Inpatient opioid use varies by construct length among laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion patients.

Background: Laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy and fusion (LF) are utilized to achieve decompression in patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Comparative analyses aimed at determining outcomes and clarifying indications between these procedures represent an area of active research. Accordingly, we sought to compare inpatient opioid use between LP and LF patients and to determine if opioid use correlated with length of stay. Methods: Sociodemographic information, surgical and hospitalization data, and medication administration records were abstracted for patients >18 years of age who underwent LP or LF for DCM in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system between 2017 and 2019. Specifically, morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of oral and parenteral pain medication given after arrival in the recovery area until discharge from the hospital were collected. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-squared analysis or Fisher exact test when appropriate. Continuous variables were compared using Independent samples t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: One hundred eight patients underwent LF, while 138 patients underwent LP. Total inpatient opioid use was significantly higher in the LF group (312 vs. 260 MME, p=.03); this difference was primarily driven by higher postoperative day 0 pain medication requirements. Furthermore, more LF patients required high dose (>80 MME/day) regimens. While length of stay was significantly different between groups, with LF patients staying approximately 1 additional day, postoperative day 0 MME was not a significant predictor of this difference. When operative levels including C2, T1, and T2 were excluded, the differences in total opioid use and average length of stay lost significance. Conclusions: Inpatient opioid use and length of stay were significantly greater in LF patients compared to LP patients; however, when constructs including C2, T1, T2 were excluded from analysis, these differences lost significance. Such findings highlight the impact of operative extent between these procedures. Future studies incorporating patient reported outcomes and evaluating long-term pain needs will provide a more complete understanding of postoperative outcomes between these 2 procedures.

Laminoplasty-an underutilized procedure for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

BACKGROUND CONTENT: Cervical laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy and fusion (LF) are commonly used surgical techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Several recent studies have demonstrated superior perioperative metrics and decreased overall costs with LP, yet LF is performed far more often in the United States. PURPOSE: To determine the percentage of patients with CSM who are radiographically candidates for LP. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients >18 years old who underwent LF or LP for CSM at 2 large academic institutions from 2017 to 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Candidacy for LP based on radiographic criteria. METHODS: Radiographs were assessed by 2 spine surgeons not involved in the care of the patients to determine the C2-C7 Cobb angle and the presence and extent of cervical instability. Patients with kyphosis >13°, > 3.5 mm of listhesis on static imaging, or > 2.5 mm of motion on flexion-extension or standing-supine films were not considered candidates for LP. Intraclass coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the interobserver reliability of angular measurements and the presence of instability. The percentage of patients for whom LP was contraindicated was calculated. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients underwent LF while 142 underwent LP. Of the 108 patients who underwent LF, 79.6% were radiographically deemed candidates for LP, as were all 142 patients who underwent LP. The ICC for C2-C7 alignment was 0.90; there was 97% agreement with respect to the presence of instability. CONCLUSIONS: In 250 patients with CSM, 228 (91.2%) were radiographically candidates for LP. These data suggest that LP may be an underutilized procedure for the treatment for CSM.

Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a cost analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Laminectomy with fusion (LF) and laminoplasty (LP) are commonly used to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The decision regarding which procedure to perform is largely a matter of surgeon's preference, while financial implications are rarely considered. PURPOSE: We aimed to better understand the financial considerations of LF compared to LP in the treatment of CSM. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients, 18 years of age or older, who had undergone LF or LP for CSM from 2017 to 2019 at 2 large academic centers were included. Patients who had undergone previous cervical spine surgery or procedures that extended above C2 or below T2 were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was defined as the total cost of the procedure, which was calculated as the sum of the implant and non-implant supply costs. METHODS: Patient demographics, surgical parameters, including estimated blood loss and operative time, and length of stay were collected. Operating room material - both implant and non-implant - cost data was also obtained. Variables were analyzed individually as well as after adjustment based on the number of operative levels involved. Statistical analysis was performed using either Student t test with unequal variance or Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and chi-squared analysis for categorical variables. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty patients were identified who met inclusion criteria. There was no statistical difference in the mean age at time of surgery (p=.25), gender distribution (p=.33), or re-operation rate between the LF and LP groups (p=.39). Overall, operative time was similar between the LF (165.7 ± 61.9 min) and LP (173.8 ± 58.2 min) groups (p=.29), but the LP cohort had a shorter length of stay at 3.8 ± 2.7 days compared to the LF cohort at 4.8 ± 3.7 days. Implant costs in the LF group were significantly more at $6,204.94 ± $1426.41 compared to LP implant costs at $1994.39 ± $643.09. Mean total costs of LP were significantly less at $2,859.08 ± $784.19 compared to LF total costs of $6,983.16 ± $1,589.17. Furthermore, when adjusted for the number of operative levels, LP remained significantly less costly at $766.12 ± $213.64 per level while LF cost $1,789.05 ± $486.66 per operative level. Additional subgroup analysis limiting the cohorts to patients with either three or four involved vertebral levels demonstrated nearly identical cost savings with LP as compared to LF. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that LF is on average at least 2.4 times the total operative supply cost of LP and at least 2.3 times the operative supply cost of LP when adjusted for the number of operative levels. In patients deemed appropriate for either LP or LF, these data may be incorporated into decision-making for the treatment of CSM.