Indications for Spine surgery: Validation of an administrative coding algorithm to classify degenerative diagnoses

Spine

Volumn 39, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 769-779

  Martin, Brook I ^a   Lurie, Jon D ^a   Tosteson, Anna N A ^a   Deyo, Richard A ^b   Tosteson, Tor D ^a   Weinstein, James N ^a   Mirza, Sohail K ^a  

^a DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

administrative data; back pain; sensitivity and specifi city; spine surgery; surgical indication

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CODING ALGORITHM; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK HERNIA; LUMBAR DISK HERNIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICARE; PATIENT CODING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINE SURGERY; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS; AGED; ALGORITHM; CLASSIFICATION; CODING; FEMALE; MALE; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINE; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION STUDY; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; CLINICAL CODING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICARE; ORTHOPEDIC PROCEDURES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84899640618     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000275     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Deyo RA, Dray DT, Kreuter W, et al. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1441-5; discussion 1446-7.
2. 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.
3. Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA 2008; 299: 656-64.
4. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Franklin GM, et al. Hospital and surgeon variation in complications and repeat surgery following incident lumbar fusion for common degenerative diagnoses. Health Serv Res 2013; 48: 1-25
5. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, ed. The Burden of Musculoskeletal Diseases in the United States. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2008.
6. Sood N, Huckfeldt PJ, Escarce JJ, et al. Medicare's bundled payment pilot for acute and postacute care: analysis and recommendations on where to begin. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30: 1708-17.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. 2010; Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm.htm. Accessed November 18, 2013.
8. Wang MC, Laud PW, Macias M, et al. Utility of a combined CPT and ICD9-CM code algorithm in classifying cervical spine surgery for degenerative changes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36(22):1843-8. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f7a943.
9. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Volinn E, et al. Use of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM) to identify hospitalizations for mechanical low back problems in administrative databases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1992; 17: 817-25.
10. Romano PS, Schembri ME, Rainwater JA. Can administrative data be used to compare postoperative complication rates across hospitals? Med Care 2002; 40: 856-67.
11. Dang AB, Garfin SR. Can statistics alone add clinical meaning to non-specific billing databases? Commentary on an article by Richard A. Deyo, MD, MPH, et al.: "Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis. " J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: e1281-2.
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.
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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28: 502-7.
14. Omoto D, Bederman SS, Yee AJ, et al. How do validated measures of functional outcome compare with commonly used outcomes in administrative database research for lumbar spinal surgery? Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 1369-77.
15. Koepsell TD, Weiss N. Epidemiological Methods: Studying the Occurrence of Illness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003.
16. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 794-810.
17. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonop-erative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 2441-50.
18. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 1295-304.
19. American Medical Association, CPT Code Update (CPT Assistant). CPT Assistant Archives, 1990-2010 [CD-ROM]. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2011.
20. Deyo RA. Diagnostic evaluation of LBP: reaching a specific diagnosis is often impossible. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1444-7; discussion 1447-8.