Literature DB >> 21301394

Geographic variation in the surgical treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease: American Board of Orthopedic Surgery Quality Improvement Initiative; part II candidates.

Kevin J McGuire1, John Harrast, Harry Herkowitz, James N Weinstein.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective case series.
OBJECTIVE: To examine and document the change in rates and the geographic variation in procedure type and utilization of plating by orthopedic surgeons for anterior cervical discectomy-fusion. SUMMARY OF
BACKGROUND: Age- and sex-adjusted rates of cervical spine surgery have not increased, but the rate of cervical spinal fusion has, accounting for 41% of all fusion procedures in 2004.
METHODS: Records were selected from the American Board of Orthopedic Surgeons part II examination from 1999 to 2008. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICDM-9-CM) codes were used to determine utilization of structural allograft, autograft/interbody devices, and anterior cervical plating over time and within geographic region. Main outcome measures were physician workforce, and rates and variation of procedure types.
RESULTS: From 1999 to 2008, the number of self-declared orthopedic spine surgeon candidates increased 24%. Over this period, the annual number of discectomies with fusions for degenerative cervical disc disease increased by 67%, whereas the number of such operations per surgeon operating on at least 1 such case increased 48% (P = 0.018). Interbody device (0%-31%; P < 0.0001), anterior cervical plating (39%-79%; P < 0.0001), and allograft (14%-59%; P < 0.0001) use increased, whereas autograft use decreased (86%-10%; P < 0.0001). The Southwest and Southeast were more likely than the Midwest to use interbody devices (OR: 2.42 and 1.66, respectively). The Southwest and Northeast were more likely than the Midwest to use autograft (OR: 1.55 and 1.49). The Southwest, Northeast, and Southeast were less likely to use allograft than the Midwest (OR: 0.408, 0.742, and 0.770). The Northeast was less likely and the Southeast more likely than the Midwest to utilize anterior cervical plating (OR: 0.67 and 1.33). Surgical complications were more often associated with autograft compared with allograft (OR: 1.61).
CONCLUSION: From 1999 to 2008, the number of orthopedic surgeon candidates performing spine surgery has increased. These surgeons are performing more fusions and utilizing more structural allografts, interbody devices, and/or anterior cervical plates. Regional variations also remain in the types of constructs utilized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21301394      PMCID: PMC3490631          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318212bb61

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  33 in total

1.  Surgical management of cervical soft disc herniation. A comparison between the anterior and posterior approach.

Authors:  H N Herkowitz; L T Kurz; D P Overholt
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Anterior cervical fusion by the smith-robinson approach.

Authors:  N Aronson; D L Filtzer; M Bagan
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1968-10       Impact factor: 5.115

3.  Relief of pain by anterior cervical-spine fusion for spondylosis. A report of sixty-five patients.

Authors:  A A White; W O Southwick; R J Deponte; J W Gainor; R Hardy
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1973-04       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Anterior interbody fusion for severe cervical disc degeneration.

Authors:  A F DePalma; R H Rothman; G E Lewinnek; S T Canale
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1972-05

5.  Clinical evaluation of anterior cervical fusion for degenerative cervical disc disease.

Authors:  E S Connolly; R J Seymour; J E Adams
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1965-10       Impact factor: 5.115

6.  Increasing rates of cervical and lumbar spine surgery in the United States, 1979-1990.

Authors:  H Davis
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients.

Authors:  H H Bohlman; S E Emery; D B Goodfellow; P K Jones
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Variation in the rate of cervical spine surgery in Washington State.

Authors:  D Einstadter; D L Kent; S D Fihn; R A Deyo
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients.

Authors:  D R Gore; S B Sepic
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Neck pain: a long-term follow-up of 205 patients.

Authors:  D R Gore; S B Sepic; G M Gardner; M P Murray
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1987 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  13 in total

1.  Early National Dissemination of Abiraterone and Enzalutamide for Advanced Prostate Cancer in Medicare Part D.

Authors:  Megan E V Caram; Tudor Borza; Hye-Sung Min; Jennifer J Griggs; David C Miller; Brent K Hollenbeck; Bhramar Mukherjee; Ted A Skolarus
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 3.840

2.  Cervical radiculopathy: a review.

Authors:  John M Caridi; Matthias Pumberger; Alexander P Hughes
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2011-09-09

Review 3.  [Operative treatment of the degenerative cervical spine].

Authors:  A Tschugg; B Meyer; M Stoffel; P Vajkoczy; F Ringel; S-O Eicker; V Rhode; C Thomé
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.214

4.  A 5-Year Review of Hospital Costs and Reimbursement in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Keith W Lyons; Christian M Klare; Samuel T Kunkel; Jason R Lemire; Mike Bao; Kevin J McGuire; Adam M Pearson; William A Abdu
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-08-31

5.  A single center retrospective clinical evaluation of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion comparing allograft spacers to silicon nitride cages.

Authors:  Micah W Smith; Daniel R Romano; Bryan J McEntire; B Sonny Bal
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

6.  Medicare payment data for spine reimbursement; important but flawed data for evaluating utilization of resources.

Authors:  Richard P Menger; Michael E Wolf; Sunil Kukreja; Anthony Sin; Anil Nanda
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2015-08-31

7.  Comparison of posterior foraminotomy and anterior foraminotomy with fusion for treating spondylotic foraminal stenosis of the cervical spine: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (ForaC).

Authors:  Anja Tschugg; Sabrina Neururer; Kai Michael Scheufler; Hanno Ulmer; Claudius Thomé; Aldemar Andres Hegewald
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-11-09       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  The value of quantitative sensory testing in spine research.

Authors:  Anja Tschugg; Wolfgang N Löscher; Sara Lener; Sebastian Hartmann; Matthias Wildauer; Sabrina Neururer; Claudius Thomé
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 9.  Autograft versus Allograft for Cervical Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alexander Tuchman; Darrel S Brodke; Jim A Youssef; Hans-Jörg Meisel; Joseph R Dettori; Jong-Beom Park; S Tim Yoon; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-02-01

10.  Iliac crest autograft versus alternative constructs for anterior cervical spine surgery: Pros, cons, and costs.

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2012-07-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.