ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In anticipation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) system, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) conducted a study to estimate the work relative value units (RVUs) for facet arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to establish a valuation of work RVU for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Code 0202T in the interim until the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) can determine an appropriate value. The valuation established from this survey will assist surgeons to establish appropriate procedure reimbursement from third-party payers. METHODS: A survey was created and sent to 52 surgeons who had experience implanting the TOPS system during the investigational device exemption clinical trial. The survey included a patient vignette, a description of CPT Code 0202T along with a video of the TOPS system, and a confirmation question about the illustration's effectiveness. Respondents were asked to compare the work involved in CPT Code 0202T to 8 lumbar spine procedures. A Rasch analysis was performed to estimate the relative difficulty of CPT 0202T using the work RVUs of the comparable procedures. RESULTS: Forty-one surgeons responded to the survey. Of all the procedures, CPT Code 0202T received the most responses for equal work compared with posterior osteotomy (46%) followed by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (41%). The results of the regression analysis indicate a work RVU for CPT 0202T of 39.47. CONCLUSION: The study found an estimated work RVU of 39.47 for CPT Code 0202T using Rasch analysis. As an alternative to this Rasch methodology, one may consider a crosswalk methodology to the work RVUs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedurally, not as an alternative code. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These recommendations are not a substitute for RUC methodology but serve as a reference for physicians and third-party payers to understand work RVU similarities for charge and payment purposes temporarily until RUC methodology provides accurate RVUs for the procedure.
ABSTRACT
The index 2014 International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy Statement-Minimally Invasive Surgical Sacroiliac Joint Fusion-was generated out of necessity to provide an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)-based background and emphasize tools to ensure correct diagnosis. A timely ICD-10-based 2016 update provided a granular threshold selection with improved level of evidence and a more robust and relevant database (Appendix Table A1). As procedures and treatment options have evolved, this 2020 update reviews and analyzes the expanding evidence base and provides guidance relating to differences between the lateral and dorsal surgical procedures for minimally invasive surgical sacroiliac joint fusion.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Outpatient surgery has been shown safe and effective for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and more recently, for 1-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). The purpose of this analysis is to compare the safety and efficiency of 1-level and 2-level CDA performed in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) and in a hospital setting. METHODS: The study was a retrospective collection and analysis of data from consecutive CDA patients treated in ASCs compared to a historical control group of patients treated in hospital settings who were classified as outpatient (0 or 1-night stay) or inpatient (2 or more nights). Surgery time, blood loss, return to work, adverse events (AEs), and subsequent surgeries were compared. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 145 ASC patients, 348 hospital outpatients, and 65 hospital inpatients. A greater proportion of 2-level surgeries were performed in hospital than ASC. Surgery times were significantly shorter in ASCs than outpatient or inpatient 1-level (63.6 ± 21.6, 86.5 ± 35.8, and 116.7 ± 48.4 minutes, respectively) and 2-level (92.4 ± 37.3, 126.7 ± 43.8, and 140.3 ± 54.5 minutes, respectively) surgeries. Estimated blood loss was also significantly less in ASC than outpatient and inpatient 1-level (18.5 ± 30.6, 43.7 ± 35.9, and 85.7 ± 98.0 mL, respectively) and 2-level (21.1 ± 12.3, 67.8 ± 94.9, and 64.9 ± 66.1 mL). There were no hospital admissions and no subsequent surgeries among ASC patients. ASC patients had 1 AE (0.7%) and hospital patients had 10 AEs (2.4%). Working patients returned to work after a similar number of days off, but fewer ASC patients had returned to work by the end of the 90-day period. CONCLUSIONS: Both 1- and 2-level CDA may be performed safely in an ASC. Surgeries in ASCs are of shorter duration and performed with less blood loss without increased AEs.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recalcitrant sacroiliac joint pain responds well to minimally-invasive surgical (MIS) techniques, although long-term radiographic and fusion data are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the one-year clinical results from a cohort of patients with chronic sacroiliac (SI) joint pain unresponsive to conservative therapies who have undergone minimally invasive SI joint fusion. METHODS: SI joint fusion was performed between May 2011 and January 2014. Outcomes included radiographic assessment of fusion status, leg and back pain severity via visual analog scale (VAS), disability via Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and complication rate. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at follow-up appointments 6 months and 12 months post-procedure. RESULTS: Twenty minimally invasive SI joint fusion procedures were performed on 18 patients (mean age: 47.2 (14.2), mean BMI: 29.4 (5.3), 56% female). At 12 months, the overall fusion rate was 88%. Back and leg pain improved from 81.7 to 44.1 points (p<0.001) and from 63.6 to 27.7 points (p=0.001), respectively. Disability scores improved from 61.0 to 40.5 (p=0.009). Despite a cohort containing patients with multiple comorbidities and work-related injuries, eight patients (50%) achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in back pain at 12 months, with 9 (69%) patients realizing this improvement in leg pain and 8 (57%) realizing the MCID in ODI scores at 12 months. No major complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive SI joint surgery is a safe and effective procedure, with a high fusion rate, a satisfactory safety profile and significant improvements in pain severity and disability reported through 12 months post-procedure.
