098), 4-8 level AF ($31,392), and 4-8 level posterior refusion ($35,371). Average 1-year reimbursement of surgery was $55,097 at 1 year with eight revisions and three deaths accounted for. Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained to 1-year follow-up was $646,958 by EQ5D and $477,316 by NDI SF6D. If 1-year benefit is sustained, upper threshold of cost-effectiveness is reached 3-4.5 years after intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare 1-year average reimbursement compared with 1-year QALYdescribed $646,958 by EQ5D and $477,316 by NDI SF6D. Cervical deformity surgeries reach accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds when benefit is sustained 3-4.5 years. Longer follow-up is needed for a more definitive cost-analysis, but these data are an important first step in justifying cost-utility ratio for cervical deformity correction.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Radiology: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become more prevalent in radiology. However, the lack of standard methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an imaging modality and hinder CEA-based policy recommendations. This study reviews recent CEAs to identify areas of methodological variation, explore their impact on interpretation, and discuss optimal strategies for performing CEAs in radiology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review for cost-utility analyses in radiology from 2013 to 2017. Cost and quality-of-life methods were analyzed and compared using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.

RESULTS

Eighty cost-utility studies met our inclusion criteria. A payer perspective was the most common (70%) and hospital perspective the least common (5%). Fourteen studies (17.5%) did not report perspective, and 12 (15%) reported a perspective inconsistent with their performed analysis. Cost inclusion varied greatly between studies; adverse effects of imaging (20.5%) and hospitalization (34.6%) were the least frequently included direct costs. Studies that measured their own utilities most commonly used the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D questionnaires; however, most studies (80%) cited utilities from previous literature. Seventy-two studies (90%) used willingness-to-pay thresholds, and 30 used cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (41.7%).

CONCLUSION

We observed statistically significant methodological variation indicating the need for a standardized, accurate means of performing and presenting CEAs within radiology. We make several recommendations to address key problems regarding study perspective, cost inclusion, and use of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further work is required to ensure comparability and transparency between studies such that policymakers are properly informed when utilizing CEA results.

Circumferential fusion: a comparative analysis between anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior pedicle screw fixation and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws (ALIFPS) offer significantly higher radiographic fusion rates than other fusion techniques for L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS). As it stands, there is a relative paucity of comparative data of the two techniques.

PURPOSE

To define the clinical, radiographic, and financial differences between TLIF and ALIFPS for L5-S1 IS.

DESIGN/SETTING

A retrospective cohort study conducted at a single tertiary care center.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Sixty-six patients who underwent either TLIF or ALIPFS for L5-S1 IS at a single tertiary care center between 2009 and 2014.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of life outcome scores including the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Sagittal balance parameters including: pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, segmental lordosis, total lordosis, degree of slip, disc height, and L1-axis S1 distance (LASD). Cost measures included in-hospital charges, hospital length of stay (LOS), and post-admission costs accrued over 1 year.

METHODS

Quality of life (QoL) outcome scores, radiographic data, and financial data were collected with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Clinical results were investigated using the PDQ, PHQ-9, and EQ-5D. Radiographic measurements included lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, height of disc, L-1 axis S-1 distance, and the degree of slip. Cost data were generated based on patient-level resource utilization. Comparative data were presented as median with interquartile range (IQR). Continuous variables were compared using either independent Student t tests assuming unequal variance or Mann-Whitney U tests for parametric and nonparametric variables, respectively. The minimally clinical important difference (MCID) used for each questionnaire was as follows: PDQ (26), PHQ-9 (5), and EQ-5D (0.4).

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients met inclusion criteria. In the ALIFPS cohort, PDQ scores improved from 69 [47, 82] to 26 [18.2, 79.7], p=.02. In the TLIF cohort, PDQ scores improved from 73 [46, 85] to 48.5 [23, 67.5], p=.01. Both groups also showed a significant improvement in EQ-5D scores at 1 year, but the ALIFPS group showed a significantly greater improvement in EQ-5D scores at 1 year (0.1 [0,0.2] vs. 0.2 [0.1, 0.4], p=.02). Furthermore, only the ALIFPS cohort showed a significant improvement in segmental lordosis. The ALIFPS cohort showed a significantly greater improvement in disc height than did TLIF (3.5 [2, 5.5] vs. 6.7 [4.1, 10], p=.01). No significant differences were found in the direct costs of both procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that anterior lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws can achieve better clinical outcomes compared with TLIF for the treatment of IS. We believe the superior radiographic outcomes achieved through ALIFPS, namely a greater restoration of segmental lordosis and disc height, may have contributed to the improved clinical outcomes presented in the current study.

Health Economics and the Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the leading cause of spinal cord impairment worldwide. Surgical intervention has been demonstrated to be effective and is becoming standard of care. Spine surgery, however, is costly and value needs to be demonstrated. This review serves to summarize the key health economic concepts as they relate to the assessment of the value of surgery for DCM. This is followed by a discussion of current health economic research on DCM, which suggests that surgery is likely to be cost effective. The review concludes with a summary of future questions that remain unanswered, such as which patient subgroups derive the most value from surgery and which surgical approaches are the most cost effective.

Impact of cost valuation on cost-effectiveness in adult spine deformity surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Over the past decade, the number of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgeries has more than doubled in the United States. The complex surgeries needed to manage ASD are associated with significant resource utilization and high cost, making them a primary target for increased scrutiny. Accordingly, it is important to not only demonstrate value in ASD surgery as clinical effectiveness but also to translate outcome assessment to cost-effectiveness.

PURPOSE

To compare the difference between Medicare allowable rates and the actual, direct hospital costs for ASD surgeries.

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Consecutive patients enrolled in an ASD database from a single institution.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Short Form (SF)-6D.

METHODS

Consecutive patients enrolled in an ASD database from a single institution from 2008 to 2013 were identified. Direct hospital costs were collected from hospital administrative records for the entire inpatient episode of surgical care. Medicare allowable rates were calculated for the same inpatient stays using the year-appropriate Center for Medicare-Medicaid Services Inpatient Pricer Payment System Tool. The SF-6D, a utility index derived from the SF-36v1, was used to determine quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Of 580 surgical ASD patients eligible for 2-year follow up, 346 (60%) had complete baseline and 2-year data, and 60 were Medicare beneficiaries comprising the cohort for the present study. Mean SF-6D gained is 0.10 during year 1 after surgery and 0.02 at year 2, resulting in a cumulative SF-6D gain of 0.12 over 2 years. Mean Medicare allowable rate over the 2 years is $82,050 (range $42,383 to $220,749) and mean direct cost is $99,114 (range $28,447 to $217,717). Mean cost per QALY over 2 years is $683,750 using Medicare allowable rates and $825,950 using direct costs. This difference of $17,181 between the 2 cost calculation represents a 17% difference, which was statistically significant (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant difference in direct hospital costs versus Medicare allowable rates in ASD surgery and in turn, there is a similar difference in the cost per QALY calculation. Utilizing Medicare allowable rates not only underestimates (17%) the cost of ASD surgery, but it also creates inaccurate and unrealistic expectations for researchers and policymakers.

Utilization of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Musculoskeletal Injuries: An Analysis of Current Treatment Trends in the United States

Background:

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a popular biologic treatment for musculoskeletal injuries and conditions. Despite numerous investigations on the efficacy of PRP therapy, current utilization of this treatment within the United States is not widely known.

Purpose:

To investigate the national utilization of PRP, including the incidence and conditions for which it is used in the clinical setting, and to determine the current charges associated with this treatment.

Study Design:

Descriptive epidemiology study.

Methods:

Using a national database (PearlDiver) of private insurance billing records, we conducted a comprehensive search using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to identify patients who received PRP injections over a 2-year period (2010-2011). Associated International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes were identified to determine the specific conditions the injection was used to treat. The aggregate patient data were analyzed by yearly quarter, practice setting, geographic region, and demographics. PRP therapy charges were calculated and reported as per-patient average charges (PPACs).

Results:

A total of 2571 patients who received PRP injections were identified; 51% were male and 75% were older than 35 years. The overall incidence ranged from 5.9 to 7.9 per 1000 patients over the study period. PRP was most commonly administered in hospitals (39%) and ambulatory surgical centers (37%) compared with in private offices (26%). The most common conditions treated were knee meniscus/plica disorders, followed by unspecified shoulder conditions, rotator cuff injuries, epicondylitis, and plantar fasciitis. Further evaluation revealed that 25% of all patients received injections for cartilage-related conditions, 25% meniscus, 25% unspecified, 12% tendon, 8% glenoid labrum, and 5% ligament. The PPAC for PRP treatment was US$1755 per injection.

Conclusion:

Despite a lack of consensus regarding PRP indications and efficacy, we observed widespread application of this treatment for a myriad of musculoskeletal injuries. Most treated patients were older than 35 years, and the most commonly treated conditions included cartilage and meniscus disorders. Given the current controversy surrounding this treatment, further studies are necessary to guide clinicians on the value of this therapy for each clinical diagnosis.

Impact of old age on patient-report outcomes and cost utility for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for degenerative spine disease

PURPOSE

With growing older population and increasing rates of cervical spinal surgery, it is vital to understand the value of cervical surgery in this population. We set forth to determine the cost utility following anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative disease in older patients.

METHODS

Patients undergoing ACDF for degenerative diseases were enrolled into prospective longitudinal registry. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded at baseline, 1-year, and 2-year postoperatively. Two-year medical resource utilization, missed work, and health-state values [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] were assessed to compute cost per QALY gained. Patients were dichotomized based on age: <65 years (younger) and ≥65 years (older) to compare the cost utility in these age groups.

RESULTS

Total 218 (87%) younger patients and 33 (13%) older patients who underwent ACDF were analyzed. Both the groups demonstrated a significant improvement in PROs 2-year following surgery. The older patients had a lower mean cumulative gain in QALYs compared to younger patients at 1 year (0.141 vs. 0.28, P = 0.05) and 2 years (0.211 vs. 0.424, P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the mean total 2-year cost between older [$21,041 (95% CI $18,466-$23,616)] and younger [$22,669 (95% CI $$21,259-$24,079)] patients (P = 0.27). Two-year cost per QALY gained in older vs. younger patients was ($99,720/QALYs gained vs. ($53,464/QALYs gained, P = 0.68).

CONCLUSION

ACDF surgery provided a significant gain in health-state utility in older patients with degenerative cervical pathology, with a mean cumulative 2-year cost per QALY gained of $99,720/QALY. While older patients have a slightly higher cost utility compared to their younger counterparts, surgery in the older cohort does provide a significant improvement in pain, disability, and quality-of-life outcomes.

Cost Variation Within Spinal Fusion Payment Groups

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, large administrative database.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate cost variation within current spinal fusion diagnosis-related groups (DRGs).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Medicare reimbursement to hospitals for spinal fusion surgery is provided as a fixed payment for each admission based on DRG. This assumes that patients can be grouped into homogenous units of resource use such that a single payment will cover the costs of hospitalization for most patients within a given DRG. However, major differences in costs exist for different methods of spinal fusion surgery. A previous study in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) showed that variation within DRGs can lead to differences between hospital costs and Medicare reimbursement, resulting in predictable financial losses to hospitals and hindering access to care for some patients. No study to our knowledge has investigated cost variation within current spinal fusion DRGs.

METHODS

Direct hospital costs were obtained from the 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) for patients in spinal fusion DRGs 453-460 and TJA DRGs 466-470. Our primary outcome was the coefficient of variation (CV), defined as the ratio of the standard deviation (SD) to the mean (CV = SD/mean × 100), for all costs within a given DRG. CVs were compared to an established TJA benchmark for within-DRG cost variation.

RESULTS

CVs for costs within spinal fusion DRGs ranged from 44.16 to 52.6 and were significantly higher than the CV of 38.2 found in the TJA benchmark group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

As in TJA, the cost variation observed within spinal fusion DRGs in this study may be leading to differences between costs and reimbursement that places undue financial burden on some hospitals and potentially compromises access to care for some patients. Future studies should seek to identify drivers of cost variation to determine whether changes can be made to further homogenize current payment groups and ensure equal access for all patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Comparison of surgical outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: does the intra-operative use of a microscope improve surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of this study was to assess and compare the complications profile as well as long-term clinical outcomes between patients undergoing an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) procedure with and without the use of an intra-operative microscope.

METHODS

One hundred and forty adult patients (non-microscope cohort: 81; microscope cohort: 59) undergoing ACDF at a major academic medical center were included in this study. Enrollment criteria included available demographic, surgical and clinical outcome data. All patients had prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes measures and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients completed the neck disability index (NDI), short-form 12 (SF-12) and visual analog pain scale (VAS) before surgery, then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Clinical outcomes and complication rates were compared between both patient cohorts.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The mean ± standard deviation duration of surgery was longer in the microscope cohort (microscope: 169±34 minutes vs. non-microscope: 98±42 minutes, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between cohorts in the incidence of nerve root injury (P=0.99) or incidental durotomy (P=0.32). At 3 months post-operatively, both cohorts demonstrated similar improvement in VAS-neck pain (P=0.69), NDI (P=0.86), SF-12 PCS (P=0.84) and SF-12 MCS (P=0.75). At 2-year post-operatively, both the microscope and non-microscope cohorts demonstrated similar improvement from base line in NDI (microscope: 13.52±25.77 vs. non-microscope: 19.51±27.47, P<0.18), SF-12 PCS (microscope: 4.15±26.39 vs. non-microscope: 11.98±22.96, P<0.07), SF-12 MCS (microscope: 9.47±32.38 vs. non-microscope: 16.19±30.44, P<0.21). Interestingly at 2 years, the change in VAS neck pain score was significantly different between cohorts (microscope: 2.22±4.00 vs. non-microscope: 3.69±3.61, P<0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that the intra-operative use of a microscope does not improve overall surgery-related outcomes, nor does it lead to superior long-term outcomes in pain and functional disability, 2 years after index surgery.