Literature DB >> 25915499

Comparative Analysis of Inpatient and Outpatient Interspinous Process Device Placement for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Alicia Ortega1, J Manuel Sarmiento1, Chirag Patil1, Debraj Mukherjee1, Beatrice Ugiliweneza2, Miriam Nuño1, Shivanand Lad3, Maxwell Boakye2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare reoperations, health care utilization, and costs in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients undergoing interspinous process (ISP) device placement in an inpatient versus outpatient setting.
METHODS: The MarketScan database (2007-2009) was queried for adults with LSS undergoing ISP device placement as a primary procedure. Reoperations, health care utilization, and costs in patients with at least 18 months of follow-up were analyzed. Chi-square and Student t tests were used to assess the differences in characteristics and outcomes between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient setting.
RESULTS: A total of 411 patients who underwent ISP device placement were identified; the mean age was 72 years, 51% were female, and most patients were insured by Medicare (73.7%). The average postoperative follow-up was 24.9 months. A subset of 182 patients (44.3%) had inpatient procedures; 229 (55.7%) underwent outpatient ISP device placements. The overall reoperation rate was 20.4%. ISP reoperation rates between inpatient and outpatient cohorts were comparable (23.1% versus 18.3%; p = 0.24). Inpatients accrued significantly higher index procedural costs compared with outpatients ($17,432 versus $8854; p = 0.0001), however, the outpatient cohort utilized more postoperative outpatient services (143 versus 112; p = 0.09) and higher outpatient service costs ($25,376 versus $15,481; p = 0.01). Consequently, cumulative overall cost was similar among the two cohorts ($51,059 versus $51,778; p = 0.94).
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term reoperation rates following ISP device placement are comparable in the inpatient and outpatient setting. Upfront cost savings may be achieved with outpatient ISP device placement, but this benefit is lost by 18 months following initial surgery. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25915499     DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1382785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg        ISSN: 2193-6315            Impact factor:   1.268


  4 in total

1.  Dimensions of the spinous process and interspinous space: a morphometric study.

Authors:  Guang-Xun Lin; Tsz-King Suen; Javier Quillo-Olvera; Kutbuddin Akbary; Jung-Woo Hur; Eun Kim; Eun-Jin Park; Jin-Sung Kim
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 1.246

2.  Spine surgeon ownership of ambulatory surgery centers.

Authors:  Andre M Samuel; Mark T Langhans; Sravisht Iyer
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

3.  Readability Analysis of Patient-Accessible Information Regarding Ambulatory Surgical Center Procedures.

Authors:  Conor P Lynch; Elliot D K Cha; Nathaniel W Jenkins; James M Parrish; Shruthi Mohan; Cara E Geoghegan; Caroline N Jadczak; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-10-14

4.  Utilization of Interspinous Devices Throughout the United States Over a Recent Decade: An Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Joseph L Laratta; Hemant Reddy; Joseph M Lombardi; Jamal N Shillingford; Comron Saifi; Charla R Fischer; Ronald A Lehman; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-09-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.