Search

Background Context: In 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established a list of hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) with significant deleterious effects on both patients and providers. Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is complex and highly invasive, and as such may result in significant morbidity including these HACs., Purpose: Identify predictors for developing the most common HACs among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients undergoing corrective surgery., Study Design/setting: Retrospective analysis., Patient Sample: One thousand one hundred and seventy-one ASD patients., Outcome Measures: HACs, Health-Related Quality of Life scores(HRQLs), Reoperation, Integrated Health State (IHS) METHODS: ASD pts undergoing surgery (>18 years, scoliosis ≥20°, SVA ≥5 cm, PT ≥25° and/or TK >60°) with complete data at BL and up to 2 years post-op were included. Patients were stratified by presence of >1 HAC, defined as at least one superficial/deep SSI, UTI, DVT, or PE within a 30-day post-op window. Random forest analysis generated 5,000 Conditional Inference Trees to compute a variable importance table for top predictors of HACs. An area-under-the-curve (AUC) methodology compared normalized HRQL scores between groups to determine an IHS with 2-year follow-up., Results: Total of 1,171 pts (59.8 years, 76.2%F, 28.1kg/m 2 ) underwent corrective ASD surgery, with 1,053 pts in the non-HAC group and 118 in the HAC group. Of these pts, 25.4% had UTI, 15.4% DVT, 19.2% superficial SSI, 20.8% deep SSI, and 19.2% PE. HAC pts were on average older (63.5 vs 59.3, p=.004) and more often frail (51.3 vs 39.7%, p=.021) than non-HAC pts. Postop LOS and reoperation were most associated with HAC groups: [1] LOS >7 days [2] reoperation. Patient-related predictors of HACs were [3] age >50 yerr, [4] frailty, and [13] BMI >31. Procedure-related predictors of HACs were [5] operative-time >405 minutes, [6] levels fused >9, EBL >1450 mL, and [11] decompression. BL radiographic predictors were [7] PT >20°, [9] PI-LL>6°, [10] TL Cobb angle >15°, [12] SVA C7-S1 >29 mm. No differences were observed between groups with regards to IHS ODI (0.73 vs 0.74, p=.863), SRS (1.3 vs1.3, p=.374), NRS Back (0.6 vs 0.6, p=.158). HAC had higher rates of reoperation than non-HAC (0.08 vs 0.01, p=.066), and any HAC within 30-days of index was a significant predictor of reoperation (OR: 2.448 [1.94-3.09], p<.001)., Conclusions: In a population of ASD patients, HACs were associated with length of stay, reoperation, age, and frailty. Radiographic parameters such as pelvic tilt >20°, PI-LL >6°, & SVA >29 mm also increased odds of HACs, and should raise postoperative awareness for HAC development., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background Context: Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine fusion, such as minimally invasive (MIS) or robotic-assisted spine surgery. However, it is unknown how these advances have impacted the cost of care., Purpose: Compare the economic outcomes of lumbar spine fusion between open, MIS, and robot-assisted surgery patients., Study Design/setting: Retrospective review of a single center spine surgery database., Patient Sample: Three hundred sixty propensity matched patients., Outcome Measures: Costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY)., Methods: Inclusion criteria: surgical patients >18 years undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on procedure type: open, MIS, or robotic. Open patients undergoing poster spinal fusion were considered as the control group. MIS patients included those undergoing transforaminal or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous screws. Robotic patients were those undergoing robot-assisted fusion. Propensity score matching was performed between all groups for the number of levels fused. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, which reflects both private insurance and Medicare reimbursement claims for ICD-9 codes. For robotic cases, costs were reflective of operational fees and initial purchase cost. Complications and comorbidities and major complications and comorbidities were assessed according to CMS.gov manual definitions. QALYs and cost per QALY were calculated using a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline to life expectancy (78.7 years). Costs per QALY were calculated for both 1 year and life expectancy, assuming no loss of benefit. A 10,000 trial Monte Carlo simulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) assessed our model parameters and costs., Results: Three hundred sixty propensity matched patients (120 open, 120 MIS, 120 robotic) met inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics for the cohort were: age 58.8±13.5, 50% women, BMI 29.4±6.3, operative time 294.4±119.0, LOS 4.56±3.31 days, estimated blood loss 515.9±670.0 cc, and 2.3±2.2 average levels fused. Rates of post-op complications were significantly higher in robotic cases versus open and MIS (43% vs. 21% and 22% for open and MIS, p<.05). However, revision rates were comparable between all groups (3% open, 3% MIS, 5% robotic, p>.05). After factoring in complications, revisions, and purchasing and operating fees, the costs of robotic cases was significantly higher than both open and MIS surgery ($60,047.01 vs. $42,538.98 open and $41,471.21 MIS). In a subanalysis of 42 patients with baseline (BL) and 1Y EQ5D data, the cost per QALY at 1Y for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases was $296,624.48, $115,911.69, and $592,734.30. If utility gained was sustained to life expectancy, the cost per QALY was $14,905.75, $5,824.71, $29,785.64 for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases. Results of the PSA were consistent with MIS surgery having the most incremental cost effectiveness when compared to open and robotic surgery., Conclusions: Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine surgery, however, there has been limited discussion of the effect these advances have on economic outcomes. When matched for levels fused, robot-assisted surgery patients had significantly higher rates of complications and 30% higher costs of surgery compared to minimally invasive and open spine surgery patients. While 1 year economic outcomes were not optimal for robotic surgery cases, the projected costs per QALYs at life expectancy were well below established acceptable thresholds. The above findings may be reflective of an educational learning curve and emerging surgical technologies undergoing progressive refinement., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known of how frailty, a dynamic measure of physiological age, progresses relative to age or disability status. Operative treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) may play a role in frailty remediation and maintenance., Purpose: Compare frailty status, severe frailty development, and factors influencing severe frailty development among ASD patients undergoing operative or nonoperative treatment., Design: Retrospective review with maximum follow-up of 3 years., Setting: Prospective, multicenter, ASD database., Participants: Patients were consecutively enrolled from 13 participating centers., Inclusion Criteria: ≥18 years undergoing either operative or nonoperative treatment for ASD, exclusion criteria: spinal deformity of neuromuscular etiology, presence of active infection, or malignancy. The mean age of the participants analyzed were 54.9 for the operative cohort and 55.0 for the nonoperative cohort., Outcomes Measures: Frailty status, severe frailty development, and factors influencing severe frailty development., Methods: ASD patients (coronal scoliosis ≥20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≥5 cm, Pelvic Tilt (PT) ≥25°, or thoracic kyphosis ≥60°) >18 y/o, with Base Line (BL) frailty scores were included. Frailty was scored from 0 to 1 (not frail: <0.3, frail 0.3-0.5, severe frailty >0.5) through the use of ASD-frailty index (FI) which has been validated using the International Spine Study Group (ISSG) ASD database, European Spine Study Group ASD database, and the Scoli-RISK-1 Patient Database. The ISSG is funded through research grants from DePuy Synthes and individual donations and supported the current work. Operative (Op) and Nonoperative (Non-Op) patients were propensity matched. T-tests compared frailty among treatment groups and BL, 1, 2, and ≥3 years. An actuarial Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis with log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test, adjusting for patients lost to follow-up, determined probability of severe frailty development. Multivariate Cox Regressions gauged the effect of sagittal malalignment, patient and surgical details on severe frailty development., Results: The analysis includes 472 patients (236 Op, 236 Non-Op) selected by propensity score matching from a cohort of 1,172. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups (p>.05). Op exhibited decreased frailty at all follow-up intervals compared with BL (BL: 0.22 vs Y1: 0.18; Y2: 0.16; Y3: 0.15, all p<.001). Non-Op displayed similar frailty from BL to 2Y follow up, and increased frailty at 3Y follow up (0.23 vs 0.25, p=.014). Compared with Non-Op, Op had lower frailty at 1Y (0.18 vs 0.24), 2Y (0.16 vs 0.23), and 3Y (0.15 vs 0.25; all p<.001). Cumulative probability of maintaining nonsevere frailty was (Op: 97.7%, Non-Op: 94.5%) at 1Y, (Op: 95.1%, Non-Op: 90.4%) at 2Y, and (Op: 95.1%, Non-Op: 89.1%) at ≥3Y, (p=.018). Among all patients, baseline depression (hazard ratio: 2.688[1.172-6.167], p=.020), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) back pain scores (HR: 1.247[1.012-1.537], p=.039), and nonoperative treatment (HR: 2.785[1.167-6.659], p=.021) predicted severe frailty development with having a HR>1.0 and p value<.05. Among operative patients, 6-week postoperative residual SVA malalignment (SRS-Schwab SVA+modifier) (HR: 15.034[1.922-116.940], p=.010) predicted severe frailty development indicated by having a HR>1.0 and p value <.05., Conclusions: Non-Op patients were more likely to develop severe frailty, and at a quicker rate. Baseline depression, increased NRS back pain scores, nonoperative treatment, and postoperative sagittal malalignment at 6-week follow-up significantly predicted severe frailty development. Operative intervention and postoperative sagittal balance appear to play significant roles in frailty remediation and maintenance in ASD patients. Frailty is one factor, in a multifactorial conservation, that may be considered when determining operative or nonoperative values for ASD patients. Operating before the onset of severe frailty, may result in a lower complication risk and better long-term clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Obesity has risen to epidemic proportions within the United States. As the rates of obesity have increased, so has its prevalence among patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The effect of obesity on the cost efficiency of corrective procedures for ASD has not been effectively evaluated., Purpose: To investigate differences in cost efficiency of ASD surgery for patients stratified by body mass index (BMI)., Study Design/setting: Retrospective review of a single-center ASD database., Patient Sample: Five hundred five ASD patients., Outcome Measures: Complications, revisions, costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost per QALY., Methods: ASD patients (scoliosis≥20°, SVA≥5 cm, PT≥25°, or TK ≥60°) ≥18, undergoing ≥4 level fusions were included. Patients were stratified into NIH-defined obesity groups based on their preoperative BMI: underweight 18.5< (U), normal 18.5 to 24.9 (N), overweight 25.0 to 29.9 (O), obese I 30.0 to 34.9 (OI), obese II 35.0 to 39.9 (OII), and obesity class III 40.0+ (OIII). Total surgery costs for each ASD obesity group were calculated. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, which reflects both private insurance and Medicare reimbursement claims. Overall complications and major complications were assessed according to CMS definitions. QALYs and cost per QALY for obesity groups were calculated using an annual 3% discount up to life expectancy (78.7 years)., Results: In all, 505 patients met inclusion criteria. Baseline demographics and surgical details were: age 60.8±14.8, 67.6% female, BMI 28.8±7.30, 81.0% posterior approach, 18% combined approach, 10.1±4.2 levels fused, op time 441.2±146.1 minutes, EBL 1903.8±1594.7 cc, and LOS 8.7±10.7 days. There were 17 U, 154 N patients, 151 O patients, 100 OI, 51 OII, and 32 OIII patients. Revision rates by obesity group were: 0% U, 3% N patients, 3% O patients, 5% OI, 4% OII, and 6% for OIII patients. The total surgery costs by obesity group were: $48,757.86 U, $49,688.52 N, $47,219.93 O, $50,467.66 OI, $51,189.47 OII, and $53,855.79 OIII. In an analysis of patients with baseline and 1 Y EQ5D follow-up, the cost per QALY by obesity group was: $153,737.78 U, $229,222.37 N, $290,361.68 O, $493,588.47 OI, $327,876.21 OII, and $171,680.00 OIII. If that benefit was sustained to life expectancy, the cost per QALY was $8,588.70 U, $12,805.72 N, $16,221.32 O, $27,574.77 OI, $18,317.11 OII, and $9,591.06 for OIII., Conclusions: Among adult spinal deformity patients, those with BMIs in the obesity I, obesity II, or obesity class III range had more expensive total surgery costs. When assessing 1 year cost per QALY, obese patients had costs 32% higher than nonobese patients ($224,440.61 vs. $331,048.23). Further research is warranted on the utility of optimizing modifiable preoperative health factors for patients undergoing corrective adult spinal deformity surgery., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)