The economics of minimally invasive spine surgery: The value perspective

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue SUPPL. 26S, 2010, Pages

  Allen, R Todd ^a,b   Garfin, Steven R ^a  

^a UCSD MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b VA SAN DIEGO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

cost effectiveness; economics; endoscopic; indirect costs; mini open; socioeconomics

Indexed keywords

ACUPUNCTURE; ANTERIOR SPINE FUSION; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INJECTION; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDLINE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MORBIDITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTPATIENT CARE; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REHABILITATION; SPINE SURGERY; X RAY FILM;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; ORTHOPEDIC PROCEDURES; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SPINE; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE;

EID: 78650957395     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820238d9     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Rihn JA, Berven S, Allen T, et al. Defining value in spine care. Am J Med Qual 2009;24:4S-14S.
2. Kim DH, Jaikumar S, Kam AC. Minimally invasive spine instrumentation. Neurosurgery 2002;51:S15-25.
3. Smith HE, Rihn JA, Brodke DS, et al. Spine care: evaluation of the efficacy and cost of emerging technology. Am J Med Qual 2009;24:25S-31S.
4. Glassman SD, Polly DW, Dimar JR, et al. The cost effectiveness of single-level instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion at five years after surgery. Spine. In press.
5. Junge A, Frohlich M, Ahrens S, et al. Predictors of bad and good outcome of lumbar spine surgery. A prospective clinical study with 2 years' follow up. Spine 1996;21:1056-64.
6. Slover J, Abdu WA, Hanscom B, et al. The impact of comorbidities on the change in short-form 36 and oswestry scores following lumbar spine surgery. Spine 2006;31:1974-80.
7. Kalanithi PS, Patil CG, Boakye M. National complication rates and disposition after posterior lumbar fusion for acquired spondylolisthesis. Spine 2009; 34:1963-9.
8. Deluzio KJ, Lucio JC, Rodgers WB. Value and cost in less invasive spinal fusion surgery: lessons from a community hospital. SAS J 2010;4:37-40.
9. O'Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Fessler RG. Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;11:471-6.
10. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 2010;1:12.
11. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, et al. An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;12:694-9.
12. Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, et al. The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 2008;33:2108-15.
13. Tosteson AN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:845-53.
14. Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Factors affecting 4-year cost-effectiveness of surgery for stenosis with or without degenerative spon-dylolisthesis in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (Sport). In: International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, Annual Meeting; April 13, 2010; Auckland, New Zealand.
15. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992;146:473-81.
16. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations revisited. CMAJ 1993;148:927-9.
17. Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA 2008;299:656-64.
18. Sacristan JA, Obenchain RL. Reporting cost-effectiveness analyses with confidence. JAMA 1997;277:375.
19. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1339-41.
20. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. The negative side of cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1997;277:1931-2.
21. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, et al. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010;303:1259-65.
22. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 2001;26:2521-32.
23. Kuntz KM, Snider RK, Weinstein JN, et al. Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthe-sis and spinal stenosis. Spine 2000;25:1132-9.
24. Malter AD, Larson EB, Urban N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar discec-tomy for the treatment of herniated intervertebral disc. Spine 1996;21: 1048-54.
25. Soegaard R, Christensen FB, Christiansen T, et al. Costs and effects in lumbar spinal fusion. A follow-up study in 136 consecutive patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2007;16:657-68.
26. Soegaard R, Bunger CE, Christiansen T, et al. Determinants of cost-effectiveness in lumbar spinal fusion using the net benefit framework: a 2-year follow-up study among 695 patients. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1822-31.
27. Dagenais S, Haldeman S, Polatin PB. It is time for physicians to embrace cost-effectiveness and cost utility analysis research in the treatment of spinal pain. Spine J 2005;5:357-60.
28. Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, et al. Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine 1993;18:1463-70.
29. Katz JN. Lumbar spinal fusion. Surgical rates, costs, and complications. Spine 1995;20:78S-83S.
30. Katz JN. Lumbar disc disorders and low-back pain: socioeconomic factors and consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88(suppl 2):21-4.
31. Bijen CB, Vermeulen KM, Mourits MJ, et al. Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials. PLoS One 2009;4:e7340.
32. Newton PO, Wenger DR, Mubarak SJ, et al. Anterior release and fusion in pediatric spinal deformity. A comparison of early outcome and cost of tho-racoscopic and open thoracotomy approaches. Spine 1997;22:1398-406.
33. Rodriguez HE, Connolly MM, Dracopoulos H, et al. Anterior access to the lumbar spine: laparoscopic versus open. Am Surg 2002;68:978-82.
34. Hoogland T, Schubert M, Miklitz B, et al. Transforaminal posterolateral endoscopic discectomy with or without the combination of a low-dose chy-mopapain: a prospective randomized study in 280 consecutive cases. Spine 2006;31:E890 -7.
35. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, et al. Full-endoscopic interlaminar and trans-foraminal lumbar discectomy versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine 2008;33:931-9.
36. Okuda S, Miyauchi A, Oda T, et al. Surgical complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with total facetectomy in 251 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2006;4:304-9. (Pubitemid 47325460)
37. Dekutoski MB, Norvell DC, Dettori JR, et al. Surgeon perceptions and reported complications in spine surgery. Spine 2010;35:S9-21.
38. Brau SA. Mini-open approach to the spine for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: description of the procedure, results and complications. Spine J 2002; 2:216-23.
39. Chung SK, Lee SH, Lim SR, et al. Comparative study of laparoscopic L5-S1 fusion versus open mini-ALIF, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2003;12:613-17.
40. Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open trans-foraminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:560-5.
41. Kaiser MG, Haid RW Jr, Subach BR, et al. Comparison of the mini-open versus laparoscopic approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective review. Neurosurgery 2002;51:97-103.
42. Kim JS, Kang BU, Lee SH, et al. Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009;22:114-21.
43. Knight RQ, Schwaegler P, Hanscom D, et al. Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative conditions: early complication profile. J Spinal Dis-ord Tech 2009;22:34-7.
44. Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson JR. Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): an analysis of 600 cases. Spine. In press.
45. Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 2007;32:537-43.
46. Rodriguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven-Aliaga E, et al. Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 2009;18:1194-201.
47. Schuster JM, Rechtine G, Norvell DC, et al. The influence of perioperative risk factors and therapeutic interventions on infection rates after spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine 2010;35:S125-37.
48. Taheri PA, Butz DA, Greenfield LJ. Length of stay has minimal impact on the cost of hospital admission. J Am Coll Surg 2000;191:123-30.
49. Regan JJ, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, et al. Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine in a multicenter series of the first 34 consecutive patients. Surg Lapa-rosc Endosc 1996;6:459-68.
50. Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, et al. Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 2010;28:E8.
51. Epstein NE. Do silver-impregnated dressings limit infections after lumbar laminectomy with instrumented fusion? Surg Neurol 2007;68:483-5.
52. Faciszewski T, Winter RB, Lonstein JE, et al. The surgical and medical perioperative complications of anterior spinal fusion surgery in the thoracic and lumbar spine in adults. A review of 1223 procedures. Spine 1995;20: 1592-9.
53. Jutte PC, Castelein RM. Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations. Eur Spine J 2002;11:594-8.
54. McAfee PC, Regan JR, Zdeblick T, et al. The incidence of complications in endoscopic anterior thoracolumbar spinal reconstructive surgery. A prospective multicenter study comprising the first 100 consecutive cases. Spine 1995; 20:1624-32.
55. Rihn JA, Patel R, Makda J, et al. Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 2009;9:623-9.
56. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Bulsara KR, et al. Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:92-7.
57. Khan NA, Quan H, Bugar JM, et al. Association of postoperative complications with hospital costs and length of stay in a tertiary care center. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:177-80.
58. Berven SH, Deviren V, Smith JA, et al. Management of fixed sagittal plane deformity: outcome of combined anterior and posterior surgery. Spine 2003; 28:1710-15.
59. Lahiri S, Markkanen P, Levenstein C. The cost effectiveness of occupational health interventions: preventing occupational back pain. Am J Ind Med 2005;48:515-29. (Pubitemid 41746868)
60. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 2004;29:421-34.