Search

Introduction Cervical myelopathy is a common indication for spine surgery. Modern medicine demands high quality, cost-effective treatment. Most cost analyses fail to account for complication costs from nonoperative treatment. The purpose is to compare the total health care costs for operative versus nonoperative treatment of cervical myelopathy. Methods The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Carrier File from 2005 to 2012 was reviewed using the PearlDiver database, representing a 5% sampling of Medicare billings which diagnosed patients with cervical myelopathy by International Classification of Diseases 9 code. Patients were separated into operative and nonoperative cohorts, and the total health care expenditures per patient normalized to 2012 dollars were collected. Results A total of 3209 patients were included, and 1755 (55.87%) underwent surgery. A 6-year cost analysis performed on 309 patients over the age of 65 from 2006 undergoing surgery resulted in a nonsignificant increase in total health care expenditures ($166,192 vs. $153,556; P=0.45). Operative treatment had a net decrease in total health care costs following the first year of surgery. Conclusions There is no significant difference in the total health care expenditures for operative versus nonoperative treatment of cervical myelopathy after 3 years. It is critical to understand that nonoperative treatment of this progressive disease leads to a substantial increase in total health care expenditures with increased risk of falls, injury, and further morbidity.

Study design A retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective Compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcome metrics in patients undergoing primary and revision anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Summary of background data ACDF is associated with significant improvements in HRQOL outcome metrics. However, 2.9% of patients per year will develop symptomatic adjacent segment disease and there is a paucity of literature on HRQOL outcomes after revision ACDF. Methods Patients were identified who underwent either a primary or revision ACDF, and who had both preoperative and a minimum of 1-year postoperative HRQOL outcome data. Pre- and postoperative Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (SF12 PCS), Short Form 12 Mental Component Score (SF12 MCS) Visual Analog Scale for neck pain (VAS-Neck), VAS-Arm, and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores were compared. Results A total of 360 patients (299 primary, 61 revision) were identified. Significant improvement in SF12 PCS, NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm was seen in both groups; however, only a significant improvement in SF12 MCS was seen in the primary group. When comparing the results of a primary versus a revision surgery, the SF12 PCS score was the only outcome with a significantly different net improvement in the primary group (7.23 ± 9.72) compared to the revision group (2.9 ± 11.07; P = 0.006) despite similar baseline SF12 PCS scores. The improvement in each of the other reported HRQOL outcomes did not significantly vary between surgical groups. Conclusion A revision ACDF for cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy leads to a significant improvement in the HRQOL outcome, and with the exception of the SF12 PCS, these results are similar to those of patients undergoing a primary ACDF. Level of evidence 2.

Patients with spine-associated symptoms are transferred regularly to higher levels of care for operative intervention. It is unclear what factors lead to the transfer of patients with spine pathology to level I care facilities, and which transfers are indicated. All patients with isolated spinal pathology who were transferred from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed. Patients were divided into urgent transfers, defined as anyone who required operative intervention, and nonurgent transfers. Two hundred twenty-seven patients were transferred for isolated spinal pathology over 51 months; 109 (48.0%) patients required urgent intervention and 118 (52.0%) patients required nonurgent care. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of private insurance, age, sex, race, or Charlson comorbidity index. The urgent group was less likely to have a traumatic chief complaint (57.8% vs 78.0%, P = .001). More than half of all spine patients who were transferred to a tertiary care center required minimal intervention.

Study Design This study is a retrospective case control. Objectives This study aims to determine whether cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is associated with increased baseline neck/arm pain and inferior health quality states compared to a similar population without DS. Methods Patient demographics, pre-operative radiographs, and baseline PROMs were reviewed for 315 patients undergoing anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with at least 1 year of follow-up. Patients were categorized based on the presence (S) or absence of a spondylolisthesis (NS). Statistically significant variables were further explored using multiple linear regression analysis. Results 49/242 (20%) patients were diagnosed with DS, most commonly at the C4–5 level (27/49). The S group was significantly older than the NS group (58.0 ± 10.7 vs 51.9 ± 9.81, P = .001), but otherwise, no demographic differences were identified. Although a higher degree of C2 slope was found among the S cohort (22.5 ± 8.63 vs 19.8 ± 7.78, P = .044), no differences were identified in terms of preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) neck pain or NDI. In the univariate analysis, the NS group had significantly increased VAS arm pain relative to the S group (4.93 ± 3.16 vs 3.86 ± 3.30, P = .045), which was no longer significant in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions Although previous reports have suggested an association between cervical DS and neck pain, we could not associate the presence of DS with increased baseline neck or arm pain. Instead, DS appears to be a relatively frequent (20% in this series) age-related condition reflecting radiographic, rather than necessarily clinical, disease.

Study design A retrospective cohort analysis. Objective The aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference in the revision rate in patients who undergo a multilevel posterior cervical fusions ending at C7, T1, or T2-T4. Summary of background data Multilevel posterior cervical decompression and fusion is a common procedure for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy, but there is little literature available to help guide the surgeon in choosing the caudal level of a multilevel posterior cervical fusion. Methods Patients who underwent a three or more level posterior cervical fusion with at least 1 year of clinical follow-up were identified. Patients were separated into three groups on the basis of the caudal level of the fusion, C7, T1, or T2-T4, and the revision rate was determined. In addition, the C2-C7 lordosis and the C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was recorded for patients with adequate radiographic follow-up at 1 year. Results The overall revision rate was 27.8% (61/219 patients); a significant difference in the revision rates was identified between fusions terminating at C7, T1, and T2-T4 (35.3%, 18.3%, and 40.0%, P = 0.008). When additional variables were taken into account utilizing multivariate linear regression modeling, patients whose construct terminated at C7 were 2.29 (1.16-4.61) times more likely to require a revision than patients whose construct terminated at T1 (P = 0.02), but no difference between stopping at T1 and T2-T4 was identified. Conclusion Multilevel posterior cervical fusions should be extended to T1, as stopping a long construct at C7 increases the rate of revision. Level of evidence 3.

Study design This is a prospective case series. Objective To determine the actual cost of performing 1- or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using actual patient data and the time-driven activity-based cost methodology. Summary of background data As health care shifts to use value-based reimbursement, it is imperative to determine the true cost of surgical procedures. Time-driven activity-based costing determines the cost of care by determining the actual resources used in each step of the care cycle. Materials and methods In total, 30 patients who underwent a 1- or 2-level ACDF by 3 surgeons at a specialty hospital were prospectively enrolled. To build an accurate process map, a research assistant accompanied the patient to every step in the care cycle including the preoperative visit, the preadmission testing, the surgery, and the postoperative visits for the first 90 days. All resources utilized and the time spent with every member of the care team was recorded. Results In total, 27 patients were analyzed. Eleven patients underwent a single-level ACDF and 16 underwent a 2-level fusion. The total cost for the episode of care was $29,299±$5048. The overwhelming cost driver was the hospital disposable costs ($13,920±$6325) which includes every item used during the hospital stay. Intraoperative personnel costs including fees for the surgeon, resident/fellow, anesthesia, nursing, surgical technician, neuromonitoring, radiology technician and orderlies, accounted for the second largest cost at $6066±$1540. The total cost excluding hospital overhead and disposables was $9071±$1939. Conclusions Reimbursement for a bundle of care surrounding a 1- or 2-level ACDF should be no less than $29,299 to cover the true costs of the care for the entire care cycle. However, this cost may not include the true cost of all capital expenditures, and therefore may underestimate the cost.