Utility of a combined current procedural terminology and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code algorithm in classifying cervical spine surgery for degenerative changes

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 22, 2011, Pages 1843-1848

  Wang, Marjorie C ^a   Laud, Purushottam W ^a   Macias, Melissa ^a   Nattinger, Ann B ^a  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

cervical spine; Clinical Modifi cation(ICD 9 CM); Current Procedural Terminology (CPT); degenerative disease; International Classifi cation of Diseases; Ninth Revision; sensitivity; specifi city; spine surgery

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; FACTUAL DATABASE; FORAMINOTOMY; GOLD STANDARD; HOSPITAL BILLING; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; LAMINECTOMY; LAMINOPLASTY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PATIENT CODING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINE FUSION; SPINE SURGERY; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ALGORITHMS; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; CURRENT PROCEDURAL TERMINOLOGY; DATA MINING; DATABASES AS TOPIC; DISKECTOMY; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES; LAMINECTOMY; ORTHOPEDIC PROCEDURES; PATIENT DISCHARGE; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINAL FUSION; WISCONSIN;

EID: 80053952245     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f7a943     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Cherkin DC , Deyo RA , Volinn E , et al. Use of the International Classifi cation of Diseases (ICD-9-CM) to identify hospitalizations for mechanical low back problems in administrative databases . Spine 1992; 17:817-25.
2. Cowan JA Jr , Dimick JB , Wainess R , et al. Changes in the utilization of spinal fusion in the United States . Neurosurgery 2006; 59:15 - 20 . Discussion 15-20.
3. Deyo RA , Gray DT , Kreuter W , et al. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions . Spine 2005; 30:1441 - 5 . Discussion 1446-7. (Pubitemid 41760293)
4. Deyo RA , Mirza SK . Trends and variations in the use of spine surgery . Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 443:139-46. (Pubitemid 44324944)
5. Faciszewski T . Spine update. Administrative databases in spine research . Spine 1997; 22:1270-5. (Pubitemid 27259845)
6. Gray DT , Deyo RA , Kreuter W , et al. Population-based trends in volumes and rates of ambulatory lumbar spine surgery . Spine 2006; 31:1957 - 3 . Discussion 1964. (Pubitemid 44297776)
7. Patil PG , Turner DA , Pietrobon R . National trends in surgical procedures for degenerative cervical spine disease: 1990-2000 . Neurosurgery 2005; 57:753 - 8 . Discussion 753-8.
8. Shamji MF , Cook C , Pietrobon R , et al. Impact of surgical approach on complications and resource utilization of cervical spine fusion: a nationwide perspective to the surgical treatment of diffuse cervical spondylosis . Spine J 2009; 9:31-8.
9. Wang MC , Chan L , Maiman DJ , et al. Complications and mortality associated with cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the United States . Spine 2007; 32:342-7. (Pubitemid 46197474)
10. Weinstein JN , Bronner KK , Morgan TS , et al. Trends and geographic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine . Health Aff (Millwood) 2004 ;( suppl variation ): VAR81 - 9.
11. Weinstein JN , Lurie JD , Olson PR , et al. United States' trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992-2003 . Spine 2006; 31:2707-14. (Pubitemid 44679601)
12. Faciszewski T , Broste SK , Fardon D . Quality of data regarding diagnoses of spinal disorders in administrative databases. A multicenter study . J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79:1481-8. (Pubitemid 27459293)
13. Faciszewski T , Jensen R , Berg RL . Procedural coding of spinal surgeries (CPT-4 versus ICD-9-CM) and decisions regarding standards: a multicenter study . Spine 2003; 28:502-7. (Pubitemid 36330841)
14. Wang MC , Laud PW , Macias MM , et al. Strengths and limitations of International Classifi cation of Disease 9th Revision Clinical Modifi cation (ICD9-CM) Codes in defi ning cervical spine surgery . Spine 2011; 36:E38 - 44.
15. King JT Jr , Abbed KM , Gould GC , et al. Cervical spine reoperation rates and hospital resource utilization after initial surgery for degenerative cervical spine disease in 12,338 patients in Washington State . Neurosurgery 2009; 65:1011 - 22 .Discussion 1022-13.
16. Agresti A , Coull BA . Approximate is better than "exact" for interval estimation of binomial proportions . Am Stat 1998; 52:119-26.
17. Wang MC , Kreuter W , Wolfla CE , et al. Trends and variations in cervical spine surgery in the United States: Medicare benefi ciaries, 1992 to 2005 . Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:955 - 61 . Discussion 962-53.
18. Mirza SK , Deyo RA , Heagerty PJ , et al. Development of an index to characterize the "invasiveness" of spine surgery: validation by comparison to blood loss and operative time . Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33:2651-61 . Discussion 2662.
19. Boakye M , Patil CG , Ho C , et al. Cervical corpectomy: complications and outcomes . Neurosurgery 2008; 63 ( suppl 2 ): 295 - 301 . Discussion 301-2.