Literature DB >> 20439654

Hospital cost analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction surgery in 125 consecutive cases.

Jonathan R Kamerlink1, Martin Quirno, Joshua D Auerbach, Andrew H Milby, Lynne Windsor, Laura Dean, Joseph W Dryer, Thomas J Errico, Baron S Lonner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although achieving clinical success is the main goal in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, it is becoming increasingly important to do so in a cost-effective manner. The goal of the present study was to determine the surgical and hospitalization costs, charges, and reimbursements for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction surgery at one institution.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 16,536 individual costs and charges, including overall reimbursements, for 125 consecutive patients who were managed surgically for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by three different surgeons between 2006 and 2007. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were recorded for each patient. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was employed to assess independent correlation with total cost and charge. Nonparametric descriptive statistics were calculated for total cost with use of the Lenke curve-classification system.
RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 15.2 years. The mean main thoracic curve measured 50 degrees, and the thoracolumbar curve measured 41 degrees. The cost varied with Lenke curve type: $29,955 for type 1, $31,414 for type 2, $31,975 for type 3, $60,754 for type 4, $32,652 for type 5, and $33,416 for type 6. Independently significant increases for total cost were found in association with the number of pedicle screws placed, the total number of vertebral levels fused, and the type of surgical approach (R(2) = 0.35, p <or= 0.03). Independently significant increases for reimbursement were found in association with the number of pedicle screws placed and the type of surgical approach (R(2) = 0.12, p <or= 0.02). The hospital was reimbursed 53% of total charges and 120% of total costs. Reimbursement was highly correlated with charge (r = 0.45, p < 0.001). For rehospitalizations, the hospital was reimbursed 65% of charges and 93% of costs.
CONCLUSIONS: The largest contributors to overall cost were implants (29%), intensive care unit and inpatient room costs (22%), operating room time (9.9%), and bone grafts (6%). There were three significant independent predictors of increased total cost: the surgical approach used, the number of pedicle screws placed, and the number of vertebral levels fused. This study characterizes the relative contributions of factors that contribute to total costs, charges, and reimbursements that can, in time, identify potential areas for cost reduction or redistribution of resources in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20439654     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00879

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  28 in total

1.  Pedicle screw instrumentation and spinal deformities: have we gone too far?

Authors:  John McCormick; Max Aebi; David Toby; Vincent Arlet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Impact of spine surgery complications on costs associated with management of adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Samrat Yeramaneni; Chessie Robinson; Richard Hostin
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-09

3.  Intravenous Acetaminophen Reduces Length of Stay Via Mediation of Postoperative Opioid Consumption After Posterior Spinal Fusion in a Pediatric Cohort.

Authors:  Vanessa A Olbrecht; Lili Ding; Kristie Spruance; Monir Hossain; Senthilkumar Sadhasivam; Vidya Chidambaran
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.442

4.  Bone substitutes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery using sublaminar bands: is it useful? A case-control study.

Authors:  Sebastien Pesenti; Soufiane Ghailane; Jeffrey J Varghese; Matthieu Ollivier; Emilie Peltier; Elie Choufani; Gerard Bollini; Benjamin Blondel; Jean-Luc Jouve
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Preventing Fusion Mass Shift Avoids Postoperative Distal Curve Adding-on in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

Authors:  Hideki Shigematsu; Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Mauro Bruzzone; Hiroaki Matsumori; Kin-Cheung Mak; Dino Samartzis; Keith Dip Kei Luk
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Cost analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: early discharge decreases hospital costs much less than intraoperative variables under the control of the surgeon.

Authors:  Brandon L Raudenbush; David P Gurd; Ryan C Goodwin; Thomas E Kuivila; R Tracy Ballock
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-03

7.  Cost-effectiveness of intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac in adolescents undergoing idiopathic scoliosis surgery.

Authors:  Vidya Chidambaran; Rajeev Subramanyam; Lili Ding; Senthilkumar Sadhasivam; Kristie Geisler; Bobbie Stubbeman; Peter Sturm; Viral Jain; Mark H Eckman
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 2.556

8.  Preoperative curves of greater magnitude (>70°) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are associated with increased surgical complexity, higher cost of surgical treatment and a delayed return to function.

Authors:  R C Tarrant; J M Queally; P F O'Loughlin; P Sheeran; D P Moore; P J Kiely
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 1.568

9.  Screws versus hooks: implant cost and deformity correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Bradley P Jaquith; Adam Chase; Phillip Flinn; Jeffrey R Sawyer; William C Warner; Barney L Freeman; Derek M Kelly
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 1.548

10.  The effect of metal density in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Paul R P Rushton; Mahmoud Elmalky; Agnivesh Tikoo; Saumyajit Basu; Ashley A Cole; Michael P Grevitt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.