Operative costs, reasons for operative waste, and vendor credit replacement in spinal surgery

Sustainable surgical practices: A comprehensive approach to reducing environmental impact

This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the environmental impact of surgical procedures and highlights potential strategies to reduce the associated greenhouse gas emissions. We discuss procurement, waste management, and energy consumption, providing examples of successful interventions in each area. We also emphasize the importance of adopting the Green Theatre Checklist as a useful tool for clinicians aiming to implement sustainable surgical practices.

The Environmental Impact of Spine Surgery and the Path to Sustainability

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative literature review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review published literature discussing sustainable health care and to identify aspects that pertain to spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In recent years, research has investigated the contribution of surgical specialties to climate change. To our knowledge, no article has yet been published discussing the impact specific to spinal procedures and possible mitigation strategies.

METHODS

A literature search was performed for the present study on relevant terms across four electronic databases. References of included studies were also investigated.

RESULTS

Spine surgery has a growing environmental impact. Investigations of analogous specialties find that procurement is the single largest source of emissions. Carbon-conscious procurement strategies will be needed to mitigate this fully, but clinicians can best reduce their impact by adopting a minimalist approach when using surgical items. Reduced wastage of disposable goods and increased recycling are beneficial. Technology can aid remote access to clinicians, and also enable patient education.

CONCLUSIONS

Spine-surgery-specific research is warranted to evaluate its carbon footprint. A broad range of measures is recommended from preventative medicine to preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative spine care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

Analysis of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Healthcare Costs via the Value-Driven Outcomes Tool

BACKGROUND

Examining the costs of single- and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is important for the identification of cost drivers and potentially reducing patient costs. A novel tool at our institution provides direct costs for the identification of potential drivers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess perioperative healthcare costs for patients undergoing an ACDF.

METHODS

Patients who underwent an elective ACDF between July 2011 and January 2017 were identified retrospectively. Factors adding to total cost were placed into subcategories to identify the most significant contributors, and potential drivers of total cost were evaluated using a multivariable linear regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 465 patients (mean, age 53 ± 12 yr, 54% male) met the inclusion criteria for this study. The distribution of total cost was broken down into supplies/implants (39%), facility utilization (37%), physician fees (14%), pharmacy (7%), imaging (2%), and laboratory studies (1%). A multivariable linear regression analysis showed that total cost was significantly affected by the number of levels operated on, operating room time, and length of stay. Costs also showed a narrow distribution with few outliers and did not vary significantly over time.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that facility utilization and supplies/implants are the predominant cost contributors, accounting for 76% of the total cost of ACDF procedures. Efforts at lowering costs within these categories should make the most impact on providing more cost-effective care.

Spinal Surgeon Variation in Single-Level Cervical Fusion Procedures: A Cost and Hospital Resource Utilization Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative costs and outcomes of patients undergoing single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDF) at both a service (orthopedic vs. neurosurgical) and individual surgeon level.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Hospital systems are experiencing significant pressure to increase value of care by reducing costs while maintaining or improving patient-centered outcomes. Few studies have examined the cost-effectiveness cervical arthrodesis at a service level.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent a primary 1-level ACDF by eight surgeons (four orthopedic and four neurosurgical) at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2015 was performed. Patients were identified by Diagnosis-Related Group and procedural codes. Patients with the ninth revision of the International Classification of Diseases coding for degenerative cervical pathology were included. Patients were excluded if they exhibited preoperative diagnoses or postoperative social work issues affecting their length of stay. Comparisons of preoperative demographics were performed using Student t tests and chi-squared analysis. Perioperative outcomes and costs for hospital services were compared using multivariate regression adjusted for preoperative characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients diagnosed with cervical degeneration underwent single-level ACDF; 44 and 93 were performed by orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, respectively. There was no difference in patient demographics. ACDF procedures performed by orthopedic surgeons demonstrated shorter operative times (89.1 ± 25.5 vs. 96.0 ± 25.5 min; P = 0.002) and higher laboratory costs (Δ+$6.53 ± $5.52 USD; P = 0.041). There were significant differences in operative time (P = 0.014) and labor costs (P = 0.034) between individual surgeons. There was no difference in total costs between specialties or individual surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Surgical subspecialty training does not significantly affect total costs of ACDF procedures. Costs can, however, vary between individual surgeons based on operative times. Variation between individual surgeons highlights potential areas for improvement of the cost effectiveness of spinal procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.