Literature DB >> 21417699

Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients.

Matthew J McGirt1, Scott L Parker, Jason Lerner, Luella Engelhart, Tyler Knight, Michael Y Wang.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Surgical site infection (SSI) after lumbar fusion results in significant patient morbidity and associated medical resource utilization. Minimally invasive (MI) techniques for posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (P/TLIF) were introduced with the goals of smaller wounds, less tissue trauma, reduced blood loss, and quicker postoperative recovery, while maintaining comparable surgical results. Studies with sufficient power to directly compare the incidence of SSI following MI versus open P/TLIF procedures have been lacking. Furthermore, the direct medical cost associated with the treatment of SSI following the P/TLIF procedure is poorly understood and has not been adequately assessed. Thus, the aim in the present study was to determine the incidence of perioperative SSI in patients undergoing MI versus open P/TLIF and the direct hospital cost associated with the diagnosis and management of SSI after P/TLIF as reported in a large administrative database.
METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed hospital discharge and billing records from the Premier Perspective Database for 2003 to 2009 to identify patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MI or open P/TLIF for lumbar spondylotic disease, disc degeneration, or spondylolisthesis. The ICD-9-CM procedure codes were used to identify patients undergoing P/TLIF and those experiencing SSI. Infection-related costs were obtained from the total costs incurred by the hospital for SSI-related care provided during inpatient or hospital outpatient encounters.
RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred seventy patients undergoing P/TLIF were identified. Demographic profiles, including the Charlson Comorbidity Index, were similar between MI and open cohorts. Overall, 292 patients (5.6%) experienced an SSI with a mean direct cost of $15,817 per SSI. For 1-level MI versus open P/TLIF, the incidence of SSI (38 [4.5%] vs 77 [4.8%], p = 0.77) and the mean SSI-associated cost per P/TLIF ($684 vs $724, p = 0.680) were similar. For 2-level MI versus open P/TLIF, the incidence of SSI (27 [4.6%] vs 150 [7.0%], p = 0.037) and mean SSI-associated cost per P/TLIF ($756 vs $1140, p = 0.030) were both significantly lower among MI-treated patients. In a multivariate model that accounted for differences in demographics and patient severity, open fusion was associated with a strong trend of increased incidence of SSI as compared with MI fusion (OR 1.469, 95% CI 0.959-2.250).
CONCLUSIONS: In this multihospital study, the MI technique was associated with a decreased incidence of perioperative SSI and a direct cost savings of $38,400 per 100 P/TLIF procedure when used in 2-level fusion. There was no significant difference in the incidence of SSIs between the open and MI cohorts for 1-level fusion procedures. The results of this study provide further evidence of the reduced patient morbidity and health care costs associated with MI P/TLIF.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21417699     DOI: 10.3171/2011.1.SPINE10571

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  31 in total

1.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  Wale A R Sulaiman; Manish Singh
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

2.  Expert's comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled "Minimal access bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis" (by Nasir A. Quraishi and Y. Raja Rampersaud; doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2623-2).

Authors:  Christof Birkenmaier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Jarred A Hogan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Surgical Outcomes in Post-Traumatic Epilepsy: A Single Institutional Experience.

Authors:  Frederick L Hitti; Matthew Piazza; Saurabh Sinha; Svetlana Kvint; Eric Hudgins; Gordon Baltuch; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia; Kathryn A Davis; Brian Litt; Timothy Lucas; H Isaac Chen
Journal:  Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 2.703

Review 6.  Role of minimally invasive surgery for adult spinal deformity in preventing complications.

Authors:  Chun-Po Yen; Yusef I Mosley; Juan S Uribe
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-09

7.  Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation.

Authors:  Álvaro Dowling; Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

8.  Minimally invasive lumbopelvic instrumentation for traumatic sacrolisthesis in an elderly patient.

Authors:  Joshua J Wind; Lauren M Burke; Khalid H Kurtom; Fabio Roberti; Joseph R O'Brien
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Robot guidance for percutaneous minimally invasive placement of pedicle screws for pyogenic spondylodiscitis is associated with lower rates of wound breakdown compared to conventional fluoroscopy-guided instrumentation.

Authors:  Awad Alaid; Kajetan von Eckardstein; Nicolas Roydon Smoll; Volodymyr Solomiichuk; Veit Rohde; Ramon Martinez; Bawarjan Schatlo
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 3.042

10.  Postoperative dysesthesia in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a report of five cases.

Authors:  Honggang Wang; Yue Zhou; Zhengfeng Zhang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.