ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Supplemental intrathecal morphine (ITM) represents an option to manage postoperative pain after spine surgery due to ease of administration and ability to confer effective short-term analgesia at low dosages. However, whether ITM increases risk of surgical site infections (SSI), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, and incidental dural tears (IDT) has not been investigated. Therefore, this study was performed to determine the rates of SSI, CSF leak, and IDT in patients that received ITM. METHODS: Patients that underwent posterior instrumented fusion from January 2010 to 2016 that received ITM were compared to controls with respect to demographic, medical, surgical, and outcome data. Fisher's exact test was used to compare rates of SSI, CSF leak, and IDT between groups. Poisson regression was used to analyze complication rates after adjusting for the influence of covariates and potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 512 records were analyzed. ITM was administered to 78 patients prior to wound closure. The remaining 434 patients compromised the control group. IDT was significantly more common among patients receiving ITM (P=0.009). Differences in rates of CSF leak and SSI were not statistically significant (P=0.373 and P=0.564, respectively). After compensating for additional variables, Poisson regression revealed a significant increase in rates of IDT (P=0.007) according to ITM injection and advanced age (P=0.014). There was no significant difference in rates of CSF leak or SSI after accounting for the additional variables (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ITM for pain control in posterior instrumented spinal fusion surgery was linked to increased likelihood of IDT but not CSF leaks or SSI. Age was also noted to be a significant predictor of IDT. Spine surgeons should weigh potential risks against benefits when deciding whether to administer ITM for postoperative pain management following spine surgery.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This is a cross-sectional study. Our objective is to survey spine surgeons' views of responsibility to reduce healthcare costs, enthusiasm for cost reduction strategies, and agreement regarding roles in cost containment. The rising cost of healthcare has spurred debate about reducing expenditures. Previous studies have found that attitudes of anesthesiologists are predominantly in alignment with those of American physicians, but less is known about the views of spine surgeons. METHODS: After obtaining institutional approval, an electronic survey was disseminated to active members of AO Spine North America (AOSNA) via email. Respondents were asked eight questions about their age, gender, years in practice, practice facility, political views and opinions regarding management of healthcare costs. RESULTS: From 91 respondents, most were under the age of 60 years (87%), male (96%), and in practice for less than 30 years (91%), practiced at university hospitals (47%) and held politically conservative views (47%). Most responsibility was allocated to hospital and health systems, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and device manufacturers. Respondents were most enthusiastic about rooting out fraud and abuse and aware of their role in managing the cost of healthcare. Spine surgeons who were in practice for longer were more enthusiastic about reducing cost by reducing overall physician reimbursement via bundled payments, Medicare payment reduction, ending fee-for-service, penalizing surgeons for patient readmissions, and lowering compensation to individual spine surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Spine surgeons allocated responsibility to reduce healthcare costs to healthcare systems, were most enthusiastic about eliminating wasteful spending, and were in agreement regarding their responsibility to control the costs of healthcare. Compared to US physicians of various specialties and anesthesiologists, spine surgeons assigned less responsibility to trials lawyers and expressed markedly less enthusiasm for limiting access to expensive treatments.
