Search

Background: The first instance of a robotic-assisted surgery occurred in neurosurgery; however, it is now more common in other fields such as urology and gynecology. This study aims to characterize the prevalence of robotic surgery among current neurosurgery programs as well as identify trends in clinical trials pertaining to robotic neurosurgery. Methods: Each institution's website was analyzed for the mention of a robotic neurosurgery program and procedures. The future potential of robotics in neurosurgery was assessed by searching for current clinical trials pertaining to neurosurgical robotic surgery. Results: Of the top 100 programs, 30 offer robotic cranial and 40 offer robotic spinal surgery. No significant differences were observed with robotic surgical offerings between geographic regions in the US. Larger programs (faculty size 16 or over) had 20 of the 30 robotic cranial programs (66.6%), whereas 21 of the 40 robotic spinal programs (52.5%) were at larger programs. An initial search of clinical trials revealed 223 studies, of which only 13 pertained to robotic neurosurgery. Spinal fixation was the most common intervention (six studies), followed by Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS, two studies), Cochlear implants (two studies), laser ablation (LITT, one study), and endovascular embolization (one study). Most studies had industry sponsors (9/13 studies), while only five studies had hospital sponsors. Conclusion: Robotic neurosurgery is still in its infancy with less than half of the top programs offering robotic procedures. Future directions for robotics in neurosurgery appear to be focused on increased automation of stereotactic procedures such as DBS and LITT and robot-assisted spinal surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although both neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons specialize in spinal care, it is not clear how this increased demand for spine surgeons has affected these fields. In this study, we aim to characterize the total number, geographic distribution, and procedural rate of laminectomies of spine surgeons by their primary specialty from 2012 to 2017. Neurosurgical and orthopedic data from 2012 to 2017 were obtained from the Medicare Provider Utilization Database. The databases were filtered by the primary specialty to include "Neurosurgeons" and "Orthopedic surgery." To select specifically for spine surgeons, the 203 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes relating to spinal procedures were chosen as additional filters. Between 2012 and 2017, the total number of spine surgeons in the United States increased by 9.6% from 3,861 to 4,241 total surgeons. The South experienced the largest percentage increase in spine surgeons from 1,584 surgeons in 2012 to 1,769 in 2017 (11.7%). Over this 5-year span, neurosurgeons performed a greater share of both cervical and lumbar laminectomies, but orthopedic spine surgeons saw a greater increase in procedural growth (+87.2% cervical and +16.7% lumbar). There is relatively slow growth in the workforce of spinal surgery, with orthopedic spine specialists outpacing the growth seen in neurosurgical spine. This growth is seen at different rates across different regions in the U.S., with the South experiencing the highest rate of growth. Finally, although neurologic surgery performs more laminectomies in both the lumbar and cervical region, orthopedic surgeons are quickly increasing their proportion of performed procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) allow spine surgeons to provide relief for patients who suffer from chronic pain due to several disorders, such as failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and neuropathy. Despite this, there remains a paucity of data regarding the utilization and reimbursement of SCS. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the monetary and procedural trends of spinal cord stimulators among the Medicare database from 2000 to 2019. Medicare Part B National Summary Data files, which are publicly available, were used. These files contain data from the years 2000–2019 on all services billed to Medicare within that time frame. Each service is given a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code and the number of times that service was performed, as well as the total physician Medicare charges and reimbursements for each service annually are included in that data set. The CPT codes for percutaneous and open placement of spinal cord stimulators were identified: 63650 and 63655, respectively. The total allowed services allowed charges and actual payments were isolated from the data set for each year for each CPT code. The total allowed charges and actual payments for the year were then divided by the total allowed services to find and trend the allowed charges and actual payment for each individual service performed for both percutaneous and open placement of spinal cord stimulators. There were 992,372 Medicare-approved total percutaneous spinal cord stimulator operations and 99,736 Medicare-approved total open spinal cord stimulator operations from 2000 to 2019. Medicare paid $1.02 billion (2019 U.S. dollars) in reimbursement to physicians for percutaneous spinal cord stimulator operations and nearly $145 million (2019 U.S. dollars) in reimbursement to physicians for open spinal cord stimulator operations. From the years 2000 to 2019, there was an average 21.9% increase annually in Medicare-approved percutaneous spinal stimulator placement operations and a 18.4% increase annually in Medicare-approved open spinal stimulator placement operations. During this time, there was also an average 8.7% increase annually in Medicare reimbursement per each percutaneous spinal stimulator placement operation and a 9.1% increase annually in Medicare reimbursement per each open spinal stimulator placement operation. The results of this study show that the number of percutaneous and open procedures have steadily increased from 2000 to 2019. Reimbursement per procedure has also increased steadily over this time. Identifying these trends is important to promote research into costs of these surgeries and ensure adequate resource allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]