Literature DB >> 25363427

A socioeconomic analysis of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgery: national use, regional variation, and patient outcomes.

Whitney Sheen James1, Anand I Rughani, Travis M Dumont.   

Abstract

OBJECT: In the United States in recent years, a dramatic increase in the use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) during spine surgeries has been suspected. Myriad reasons have been proposed, but no clear evidence confirming this trend has been available. In this study, the authors investigated the use of IONM during spine surgery, identified patterns of geographic variation, and analyzed the value of IONM for spine surgery cases.
METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried for all spine surgeries performed during 2007-2011. Use of IONM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code 00.94) was compared over time and between geographic regions, and its effect on patient independence at discharge and iatrogenic nerve injury was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 443,194 spine procedures were identified, of which 85% were elective and 15% were not elective. Use of IONM was recorded for 31,680 cases and increased each calendar year from 1% of all cases in 2007 to 12% of all cases in 2011. Regional use of IONM ranged widely, from 8% of cases in the Northeast to 21% of cases in the West in 2011. Iatrogenic nerve and spinal cord injury were rare; they occurred in less than 1% of patients and did not significantly decrease when IONM was used.
CONCLUSIONS: As costs of spine surgeries continue to rise, it becomes necessary to examine and justify use of different medical technologies, including IONM, during spine surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ICD-9 = International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision; IONM = intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring; NIS = Nationwide Inpatient Sample; neurophysiological monitoring; socioeconomics; spine surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25363427     DOI: 10.3171/2014.8.FOCUS14449

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  14 in total

1.  Indication and technical implementation of the intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgeries-a transnational survey in the German-speaking countries.

Authors:  Sebastian Siller; Constance Raith; Stefan Zausinger; Joerg-Christian Tonn; Andrea Szelenyi
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.216

2.  Predictors of outcomes and hospital charges following atlantoaxial fusion.

Authors:  Joseph E Tanenbaum; Daniel Lubelski; Benjamin P Rosenbaum; Nicolas R Thompson; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 4.166

3.  Utilization of intraoperative neuromonitoring throughout the United States over a recent decade: an analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample.

Authors:  Joseph L Laratta; Jamal N Shillingford; Alex Ha; Joseph M Lombardi; Hemant P Reddy; Comron Saifi; Steven C Ludwig; Ronald A Lehman; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

4.  Demographic Trends in the Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Scoliosis Surgery in the United States.

Authors:  Remi M Ajiboye; Howard Y Park; Jeremiah R Cohen; Evan E Vellios; Elizabeth L Lord; Adedayo O Ashana; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-15

5.  The utility of intraoperative neuromonitoring on simple posterior lumbar fusions-analysis of the National Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Ryan J Austerman; Suraj Sulhan; William J Steele; Saeed S Sadrameli; Paul J Holman; Sean M Barber
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-06

6.  Utility of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Is Questionable: A Review of 9957 Cases.

Authors:  Remi M Ajiboye; Stephen D Zoller; Anthony D'Oro; Zachary D Burke; William Sheppard; Christopher Wang; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang; Sina Pourtaheri
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 3.241

Review 7.  Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: What Is the Evidence?

Authors:  Remi M Ajiboye; Stephen D Zoller; Akshay Sharma; Gina M Mosich; Austin Drysch; Jesse Li; Tara Reza; Sina Pourtaheri
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.241

8.  Demographic Trends in the Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Scoliosis Surgery in the United States.

Authors:  Remi M Ajiboye; Howard Y Park; Jeremiah R Cohen; Evan E Vellios; Elizabeth L Lord; Adedayo O Ashana; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-12-05

9.  Routine Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring During ACDFs for the Treatment of Spondylotic Myelopathy and Radiculopathy Is Questionable: A Review of 15,395 Cases.

Authors:  Remi M Ajiboye; Anthony D'Oro; Adedayo O Ashana; Rafael A Buerba; Elizabeth L Lord; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang; Sina Pourtaheri
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 3.241

10.  Does intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring matter in noncomplex spine surgeries?

Authors:  John P Ney; David N van der Goes; Marc R Nuwer
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 9.910

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.