ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of insurance database. PURPOSE: To investigate national trends, complications, and costs after cervical disc replacement (CDR) using an administrative insurance database representative of the United States population. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: As CDR continues to be used to treat patients with cervical stenosis, it is important to gain a better understanding of its use on a national level, potential complications, and cost. This information will allow for optimal patient counseling, risk stratification, and healthcare cost assessments. Several prior studies have investigated complications associated with CDR, but they have been limited by small sample size, single institution experiences, limited follow-up, and potential conflicts of interest. METHODS: Patients who underwent single or multilevel CDR between 2007 and 2015 were identified using an insurance database. We collected data on annual trends, reimbursement costs, patient demographic information, hospital information, and information on complications from the time of operation to 1 year postoperative. RESULTS: Total of 293 patients underwent either single or multilevel CDR. The number of procedures increased nonlinearly over time at an average of 17% per year, with a greater increase seen in the outpatient setting. Less than 3.7% of patients had new onset pain within 1 year after CDR. Within 1 year, 12.3% of patients reported a mechanical and/or bone-related complication. There were no patients who indicated a new nerve injury within 6 months of follow-up. Less than 3.7% of patients presented with dysphagia or dysphonia within 6 months, infection within 3 months, or a revision or reoperation within 1 year. Average reimbursement for single-level inpatient versus outpatient CDR was US $33,696.28 and US $34,675.12, respectively (p=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the use of CDR continued to increase. The most common complication was mechanical and/or bone-related, and cost analysis demonstrated no significant difference between inpatient and outpatient CDR.
ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. PURPOSE: To identify the trends in stimulator use, pair those trends with various grafting materials, and determine the influence of stimulators on the risk of revision surgery. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: A large number of studies has reported beneficial effects of electromagnetic energy in healing long bone fractures. However, there are few clinical studies regarding the use of electrical stimulators in spinal fusion. METHODS: We used insurance billing codes to identify patients with lumbar disc degeneration who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Comparisons between patients who did and did not receive electrical stimulators following surgery were performed using logistic regression analysis, chi-square test, and odds ratio (OR) analysis. RESULTS: Approximately 19% of the patients (495/2,613) received external stimulators following ALIF surgery. There was a slight increase in stimulator use from 2008 to 2014 (multi-level R2=0.08, single-level R2=0.05). Patients who underwent multi-level procedures were more likely to receive stimulators than patients who underwent single-level procedures (p<0.05; OR, 3.72; 95% confidence interval, 3.02-4.57). Grafting options associated with most frequent stimulator use were bone marrow aspirates (BMA) plus autograft or allograft for single-level and allograft alone for multi-level procedures. In both cohorts, patients treated with bone morphogenetic proteins were least likely to receive electrical stimulators (p<0.05). Patients who received stimulation generally had higher reimbursements. Concurrent posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) (ALIF+PLF) increased the likelihood of receiving stimulators (p<0.05). Patients who received electrical stimulators had similar revision rates as those who did not receive stimulation (p>0.05), except those in the multilevel ALIF+PLF cohort, wherein the patients who underwent stimulation had higher rates of revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent PLF or multi-level procedures increased patients' likelihood of receiving stimulators, however, the presence of comorbidities did not. Patients who received BMA plus autograft or allograft were more likely to receive stimulation. Patients with and without bone stimulators had similar rates of revision surgery.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to investigate the trends and incidence of vertebral augmentation procedures (VAPs) in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. RESULTS: In total, 118,074 patients were analyzed. The overall incidence of VAPs was 15.2%. The incidence of VAPs was significantly higher in those 75-79 years old (20.4%), significantly higher in females than males (15.6% versus 14.9%), and most commonly performed in the South (17.7%). CONCLUSION: There was a decline in the frequency of these procedures since 2008, but physicians are still performing these procedures, albeit at a much lower frequency than before 2009.
