Search

Purpose: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the spine has been associated with favorable outcomes compared to open surgery. This study evaluated matched cohorts treated with MIS versus open posterior lumbar fusion for costs, payments, healthcare utilization and outcomes. Patients and Methods: This study used the Premier Healthcare and IBM® MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Databases. Patients with posterior lumbar fusion from 2015 to 2018 were identified and categorized as "Open" or "MIS". Cohorts were matched on patient and provider characteristics. Perioperative complications, hospital costs, healthcare utilization and post-operative outcomes and payments to providers were analyzed. Statistical significance was evaluated using T-tests and chi-square tests. Results: After matching, 2,388 Open and 796 MIS from PHD, and 415 Open and 83 MIS from MarketScan were included. Statistically significant differences between MIS versus Open were found for index hospital costs, $29,181 (SD: $14,363) versus $27,616 (SD: $13,822), p=0.01; length of stay, 2.94 (SD: 2.10) versus 3.15 (SD: 2.03) days, p=0.01; perioperative urinary tract infection, 1.01% and 2.09% (p=0.05); and 30-day risk of hematoma/hemorrhage, 19.28% versus 8.43%, p=0.02. There were observed, but statistically non-significant differences in additional perioperative or post-operative complications, home discharge, 90-day all-cause and spine-related readmission, and 90-day post-operative payments. Conclusion: Compared to Open, patients that underwent MIS had statistically significant lower length of stay, lower perioperative UTI, greater hospital costs, and higher 30-day risk of hematoma/hemorrhage. The differences observed in post-operative complications and payments and readmissions warrant further investigation in larger matched cohorts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare economic and clinical outcomes of barbed sutures versus conventional sutures alone in wound closure for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Method: A retrospective study using the Premier Healthcare Database. The database was searched for patients who underwent elective inpatient spinal surgery (fusion or laminectomy) for a spinal disorder between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2018 (first=index admission). Using billing records for medical supplies used during the index admission, patients were classified into mutually-exclusive groups: patients with any use of STRATAFIX (Ethicon, US) knotless tissue control devices (barbed sutures group); or patients with use of conventional sutures alone (conventional sutures group). Outcomes included the index admission's length of stay, total and subcategories of hospital costs, non-home discharge, operating room time (ORT, minutes), wound complications and readmissions within ≤90 days. Propensity score matching and generalised estimating equations were used to compare outcomes between the study groups. Results: After matching, 3705 patients were allocated to each group (mean age=61.5 years [standard deviation, SD±12.9]; 54% were females). Compared with the conventional suture group, the barbed suture group had significantly lower mean ORT (239±117 minutes, versus 263±79 minutes conventional sutures, p=0.015). Operating room costs were also siginificantly lower in the barbed suture group ($6673±$3976 versus $7100±$2700 conventional sutures, p=0.020). Differences were statistically insignificant for other outcomes (all p>0.05). Subanalysis of patients undergoing fusions of ≥2 vertebral joints yielded consistent results. Conclusion: In this study, wound closure incorporating barbed sutures was associated with lower ORT and operating room costs, with no significant difference in wound complications or readmissions, when compared with conventional sutures alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report details a prospectively randomized clinical trial comparing mechanical clamp compression to hand applied pressure for attaining vascular hemostasis after coronary intervention. Effectiveness was determined by comparing the incidence of femoral vascular complications resulting from each of the 2 techniques. Eligible participants included 778 consecutive patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention over an 8-month period. An unselected cohort of the eligible patients (n = 592), determined by the availability of cross-trained clinicians, underwent follow-up serial physical examinations by blinded observers for the duration of their hospital stay. A second, similarly determined cohort (n = 390), underwent color-duplex ultrasonography within 24 hours of sheath removal. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, sheath removal parameters, and subsequent outcomes were collected prospectively. The primary end point was a composite of ultrasound-defined femoral vascular complications: femoral artery thrombosis, echogenic hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, or arteriovenous fistulae formation. Complications diagnosed by physical examination constituted the second fundamental end point and included: persistent oozing, ecchymosis, hematoma, bruit, and pulsatile mass. Compared to manual compression, mechanical clamp hemostasis reduced the primary adverse end point by 63% (p = 0.041). Physical examination detected ecchymosis, oozing, and hematomas at equally high frequencies in the two cohorts. Although 65% of the patients in both treatment groups encountered at least one of these cosmetic complications, the diagnoses made by physical examination did not correlate with ultrasound-defined pathology. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis identified a relationship of advanced age and lower body weight to vascular complications. Utilization of a mechanical clamp rather than conventional hand pressure to attain vascular hemostasis significantly reduces ultrasound-defined femoral vascular pathology. Discrepancies between physical examination and ultrasound diagnoses challenge the utility of clinical assessment alone and establish ultrasound as the diagnostic modality of choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the spine has been associated with favorable outcomes compared to open surgery. This study evaluated matched cohorts treated with MIS versus open posterior lumbar fusion for costs, payments, healthcare utilization and outcomes., Patients and Methods: This study used the Premier Healthcare and IBM ® MarketScan ® Commercial and Medicare Databases. Patients with posterior lumbar fusion from 2015 to 2018 were identified and categorized as "Open" or "MIS". Cohorts were matched on patient and provider characteristics. Perioperative complications, hospital costs, healthcare utilization and post-operative outcomes and payments to providers were analyzed. Statistical significance was evaluated using T -tests and chi-square tests., Results: After matching, 2,388 Open and 796 MIS from PHD, and 415 Open and 83 MIS from MarketScan were included. Statistically significant differences between MIS versus Open were found for index hospital costs, $29,181 (SD: $14,363) versus $27,616 (SD: $13,822), p=0.01; length of stay, 2.94 (SD: 2.10) versus 3.15 (SD: 2.03) days, p=0.01; perioperative urinary tract infection, 1.01% and 2.09% (p=0.05); and 30-day risk of hematoma/hemorrhage, 19.28% versus 8.43%, p=0.02. There were observed, but statistically non-significant differences in additional perioperative or post-operative complications, home discharge, 90-day all-cause and spine-related readmission, and 90-day post-operative payments., Conclusion: Compared to Open, patients that underwent MIS had statistically significant lower length of stay, lower perioperative UTI, greater hospital costs, and higher 30-day risk of hematoma/hemorrhage. The differences observed in post-operative complications and payments and readmissions warrant further investigation in larger matched cohorts., Competing Interests: At the time of this research, all authors were paid employees and/or stockholders of Johnson & Johnson Company. SC currently works at Intrinsic Therapeutics, Inc. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2021 Holy et al.)

Study Design: A retrospective review of the literature., Objective: This work serves as a comprehensive update of cervical arthroplasty., Summary of Background Data: Cervical arthroplasty has developed as a means to preserve normal spinal motion after an anterior cervical discectomy. Preserving motion may lead to an acute improvement in patient outcome and may decrease the incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease in the long-term., Methods: The literature concerning the outcomes following anterior cervical decompression and fusion, the indications for cervical arthroplasty, the indications and contraindications for arthroplasty, the surgical technique, and early outcome studies for those devices currently in U.S. FDA IDE trials are reviewed., Results: The most data are available for the Prestige, Bryan, and ProDisc-C devices. While these devices all preserve normal segmental motion, the articulations vary (metal on metal, metal on polyurethane, and metal on ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene). Wear testing indicates that these devices will have a long life once implanted. Preliminary outcomes compare very favorably to anterior decompression and arthrodesis., Conclusions: Cervical arthroplasty is a promising new technology that may improve patient outcome following anterior cervical decompression.

Iressa (ZD1839) is a p.o.-active, selective, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that blocks signal transduction pathways implicated in cancer cell proliferation, survival, and host-dependent processes promoting cancer growth. EGFR is up-regulated in primary malignant tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) and in many systemic tumors that metastasize to the CNS. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of p.o.-administered ZD1839 for the treatment of established intracerebral (i.c.) tumors expressing EGFR or the tumorigenic mutated variant EGFRvIII, which is constitutively phosphorylated. Oral administration of ZD1839 at 50 or 100 mg/kg/day for 3 weeks in athymic mice with established i.c. A431 human epidermoid carcinoma expressing EGFR increased median survival by 88% (P = 0.009) and 105% (P < 0.001), respectively. Additionally, there was no evidence of systemic or CNS toxicity. However, ZD1839 failed to inhibit either s.c. or i.c. in vivo tumor growth when tumorigenicity was conferred by EGFRvIII. Western blotting revealed that treatment with ZD1839 virtually ablated phosphorylation of EGFR Tyr-1173 in A431 tumors. However, treatment of NR6M tumors with ZD1839 only partially decreased phosphorylation of EGFRvIII Tyr-1173 while up-regulating overall expression, suggesting that EGFRvIII may not be susceptible to the same molecular mechanisms of tyrosine kinase inhibition as EGFR. In conclusion, ZD1839 is active in a brain tumor model expressing EGFR, but not EGFRvIII, as EGFR mutations may lead to relative therapeutic resistance. On the basis of these observations, we believe that clinical trials of ZD1839 against brain tumors expressing EGFR are warranted, but that special consideration should be given to tumors that coexpress EGFRvIII.