A prospective study of lumbar facet arthroplasty in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis: cost-effective assessment from the Total Posterior Spine system (TOPSTM) IDE Study: 2-year model revision and sensitivity analyses based on 305 subjects.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: A previous cost-effectiveness analysis published in 2022 found that the Total Posterior Spine (TOPSTM) system was dominant over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). This analysis required updating to reflect a more complete dataset and pricing considerations. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TOPSTM system as compared with TLIF based on an updated and complete FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) data set. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cost-utility analysis of the TOPSTM system compared to TLIF. PATIENT SAMPLE: A multicenter, FDA IDE, randomized control trial (RCT) investigated the efficacy of TOPSTM compared to TLIF with a current population of n=305 enrolled and n=168 with complete 2-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated to determine our primary outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcome measures included: net monetary benefit as well at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. METHODS: The primary outcome of cost-effectiveness is determined by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A Markov model was used to simulate the health outcomes and costs of patients undergoing TOPSTM or TLIF over a 2-year period. alternative scenario sensitivity analysis, one-way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: The updated base case result demonstrated that TOPSTM was immediately and longitudinally dominant compared with the control with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -9,637.37 $/QALY. The net monetary benefit was correspondingly $2,237, both from the health system's perspective and at a WTP threshold of 50,000 $/QALY at the 2-year time point. This remained true in all scenarios tested. The Alternative Scenario Sensitivity Analysis suggested cost-effectiveness irrespective of payer type and surgical setting. To remain cost-effective, the cost difference between TOPSTM and TLIF should be no greater than $1,875 and $3,750 at WTP thresholds of $50,000 and 100,000 $/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This updated analysis confirms that the TOPSTM device is a cost-effective and economically dominant surgical treatment option for patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis compared to TLIF in all scenarios examined.

Direct medical costs after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal disease: A nationwide matched cohort study with a 10-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The demand for treating degenerative lumbar spinal disease has been increasing, leading to increased utilization of medical resources. Thus, we need to understand how the budget of insurance is currently used. The objective of the present study is to overview the utilization of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) by providing the direct insured cost between patients receiving surgery and patients receiving nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS: The NHIS-National Sample Cohort was utilized to select patients with lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or spondylolysis. A matched cohort study design was used to show direct medical costs of surgery (n = 2,698) and nonsurgical (n = 2,698) cohorts. Non-surgical treatment included medication, physiotherapy, injection, and chiropractic. The monthly costs of the surgery cohort and nonsurgical cohort were presented at initial treatment, posttreatment 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and yearly thereafter for 10 years. RESULTS: The characteristics and matching factors were well-balanced between the matched cohorts. Overall, surgery cohort spent $50.84/patient/month, while the nonsurgical cohort spent $29.34/patient/month (p<0.01). Initially, surgery treatment led to more charge to NHIS ($2,762) than nonsurgical treatment ($180.4) (p<0.01). Compared with the non-surgical cohort, the surgery cohort charged $33/month more for the first 3 months, charged less at 12 months, and charged approximately the same over the course of 10 years. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment initially led to more government reimbursement than nonsurgical treatment, but the charges during follow-up period were not different. The results of the present study should be interpreted in light of the costs of medical services, indirect costs, societal cost, quality of life and societal willingness to pay in each country. The monetary figures are implied to be actual economic costs but those in the reimbursement system instead reflect reimbursement charges from the government.

A comparison of prolonged nonoperative management strategies in cervical stenosis patients: Successes versus failures.

A paucity of evidence exists regarding the optimal composition of conservative therapies to best treat patients diagnosed with cervical stenosis prior to consideration of surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the nonoperative therapy utilization strategies in cervical stenosis patients successfully managed with conservative treatments versus those that failed medical management and opted for an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. Medical records from adult patients with a diagnosis of cervical stenosis from 2007 to 2017 were collected retrospectively from a large insurance database. Patients were divided into two cohorts: patients treated successfully with nonoperative therapies and patients that failed conservative management and opted for ACDF surgery. Nonoperative therapies utilized by the two cohorts were collected over a 2-year surveillance window. A total of 90,037 adult patients with cervical stenosis comprised the base population. There were 83,384 patients (92.6%) successfully treated with nonoperative therapies alone, while 6,653 patients (7.4%) ultimately failed conservative management and received an ACDF. Failure rates of non-operative therapies were higher in smokers (11.2%), patients receiving cervical epidural steroid injections (11.2%), and male patients (8.1%). A greater percentage of patients who failed conservative management utilized opioid medications (p < 0.001), muscle relaxants (p < 0.001), and CESIs (p < 0.001). The costs of treating patients that failed conservative management was double the amount of the successfully treated group (failed cohort: $1,215.73 per patient; successful cohort: $659.58 per patient). A logistic regression analysis demonstrated that male patients, smokers, opioid utilization, and obesity were independent predictors of conservative treatment failure.

Decompression With or Without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis: A Cost Minimization Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective database review. OBJECTIVE: Compare 1-year episode of care costs between single-level decompression and decompression plus fusion for lumbar stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar stenosis is the most common indication for surgery in patients over 65. Medicare direct hospital costs for lumbar surgery reached $1.65 billion in 2007. Despite stenosis being a common indication for surgery, there is debate as to the preferred surgical treatment. Cost-minimization analysis is a framework that identifies potential cost savings between treatment options that have similar outcomes. We performed a cost-minimization analysis of decompression versus decompression with fusion for lumbar stenosis from the payer perspective. METHODS: An administrative claims database of privately insured patients (Humana) identified patients who underwent decompression (n = 5349) or decompression with fusion (n = 8540) for lumbar stenosis with and without spondylolisthesis and compared overall costs. All patients were identified and costs identified for a 1-year period. Complication rates and costs were described using summary statistics. RESULTS: Mean treatment costs at 1 year after surgery were higher for patients who underwent decompression and fusion compared to patients who underwent decompression alone ($20,892 for fusion vs. $6329 for decompression; P < 0.001). Facility costs (P < 0.001), surgeon costs (P < 0.001), and physical therapy costs (P < 0.001) were higher in the fusion group. Cost differences related to infection or durotomy reached significance (P < 0.04). No difference in cost was identified for supplies. CONCLUSION: Decompression had significantly lower costs for the treatment of lumbar stenosis, including treatment for postoperative complications. If cost minimization is the primary goal, decompression is favored for surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis. Other factors including shared decision-making directed toward patient's values, patient-reported outcomes, and preferences should also be recognized as drivers of healthcare decisions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

A Simple Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bilateral Decompression via Unilateral Approach versus Instrumented Total Laminectomy and Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

AIM: To compare the clinical and economic results of two different surgical approaches (bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and instrumented total laminectomy and fusion) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical, surgical, and economic aspects of 100 surgically treated patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Decompression was performed at 158 levels in 100 patients. The most commonly decompressed levels were L4-5 and L3-4. Significant difference was observed between pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores in both groups (p < 0.05). In Group 1 (instrumented total laminectomy and fusion), the mean surgery cost was 2539.2 USD (mean procedure cost: 1440.1 USD, mean implant cost: 1099.2 USD). In Group 2 (bilateral decompression via unilateral approach) the mean surgery cost was 998.5 USD. The cost difference was significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both instrumented total laminectomy and fusion and bilateral decompression via unilateral approach performed with and without stabilization showed similar clinical results in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. However, the cost of surgery was found to be 2.5-fold higher in the instrumented total laminectomy and fusion group. This study supports the concept that minimally invasive spine surgery is cost-effective.

Cost-Effectiveness for Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is significantly more cost-effective than nonsurgical management in patients who have failed to improve with a 6-week trial of nonsurgical management. Decompression plus fusion becomes more cost-effective compared with decompression alone at 2 years following surgery. Further study is needed to evaluate the most cost-effective fusion approach and augmentation strategy.

SUcceSS, SUrgery for Spinal Stenosis: protocol of a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Central lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common cause of pain, reduced function and quality of life in older adults. Current management of LSS includes surgery to decompress the spinal canal and alleviate symptoms. However, evidence supporting surgical decompression derives from unblinded randomised trials with high cross-over rates or cohort studies showing modest benefits. This protocol describes the design of the SUrgery for Spinal Stenosis (SUcceSS) trial -the first randomised placebo-controlled trial of decompressive surgery for symptomatic LSS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SUcceSS will be a prospectively registered, randomised placebo-controlled trial of decompressive spinal surgery. 160 eligible participants (80 participants/group) with symptomatic LSS will be randomised to either surgical spinal decompression or placebo surgical intervention. The placebo surgical intervention is identical to surgical decompression in all other ways with the exception of the removal of any bone or ligament. All participants and assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. The coprimary outcomes will be function measured with the Oswestry Disability Index and the proportion of participants who have meaningfully improved their walking capacity at 3 months postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes include back pain intensity, lower limb pain intensity, disability, quality of life, anxiety and depression, neurogenic claudication score, perceived recovery, treatment satisfaction, adverse events, reoperation rate and rehospitalisation rate. Those who decline to be randomised will be invited to participate in a parallel observational cohort. Data analysis will be blinded and by intention to treat. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis will determine the potential incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the NSW Health (reference:17/247/POWH/601) and the Monash University (reference: 12371) Human Research Ethics Committees. Dissemination of results will be via journal articles and presentations at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000884303; Pre-results.

Long-Term Costs of Maximum Nonoperative Treatments in Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Stenosis or Spondylolisthesis that Ultimately Required Surgery: A 5-Year Cost Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to characterize the utilization and costs of MNTs prior to spinal fusion surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The costs and utilization of long-term maximal nonoperative therapy (MNT) can be substantial, and in the current era of bundled payments, the duration of conservative therapy trials should be reassessed. METHODS: A large insurance database was queried for patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis undergoing index lumbar decompression and fusion procedures between 2007 and 2016. This database consists of 20.9 million covered lives and includes private/commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Only patients with lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis and those continuously active within the insurance system for at least 5 years prior to the index operation were eligible. RESULTS: A total of 4133 out of 497,822 (0.8%) eligible patients underwent 1, 2, or 3-level posterior lumbar instrumented fusion. 20.8% of patients were smokers, 44.5% had type II DM, and 38.2% were obese (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m). Patient MNT utilization was as follows: 66.7% used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 84.4% used opioids, 58.6% used muscle relaxants, 65.5% received lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESI), 66.6% attended 21.1% presented to the emergency department (ED), and 24.9% received chiropractor treatments. The total direct cost associated with all MNT prior to index spinal fusion was $9,000,968; LESI comprised the largest portion of the total cost of MNT ($4,094,646, 45.5%), followed by NSAIDS ($1,624,217, 18.0%) and opioid costs ($1,279,219, 14.2%). At the patient level, when normalized per patient utilizing therapy, an average $4010 was spent on nonoperative treatments prior to index lumbar surgery. CONCLUSION: Assuming minimal improvement in pain and functional disability after maximum nonoperative therapies, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for MNTs could be highly unfavorable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

US regional variations in rates, outcomes, and costs of spinal arthrodesis for lumbar spinal stenosis in working adults aged 40-65 years.

OBJECTIVEIt is important to identify differences in the treatment of common diseases over time and across geographic regions. Several studies have reported increased use of arthrodesis to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The purpose of this study was to investigate geographic variations in the treatment of LSS by US region.METHODSThe authors reviewed inpatient and outpatient medical claims from 2010 to 2014 using the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database (Truven Health Analytics), which includes data on commercially insured members younger than 65 years. ICD-9 code 724.02 was used to identify patients aged ≥ 40 and < 65 years who underwent surgery for "spinal stenosis of the lumbar region" and for whom LSS was the only principal diagnosis. The primary outcome was the performance of spinal arthrodesis as part of the procedure. Geographic regions were based on patient residence and defined according to the US Census Bureau as the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.RESULTSRates of arthrodesis, as opposed to decompression alone, varied significantly by region, from 48% in the South, to 42% in the Midwest, 36% in the Northeast, and 31% in the West. After controlling for patient age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index values, the differences remained significant. Compared with patients in the Northeast, those in the South (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.50-1.75) and Midwest (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.18-1.41) were significantly more likely to undergo spinal arthrodesis. On multivariate analysis, patients in the West were significantly less likely to have a prolonged hospital stay (> 3 days) than those in the Northeast (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94). Compared with the rate in the Northeast, the rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility were lower in the South (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.31-0.55) and West (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.98). The 30-day readmission rate was significantly lower in the West (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65-0.98) than in the Northeast and similar between the other regions. Mean payments were significantly higher in the Midwest (mean difference $5503, 95% CI $4279-$6762), South (mean difference $6187, 95% CI $5041-$7332), and West (mean difference $7732, 95% CI $6384-$9080) than in the Northeast.CONCLUSIONSThe use of spinal arthrodesis, as well as surgical outcomes and payments for the treatment of LSS, varies significantly by US region. This highlights the importance of developing national recommendations for the treatment of LSS.

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fenestration surgery in the Japanese universal health insurance system.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs are a global concern, and cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions have become important. However, data regarding cost-effectiveness are limited to a few medical fields. The purpose of our study was to examine the Japanese universal health insurance system cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for lumbar fenestration surgery. METHODS: Forty-eight patients who underwent fenestration for lumbar degenerative spinal canal stenosis between July 2013 and September 2015 were included. Effectiveness was evaluated by measuring the EuroQOL 5-dimension (EQ-5D), Short-Form 8 physical component summary (PCS), and visual analog scale (VAS). Cost was analyzed from the perspective of the public healthcare payer. Effectiveness and cost were measured 1 year after surgery. QALYs were calculated by multiplying the utility value (EQ-5D) and life years. Only direct costs based on actual reimbursements were included. Cost per QALY with a 5-year time horizon with a 2% discount rate was estimated. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the time horizon (2 years or 10 years). RESULTS: Mean total cost 1 year after fenestration surgery was 1,254,300 yen (standard deviation [SD], 430,000 yen; median, 1,172,300 yen). Operative cost was 406,800 yen (SD, 251,500 yen; median, 363,000 yen). Mean gained score was 0.21 for EQ-5D (SD, 0.18; median, 0.24), 11 for PCS (SD, 10; median, 12), and -43 for VAS (SD, 34; median, -38). Cost per QALY was 1,268,600 yen. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that cost per QALY with a 10-year time horizon was 679,300 yen and that with a 2-year time horizon was 3,004,600 yen. CONCLUSIONS: Cost per QALY of lumbar fenestration with a 5-year time horizon was 1,268,600 yen (11,532 US dollar), which was below the widely accepted benchmark (cost per QALY <5,000,000-6,500,000 yen (50,000 US dollars)). Fenestration is a cost-effective intervention.

Gender Differences in Use of Prolonged Nonoperative Therapies Before Index Lumbar Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to assess for gender-based differences in the usage and cost of maximal nonoperative therapy before spinal fusion surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis. METHODS: A large insurance database was queried for patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis undergoing index lumbar decompression and fusion procedures from 2007 to 2016. This database consists of 20.9 million covered lives and includes private or commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Only patients continuously active within the Humana insurance system for ≥5 years before the index operation were eligible. Usage was characterized by the cost billed to the patient, prescriptions written, and number of units billed. RESULTS: A total of 4133 patients (58.5% women) underwent 1-, 2-, or 3-level posterior lumbar instrumented fusion. A significantly greater percentage of female patients used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (P < 0.0001), lumbar epidural steroid injections (P = 0.0044), physical and/or occupational therapy (P < 0.0001), and muscle relaxants (P < 0.0001). The total direct cost associated with all maximal nonoperative therapy before index spinal fusion was $9,000,968, with men spending $3,451,479 ($2011.35 per patient) and women spending $5,549,489 ($2296.02 per patient). When considering the quantity of units billed, women used 61.5% of the medical therapy units disbursed despite constituting 58.5% of the cohort. When normalized by the number of pills billed per patient using therapy, female patients used more nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and muscle relaxants. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that gender differences exist in the use of nonoperative therapies for symptomatic lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis before fusion surgery.

Increased Volume of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Changes in Surgical Methods and Outcomes: A Nationwide Cohort Study with a 5-Year Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVE: Examining spine surgery patterns over time is crucial to provide insights into variations and changes in clinical decision making. Changes in the number of surgeries, surgical methods, reoperation rates, and cost-effectiveness were analyzed for all patients who underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis in 2003 (2003 cohort) and 2008 (2008 cohort). METHODS: The national health insurance database was used to create the 2003 cohort (n = 10,990) and 2008 cohort (n = 27,942). The surgical methods were classified into decompression and fusion surgery. The cumulative reoperation probability between those surgeries was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method in the 2003 cohort and 2008 cohort. Comparison of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed the additional direct cost of a 1% change in the reoperation probability. RESULTS: The surgical volume increased 2.54-fold in the 2008 cohort. The age-adjusted number of surgeries per 1 million people increased 2.6-fold (from 154 in the 2003 cohort to 399 in the 2008 cohort) in aged patients and 1.9-fold (from 154 in the 2003 cohort to 291 in the 2008 cohort) in patients 20-59 years old in the 2008 cohort. The proportion of fusion surgeries increased from 20.3% in the 2003 cohort to 37.0% in the 2008 cohort. In total, the 5-year reoperation probabilities increased from 8.1% in the 2003 cohort to 11.2% in the 2008 cohort. Fusion decreased the reoperation probability by 1% at the cost of 1,711 U.S. dollars. CONCLUSIONS: The increased numbers of spinal surgeries, fusion surgeries, and surgeries in older patients in a recent cohort were noteworthy. However, the increased surgical volume and fusion surgeries did not reduce the reoperation rate.

Trends in isolated lumbar spinal stenosis surgery among working US adults aged 40-64 years, 2010-2014.

OBJECTIVE Recommendations for the surgical treatment of isolated lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) (i.e., in the absence of concomitant scoliosis or spondylolisthesis) are unclear. The aims of this study were to investigate trends in the surgical treatment of isolated LSS in US adults and determine implications for outcomes. METHODS The authors analyzed inpatient and outpatient claims from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database for 20,279 patients aged 40-64 years who underwent surgery for LSS between 2010 and 2014. Only patients with continuous 12-month insurance coverage after surgery were included. The rates of decompression with arthrodesis versus decompression only and of simple (1- or 2-level, single-approach) versus complex (> 2-level or combined-approach) arthrodesis were analyzed by year and geographic region. These trends were further analyzed with respect to complications, length of hospital stay, payments made to the hospital, and patient discharge status. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS The proportion of patients who underwent decompression with arthrodesis compared with decompression only increased significantly and linearly from 2010 to 2014 (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.06-1.10). Arthrodesis was more likely to be complex rather than simple with each subsequent year (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.33-1.49). This trend was accompanied by an increased likelihood of postoperative complications (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02-1.21), higher costs (payments increased by a mean of US$1633 per year; 95% CI 1327-1939), and greater likelihood of being discharged to a skilled nursing facility as opposed to home (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20). The South and Midwest regions of the US had the highest proportions of patients undergoing arthrodesis (48% and 42%, respectively). The mean length of hospital stay did not change significantly (p = 0.324). CONCLUSIONS From 2010 to 2014, the proportion of adults undergoing decompression with arthrodesis versus decompression only for the treatment of LSS increased, especially in the South and Midwest regions of the US. A greater proportion of these fusions were complex and were associated with more complications, higher costs, and a greater likelihood of being discharged to a skilled nursing facility.

Variation in costs among surgeons for lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common condition in the elderly for which costs vary substantially by region. Comparing differences between surgeons from a single institution, thereby omitting regional variation, could aid in identifying factors associated with higher costs and individual drivers of costs. The use of decision aids (DAs) has been suggested as one of the possible tools for diminishing costs and cost variation. PURPOSE: (1) To determine factors associated with higher costs for treatment of spinal stenosis in the first year after diagnosis in a single institution; (2) to find individual drivers of costs for providers with higher costs; and (3) to determine if the use of DAs can decrease costs and cost variability. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 10,858 patients in 18 different practices diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2003 and July 2015 in three associated hospitals of a single institution. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean cost for a patient per provider in US dollars within 1 year after diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: We collected all diagnostic testing, office visits, injections, surgery, and occupational or physical therapy related to lumbar spinal stenosis within 1 year after initial diagnosis. We used multivariable linear regression to determine independent predictors for costs. Providers were grouped in tiers based on mean total costs per patient to find drivers of costs. To assess the DAs effect on costs and cost variability, we matched DA patients one-to-one with non-DA patients. RESULTS: Male gender (ß 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.15, p<.001), seeing an additional provider (ß 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86, p<.001), and having an additional spine diagnosis (ß 0.79, 95% CI 0.74-0.84, p<.001) were associated with higher costs. Providers in the high cost tier had more office visits (p<.001), more imaging procedures (p<.001), less occupational or physical therapy (p=.002), and less surgery (p=.001) compared with the middle tier. Eighty-two patients (0.76%) received a DA as part of their care; there was no statistically significant difference between the DA group and the matched group in costs (p=.975). CONCLUSIONS: Male gender, seeing an additional provider, and having an additional spine diagnosis were independently associated with higher costs. The main targets for cost reduction we found are imaging procedures and number of office visits. Decision aids were not found to affect cost.

Trends, Complications, and Costs for Hospital Admission and Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

MINI: Trends in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery are largely unknown outside of the United States. This population-based health record linkage study revealed that complex fusion surgery had a four-fold increase from 2003-2013 in Australia. This surgical procedure increased the risk of complications and resource use compared with decompression surgery alone. STUDY DESIGN: Population-based health record linkage study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine trends in hospital admissions and surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, as well as complications and resource use in Australia. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In the United States, rates of decompression surgery have declined, whereas those of fusion have increased. It is unclear whether this trend is also happening elsewhere. METHODS: We included patients 18 years and older admitted to a hospital in New South Wales between 2003 and 2013 who were diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis. We investigated the rates of hospital admission and surgical procedures, as well as hospital costs, length of hospital stay, and complications. Surgical procedures were: decompression alone, simple fusion (one to two disc levels, single approach), and complex fusion (three or more disc levels or a combined posterior and anterior approach). RESULTS: The rates of decompression alone increased from 19.0 to 22.1 per 100,000 people. Simple fusion rates increased from 1.3 to 2.8 per 100,000 people, whereas complex fusion increased from 0.6 to 2.4 per 100,000 people. The odds of major complications for complex fusion compared with decompression alone was 4.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-10.1), although no significant difference was found for simple fusion (odds ratio 2.0, 95% CI: 0.7-6.1). Mean hospital costs with decompression surgery were AU $12,168, whereas simple and complex fusion cost AU $30,811 and AU $32,350, respectively. CONCLUSION: In Australia, decompression rates for lumbar spinal stenosis increased from 2003 to 2013. The fastest increasing surgical procedure was complex fusion. This procedure increased the risk of major complications and resource, although recent evidence suggest fusion provides no additional benefits to the traditional decompression surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Impact of old age on patient-report outcomes and cost utility for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for degenerative spine disease.

PURPOSE: With growing older population and increasing rates of cervical spinal surgery, it is vital to understand the value of cervical surgery in this population. We set forth to determine the cost utility following anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative disease in older patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing ACDF for degenerative diseases were enrolled into prospective longitudinal registry. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded at baseline, 1-year, and 2-year postoperatively. Two-year medical resource utilization, missed work, and health-state values [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] were assessed to compute cost per QALY gained. Patients were dichotomized based on age: <65 years (younger) and ≥65 years (older) to compare the cost utility in these age groups. RESULTS: Total 218 (87%) younger patients and 33 (13%) older patients who underwent ACDF were analyzed. Both the groups demonstrated a significant improvement in PROs 2-year following surgery. The older patients had a lower mean cumulative gain in QALYs compared to younger patients at 1 year (0.141 vs. 0.28, P = 0.05) and 2 years (0.211 vs. 0.424, P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the mean total 2-year cost between older [$21,041 (95% CI $18,466-$23,616)] and younger [$22,669 (95% CI $$21,259-$24,079)] patients (P = 0.27). Two-year cost per QALY gained in older vs. younger patients was ($99,720/QALYs gained vs. ($53,464/QALYs gained, P = 0.68). CONCLUSION: ACDF surgery provided a significant gain in health-state utility in older patients with degenerative cervical pathology, with a mean cumulative 2-year cost per QALY gained of $99,720/QALY. While older patients have a slightly higher cost utility compared to their younger counterparts, surgery in the older cohort does provide a significant improvement in pain, disability, and quality-of-life outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Existing Pedicle Screws Reusing Technique in Extension Revision Operation for Adjacent Segmental Stenosis After Lumbar Posterolateral Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. OBJECTIVE: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by comparing patients who received extension revision operations for adjacent segment disease (ASD) reusing the pedicle screws extracted from fused segments with patients who received conventional surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ASD often required extension revision surgery, and during extension surgery, pedicle screws may be reused by extracting from the fused segments of primary surgery. METHODS: Study examined 37 patients who received extension revision surgery for ASD from January 2003 to December 2013. For the fixation of extended segments during revision operation, in 16 cases the pedicle screws extracted from fused segments were reused (group R), and in 21 cases new pedicle screws were used (group C) as a conventional method. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by means of visual analog scale scores for lumbago and leg pain, and the Korean Oswestry Disability Index. Radiologic outcomes were evaluated from the extent of bone union. The total operating costs in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Visual analog scale scores for lumbago and leg pain, and the Korean Oswestry Disability Index measured at final follow-up averaged 3.6 and 3.8, and 19.9 in group R, and 3.8 and 3.1, and 21.1 in group C, respectively (P = 0.280, P = 0.387, P = 0.751). For radiologic outcomes, there was one case of nonunion in each group. The cost of surgery was 5332 US dollars in group R, and 6109 US dollars in group C, respectively (P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Reusing pedicle screws extracted from the fused segments during extension revision operation for ASD can reduce the cost of surgery, and achieves clinical and radiological results similar to those of the conventional operation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

The Incidence of Durotomy and its Clinical and Economic Impact in Primary, Short-segment Lumbar Fusion: An Analysis of 17,232 Cases.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of durotomy in primary short-segment lumbar fusion and assess its clinical and economic impacts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The incidence of durotomy during primary lumbar fusion and its economic impact are not well described. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried for all primary 1- or 2-level lumbar fusions performed in adults for lumbar spinal stenosis between 2009 and 2011; only elective cases without concurrent diagnoses of vertebral infection, fracture, or tumor were included. χ and t-tests were used as appropriate to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with incidental durotomy, as well as total hospital charges, costs, and length of stay. RESULTS: Among 17,232 cases, 802 incidental durotomies were identified (rate 4.65%). The multivariate odds of durotomy in the oldest patients (age ≥ 73) were 2.4 times greater than the odds of durotomy in the youngest patients (age ≤ 56; P < 0.0001). Durotomy was associated with increased neurological complications and longer hospital stay. Length of stay was a significant driver of cost. The multivariate odds of dural tears in teaching hospitals was significantly higher compared with nonteaching hospitals (odds ratio 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.52; P < 0.005). Durotomy was associated with a $10,885 increase in total hospital charges, and a $3,873 increase in estimated total costs (compared with no durotomy group with P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Increasing age is a risk factor for durotomy in primary lumbar fusion. Durotomy is associated with neurological complications, increased length of stay, greater healthcare costs, and is more common in teaching hospitals. Length of stay is an independent driver of cost and complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Trends for Spine Surgery for the Elderly: Implications for Access to Healthcare in North America.

The proportion of the population over age 65 in the United States continues to increase over time, from 12% in 2000 to a projected 20% by 2030. There is an associated rise in the prevalence of degenerative spinal disorders with this aging population. This will lead to an increase in demand for both nonsurgical and surgical treatment for these disabling conditions, which will stress an already overburdened healthcare system. Utilization of spinal procedures and services has grown considerably. Comparing 1999 to 2009, lumbar epidural steroid injections have increased by nearly 900,000 procedures performed per year, while physical therapy evaluations have increased by nearly 1.4 million visits per year. We review the literature regarding the cost-effectiveness of spinal surgery compared to conservative treatment. Decompressive lumbar spinal surgery has been shown to be cost-effective in several studies, while adult spinal deformity surgery has higher total cost per quality-adjusted life year gained in the short term. With an aging population and unsustainable healthcare costs, we may be faced with a shortfall of beneficial spine care as demand for spinal surgery in our elderly population continues to rise. ABBREVIATION: QALY, quality-adjusted life year.