Literature DB >> 27352367

Propensity-matched Analysis of Outcomes and Hospital Charges for Anterior Versus Posterior Cervical Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Joseph E Tanenbaum1, Daniel Lubelski, Benjamin P Rosenbaum, Edward C Benzel, Thomas E Mroz.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a nationally representative, all-payer database of inpatient diagnoses and procedures in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare anterior cervical fusion (ACF) to posterior cervical fusion (PCF) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies used retrospective single-institution level data to quantify outcomes for CSM patients fusion. It is unclear whether ACF or PCF is superior with regards to charges or outcomes for the treatment of CSM.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used Nationwide Inpatient Sample data to compare ACF to PCF in the management of CSM. All patients 18 years or older with a diagnosis of CSM between 1998 and 2011 were included. ACF patients were matched to PCF patients using propensity scores based on patient characteristics (number of levels fused, spine alignment, comorbidities), hospital characteristics, and patient demographics. Multivariable regression was used to measure the effect of treatment assignment on in-hospital charges, length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, and dysphagia diagnosis.
RESULTS: From 1998 to 2011, we identified 109,728 hospitalizations with a CSM diagnosis. Of these patients, 45,629 (41.6%) underwent ACF and 14,439 (13.2%) underwent PCF. The PCF cohort incurred an average of $41,683 more in-hospital charges (P<0.001, inflation adjusted to 2011 dollars) and remained in hospital an average of 2.4 days longer (P<0.001) than the ACF cohort. The ACF cohort was just as likely to die in the hospital [odds ratio 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.68-1.2], 3.0 times more likely to be discharged to home or self-care (95% CI, 2.9-3.2), and 2.5 times more likely to experience dysphagia (95% CI, 2.0-3.1) than the PCF cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: In treating CSM, ACF led to lower hospital charges, shorter hospital stays, and an increased likelihood of being discharged to home relative to PCF.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27352367      PMCID: PMC5191994          DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000402

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Spine Surg        ISSN: 2380-0186            Impact factor:   1.876


  28 in total

1.  Misclassification and selection bias in case-control studies using an automated database.

Authors:  J M Evans; T M MacDonald
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.890

2.  A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Muhammad M Mamdani
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Paul Grootendorst; Geoffrey M Anderson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Revision rates and complication incidence in single- and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures: an administrative database study.

Authors:  Anand Veeravagu; Tyler Cole; Bowen Jiang; John K Ratliff
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  National trends in anterior cervical fusion procedures.

Authors:  Satyajit Marawar; Federico P Girardi; Andrew A Sama; Yan Ma; Licia K Gaber-Baylis; Melanie C Besculides; Stavros G Memtsoudis
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Comparative effectiveness of ventral vs dorsal surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Zoher Ghogawala; Brook Martin; Edward C Benzel; James Dziura; Subu N Magge; Khalid M Abbed; Erica F Bisson; Javed Shahid; Jean-Valery C E Coumans; Tanvir F Choudhri; Michael P Steinmetz; Ajit A Krishnaney; Joseph T King; William E Butler; Fred G Barker; Robert F Heary
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.654

7.  Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis.

Authors:  J G Heller; C C Edwards ; H Murakami; G E Rodts
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Complications and mortality associated with cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the United States.

Authors:  Marjorie C Wang; Leighton Chan; Dennis J Maiman; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Is surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy cost-effective? A cost-utility analysis based on data from the AOSpine North America prospective CSM study.

Authors:  Michael G Fehlings; Neilank K Jha; Stephanie M Hewson; Eric M Massicotte; Branko Kopjar; Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2012-09

Review 10.  Ventral fusion versus dorsal fusion: determining the optimal treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Matthew D Alvin; Daniel Lubelski; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.047

View more
  4 in total

1.  Brain tumor craniotomy outcomes for dual-eligible medicare and medicaid patients: a 10-year nationwide analysis.

Authors:  Oliver Y Tang; Ross A Clarke; Krissia M Rivera Perla; Kiara M Corcoran Ruiz; Steven A Toms; Robert J Weil
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  Inpatient hospitalisation and mortality rate trends from 2004 to 2014 in the USA: a propensity score-matched case-control study of hyperkalaemia.

Authors:  Kristen Michelle Tecson; Rebecca A Baker; Laura Clariday; Peter A McCullough
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 3.006

3.  National Trends in Demographics and Outcomes Following Cervical Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Authors:  Caroline E Vonck; Joseph E Tanenbaum; Gabriel A Smith; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz; Michael P Steinmetz
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-09-22

4.  Cost analysis comparison between anterior and posterior cervical spine approaches.

Authors:  Alvin Y Chan; Alexander S Himstead; Elliot H Choi; Zachary Hsu; Joshua S Kurtz; Chenyi Yang; Yu-Po Lee; Nitin N Bhatia; Chad T Lefteris; William C Wilson; Frank P K Hsu; Michael Y Oh
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2022-07-15
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.