Cost-benefit analysis: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spinal surgeries

Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 280-286

  Ney, John P ^a   Van Der Goes, David N ^b   Watanabe, Jon H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^c WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Decision modeling; Intraoperative monitoring; Spinal surgery

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; LIFESPAN; MEDICARE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NEUROLOGICAL COMPLICATION; NEUROMONITORING; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; PEROPERATIVE CARE; REIMBURSEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINE SURGERY;

ADULT; COMORBIDITY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL MONITORING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROSURGICAL PROCEDURES; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PREVALENCE; RISK FACTORS; SPINAL DISEASES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WASHINGTON;

EID: 84879872522     PISSN: 07360258     EISSN: 15371603     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0b013e3182933d8f     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ayoub C, Zreik T, Sawaya R, et al. Significance and cost-effectiveness of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in cervical spine surgery. Neurol India 2010;58: 424-428.
2. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health care evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
3. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Physician fee schedule, by HCPCS Code. Available at: http: //www.cms.gov/. Accessed December 19, 2011.
4. Elixhauser A, Andrews RM. Profile of inpatient operating room procedures in US hospitals in 2007. Arch Surg 2010;145: 1201-1208.
5. Erickson L, Costa V, McGregor M. Use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. Technology Assessment Unit (TAU) of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC), 2005.
6. Fehlings MG, Brodke DS, Norvell DC, Dettori Jr. The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35: S37-S46.
7. Kaye D, Brasel KJ, Neideen T, Weigelt JA. Screening for blunt cerebrovascular injuries is cost-effective. J Trauma 2011;70: 1051-1056; discussion 6-7.
8. Malhotra NR, Shaffrey CI. Intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring in spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35: 2167-2179.
9. Miller T, Hoskin A, Yalung-Mathews D. A procedure for annually estimating wage losses due to accidents in the U.S. J Saf Res 1987;18: 101-119.
10. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center. Spinal cord injury, facts and figures at a glance, Feb 2010. Available at: https: //www.nscisc.uab.edu/. Accessed December 20, 2011.
11. Ney JP, van der Goes DN, Watanabe JH. Cost-effectiveness of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for spinal surgeries: beginning steps. Clin Neurophysiol 2012;123: 1705-1707.
12. Nuwer MR, Emerson RG, Galloway G, et al. Evidence-based guideline update: Intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials. Neurology 2012;78: 585-589.
13. Pettiti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
14. Sala F, Dvorak J, Faccioli F. Cost effectiveness of multimodal intraoperative monitoring during spine surgery. Eur Spine J 2007;16(suppl 2): S229-S231.
15. Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Muller A, Dvorak J. Multimodal intraoperative monitoring: an overview and proposal of methodology based on 1,017 cases. Eur Spine J 2007;16(suppl 2): S153-S161.
16. Wiedemayer H, Fauser B, Sandalcioglu IE, et al. The impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring on surgical decisions: a critical analysis of 423 cases. J Neurosurg 2002;96: 255-262.
17. Yadla S, Malone J, Campbell PG, et al. Early complications in spine surgery and relation to preoperative diagnosis: a single-center prospective study. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13: 360-366.