ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: As value-based health care arrangements gain traction in spine care, understanding the true cost of care becomes critical. Historically, inaccurate cost proxies have been used, including negotiated reimbursement rates or list prices. However, time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) allows for a more accurate cost assessment, including a better understanding of the primary drivers of cost in 1-level lumbar fusion. PURPOSE: To determine the variation of total hospital cost, differences in characteristics between high-cost and non-high-cost patients, and to identify the primary drivers of total hospital cost in a sample of patients undergoing 1-level lumbar fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective, multicenter (one academic medical center, one community-based hospital), observational study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 383 patients undergoing elective 1-level lumbar fusion for degenerative spine conditions between November 2, 2021 and December 2, 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES: Total hospital cost of care (normalized); preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative cost of care (normalized); ratio of most to least expensive 1-level lumbar fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing a 1-level lumbar fusion between November 2, 2021 and December 2, 2022 were identified at two hospitals (one quaternary referral academic medical center and one community-based hospital) within our health system. TDABC was used to calculate total hospital cost, which was also broken up into: pre-, intra-, and postoperative timeframes. Operating surgeon and patient characteristics were also collected and compared between high- and non-high-cost patients. The correlation of surgical time and cost was determined. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine factors associated with total hospital cost. RESULTS: The most expensive 1-level lumbar fusion was 6.8x more expensive than the least expensive 1-level lumbar fusion, with the intraoperative period accounting for 88% of total cost. On average. the implant cost accounted for 30% of the total, but across the patient sample, the implant cost accounted for a range of 6% to 44% of the total cost. High-cost patients were younger (55 years [SD: 13 years] vs.63 years [SD: 13 years], p=.0002), more likely to have commercial health insurance (24 out of 38 (63%) vs. 181 out of 345 (52%), p=.003). There was a poor correlation between time of surgery (i.e., incision to close) and total overall cost (ρ: .26, p<.0001). Increase age (RC: -0.003 [95% CI: -0.006 to -0.000007], p=.049) was associated with decreased cost. Surgery by certain surgeons was associated with decreased total cost when accounting for other factors (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: A large variation exists in the total hospital cost for patients undergoing 1-level lumbar fusion, which is primarily driven by surgeon-level decisions and preferences (e.g., implant and technology use). Also, being a "fast" surgeon intraoperatively does not mean your total cost is meaningfully lower. As efforts continue to optimize patient value through ensuring appropriate clinical outcomes while also reducing cost, spine surgeons must use this knowledge to lead, or at least be active participants in, any discussions that could impact patient care.
ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVES: With increased awareness of the opioid crisis in spine surgery, the focus postoperatively has shifted to managing surgical site pain while minimizing opioid use. Numerous studies have compared outcomes and fusion status of different interbody fusion techniques; however, there is limited literature evaluating opioid consumption postoperatively between techniques. The aim of this study was to assess in-house and postoperative opioid consumption across 3 surgical techniques. METHODS: Patients were stratified by technique: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and cortical screw (CS) instrumentation with interbody fusion. Age, ASA, BMI, depression, preoperative opioid use, EBL, and OR time were recorded and compared across surgical groups using Welch's ANOVA and chi-square analysis. Total morphine equivalent dose (MED) was tabulated for both in-house consumption and postoperative prescriptions and was compared across surgical techniques using Welch's ANOVA analysis, Mann Whitney U tests, and linear regression. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty nine patients underwent one- or two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion between 2016 and 2020. One hundred and twenty one patients underwent CS instrumentation, 95 underwent PLIF, and 83 underwent MIS-TLIF. There was a significantly higher percentage of patients who had a history of depression and preoperative opioid consumption in the CS group (P = .001, P = .009). CS instrumentation required significantly less total post-op opioids per kilogram bodyweight compared to MIS-TLIF and PLIF surgeries (P = .029). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent CS instrumentation required less opioids postoperatively. CS instrumentation may be associated with less postoperative pain due to the less invasive approach, however, patient education and prescriber practice also play a role in postoperative opioid consumption.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: in the United States from 1999 to 2000 through 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity increased from 30.5 to 42.4%, while the prevalence of severe obesity nearly doubled. In lumbar spine surgery, obesity is associated with increased complications, worse perioperative outcomes, and higher costs. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between body mass index (BMI) and opioid consumption in patients undergoing lumbar spine fusion surgery. We hypothesized that obese patients would require more opioids postoperatively. METHODS: retrospective review of 306 patients who underwent one- or two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery between 2016 and 2020. Patients were stratified by BMI as follows: normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), obese I (30.0-34.9 kg/m2), and obese II-III (≥ 35.0 kg/m2). Patient demographics and preoperative characteristics were compared across BMI cohorts using one-way ANOVA and chi-square analysis. Patients with prior history of opioid use were excluded. Primary outcome measure was postoperative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of stay (LOS), discharge destination, and 30-day re-encounter rates. Outcomes were analyzed using multivariable linear regression adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: of 306 total patients, 17.3% were normal weight, 39.9% were overweight, 25.5% were obese I, and 17.3% were obese II-III. Obesity was associated with longer operative times and length of stay (p < 0.001, p = 0.024). For opioid naïve patients, there was no difference in-house opioid consumption when adjusted for kilograms of body mass and LOS (p = 0.083). Classes II-III patients were prescribed more than twice the number of postoperative opioids (p < 0.001) and were on opioids for a longer time postoperatively (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: obesity is associated with longer operative times, longer LOS, and increased consumption of postoperative opioids. This should be considered when counseling patients preoperatively prior to lumbar spine fusion procedures.
ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis using publicly available data. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was 2-fold: to assess patient-rated trustworthiness of spine surgeons as a whole and to assess if academic proclivity, region of practice, or physician sex affects ratings of patient perceived trust. METHODS: Orthopedic spine surgeons were randomly selected from the North American Spine Society directory. Surgeon profiles on 3 online physician rating websites, HealthGrades, Vitals, and RateMDs were analyzed for patient-reported trustworthiness. Whether or not the surgeon had published a PubMed-indexed paper in 2016 was assessed with regard to trustworthiness scores. Total number of publications was also assessed. Individuals with >300 publications were excluded due to the likelihood of repeat names. RESULTS: Recent publication and total number of publications has no relationship with online patient ratings of trustworthiness across all surgeons in this study. Region of practice likewise has no influence on mean trust ratings, yet varied levels of correlation are observed. Furthermore, there was no difference in trust scores between male and female surgeons. CONCLUSION: Total academic proclivity via indexed publications does not correlate with patient perceived physician trustworthiness among spine surgeons as reported on physician review websites. Furthermore, region of practice within the United States does not have an influence on these trust scores. Likewise, there is no difference in trust score between female and male spine surgeons. This study also highlights an increasing utility for physician rating websites in spine surgery for evaluating and monitoring patient perception.
