Search

Background Context: No consensus exists for defining chronic preoperative opioid use. Most spine studies rely solely on opioid duration to stratify patients into preoperative risk categories.Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare established opioid definitions that contain both duration and dosage to opioid models that rely solely on duration, including the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, in patients undergoing spine surgery.Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study that used opioid data from the Tennessee Controlled Substance Monitoring Database and prospective clinical data from a single-center academic spine registry.Patient Sample: The study cohort consisted of 2,373 patients who underwent elective spine surgery for degenerative conditions between January 2011 and February 2017 and who completed a follow-up assessment at 12 months after surgery.Outcome Measures: Postoperative opioid use and patient-reported satisfaction (NASS Satisfaction Scale), disability (Oswestry/Neck Disability Index), and pain (Numeric Rating Scale) at 12 month follow-up.Methods: Six different chronic preoperative opioid use variables were created based on the number of times a prescription was filled and/or daily morphine milligram equivalent for the one year before surgery. These variables defined chronic opioid use as 1) most days for > 3 months (CDC), 2) continuous use for ≥ 6 months (Schoenfeld), 3) >4,500 mg for at least 9 months (Svendsen wide), 4) >9,000 mg for 12 months (Svendsen intermediary), 5) >18,000 mg for 12 months (Svendsen strict), 6) low-dose chronic (1-36 mg for >91 days), medium-dose chronic (36-120 mg for >91 days), and high-dose chronic (>120 mg for >91 days) (Edlund). Multivariable regression models yielding C-index and R2 values were used to compare chronic preoperative opioid use definitions by postoperative outcomes, adjusting for type of surgery.Results: Chronic preoperative opioid use was reported in 470 to 725 (19.8% to 30.6%) patients, depending on definition. The Edlund definition, accounting for duration and dosage, had the highest predictive ability for postoperative opioid use (77.5%), followed by Schoenfeld (75.7%), CDC (72.6%), and Svendsen (59.9% to 72.5%) definitions. A combined Edlund and Schoenfeld duration and dosage definition in post-hoc analysis, that included 3 and 6 month duration cut-offs, performed the best overall with a C-index of 78.4%. Both Edlund and Schoenfeld definitions explained similar amounts of variance in satisfaction, disability, and pain (4.2% to 8.5%). Svendsen and CDC definitions demonstrated poorer performance for patient-reported outcomes (1.4% to 7.2%).Conclusions: The Edlund definition is recommended for identifying patients at highest risk for postoperative opioid use. When opioid dosage is unavailable, the Schoenfeld definition is a reasonable choice with similar predictive ability. For patient-reported outcomes, either the Edlund or Schoenfeld definition is recommended. Future work should consider combing dosage and duration, with 3 and 6 month cutoffs, into chronic opioid use definitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Two-year cost-utility study comparing minimally invasive (MIS) versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis., Objective: The objective of the study was to determine whether MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a cost-effective advancement in lumbar decompression surgery., Summary of Background Data: MIS-multilevel hemilaminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis allows for effective treatment of back and leg pain while theoretically minimizing blood loss, tissue injury, and postoperative recovery. No studies have evaluated comprehensive healthcare costs associated with multilevel hemilaminectomy procedures, nor assessed cost-effectiveness of MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy., Methods: Fifty-four consecutive patients with lumbar stenosis undergoing multilevel hemilaminectomy through an MIS paramedian tubular approach (n=27) versus midline open approach (n=27) were included. Total back-related medical resource utilization, missed work, and health state values [quality adjusted life years (QALYs), calculated from EuroQuol-5D with US valuation] were assessed after 2-year follow-up. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts (direct cost) and work-day losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Difference in mean total cost per QALY gained for MIS versus open hemilaminectomy was assessed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER: COST(MIS)-COST(OPEN)/QALY(MIS)-QALY(OPEN))., Results: MIS versus open cohorts were similar at baseline. MIS and open hemilaminectomy were associated with an equivalent cumulative gain of 0.72 QALYs 2 years after surgery. Mean direct medical costs, indirect societal costs, and total 2-year cost ($23,109 vs. $25,420; P=0.21) were similar between MIS and open hemilaminectomy. MIS versus open approach was associated with similar total costs and utility, making it a cost equivalent technology compared with the traditional open approach., Conclusions: MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy was associated with similar cost over 2 years while providing equivalent improvement in QALYs. In our experience, MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy is a cost equivalent technology for patients with lumbar stenosis-associated radicular pain.