ABSTRACT
Purpose Intracranial aneurysms are relatively common epidemiological problems for which the surveillance, treatment, and follow-up are costly. Although multiple studies have evaluated the treatment cost of aneurysms, the follow-up costs are often not examined. In our study, we analyzed how follow-up costs after treatment affected the overall cost of different endovascular techniques for treating aneurysms. Materials and methods An institutional database was used to evaluate the upfront and follow-up costs incurred by patients who underwent elective coiling or placement of a pipeline embolization device (PED) for the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms from July 2011 to December 2017. Results A total of 114 patients (coiling, n = 37; PED, n = 77 ) were included in the study. There was no significant difference among patients in mean age [61.3 (±12.8 years) vs. 57.0 (±14.5 years); probability value (p) = 0.2], sex (male: 32.4% vs. 22.1%; p = 0.2), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (p = 0.5), discharge disposition (p = 0.1), mean length of stay [3.1 days (±5.5) vs. 2.4 days (±2.6); p = 0.2) or follow-up period [22.7 months (±18.5) vs. 18.6 months (±14.9); p = 0.2). There were no differences in costs during admission (p = 0.5) or in follow-up (p = 0.3) between coiling and PED treatments. Initial costs were predominantly related to supplies/implants (56.1% vs. 63.7%) for both treatments. Follow-up costs mostly comprised facility costs (68.2% vs. 67.5%), and there were no differences in costs of subgroups such as supplies/implants (10.5% vs. 9.4%), imaging (17.0% vs. 17.8%), or facilties between coiling and PED. Conclusion These results suggest that the upfront and follow-up costs are mostly similar for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms irrespective of whether the providers used coiling or PED endovascular techniques. Hence, we conclude that follow-up costs should not be a deciding factor when considering these treatments.
ABSTRACT
Objective The lifetime direct and indirect costs of spinal injury and spinal cord injury (SCI) increase as the severity of injury worsens. Despite the potential for substantial improvement in function with acute rehabilitation, the factors affecting its cost have not yet been evaluated. We used a proprietary hospital database to evaluate the direct costs of rehabilitation after spine injury. Methods A single-center, retrospective cohort cost analysis of patients with acute, traumatic spine injury treated at a tertiary facility from 2011 to 2017 was performed. Results In the 190 patients (mean age 46.1 ± 18.6 years, 76.3% males) identified, American Spinal Injury Association impairment scores on admission were 32.1% A, 14.7% B, 14.7% C, 33.2% D, and 1.1% E. Surgical treatment was performed in 179 (94.2%) cases. Most injuries were in the cervical spine (53.2%). A mean improvement of Functional Impairment Score of 30.7 ± 16.2 was seen after acute rehabilitation. Costs for care comprised facility (86.5%), pharmacy (9.2%), supplies (2.0%), laboratory (1.5%), and imaging (0.8%) categories. Injury level, injury severity, and prior inpatient surgical treatment did not affect the cost of rehabilitation. Higher injury severity (p = 0.0001, one-way ANOVA) and spinal level of injury (p = 0.001, one-way ANOVA) were associated with higher length of rehabilitation stay in univariate analysis. However, length of rehabilitation stay was the strongest independent predictor of higher-than-median cost (risk ratio = 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.0, p = 0.001) after adjusting for other factors. Conclusions Spine injury has a high upfront cost of care, with greater need for rehabilitation substantially affecting cost. Improving the efficacy of rehabilitation to reduce length of stay may be effective in reducing cost.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials and observational research never reach publication in peer-reviewed journals. Unpublished research results, including neutral study findings, hinder generation of new research questions, utilize healthcare resources without benefit, and may place patients at risk without benefit. OBJECTIVE: To examine the publication of neurosurgery trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: Clinical neurosurgery research was identified by searching the registry and categorized by study type. Associated publications were identified on Pubmed.gov. RESULTS: Among the 709 studies identified, spine (292, 41.2%) studies were most common, followed by tumor and cranial (each 114, 16.1%). Funding was predominantly private (482, 68.0%), followed by industry (135, 19.0%) and National Institutes of Health (9, 1.3%). A lower proportion of published studies (vs unpublished) received private funding in functional (33.3 vs 65.3%) and tumor (80.0 vs 68.7%). Only 104/464 (22.4%) studies had an associated publication. The mean time from listed study completion to first publication was 31.0 ± 27.5 mo. Most published studies had significant study differences between treatment arms (n = 72, 69.2%); studies with neutral findings were less likely to be published (n = 13, 12.5%). Surgical discipline (P = .1), funding source (P = .8), patient age (P = .4), planned enrollment (P = .1), phase of trial (P = .3), and study type (P = .2) did not affect publication rates. However, the interaction between study category and funding source significantly affected publication rate (P = .04, generalized linear model, R2 = 0.05). Publication timing (1-way analysis of variance, P = .5) and frequency (chi-square, P = .2) did not differ among disciplines. CONCLUSION: Clinical trials and observational research in neurosurgery are often not published promptly, especially if results were nonsignificant or the trial had private funding.
