Literature DB >> 29712516

Assessment of cost drivers and cost variation for lumbar interbody fusion procedures using the Value Driven Outcomes database.

Spencer Twitchell1, Michael Karsy1, Jared Reese1, Jian Guan1, William T Couldwell1, Andrew Dailey1, Erica F Bisson1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Efforts to examine the value of care-combining both costs and quality-are gaining importance in the current health care climate. This thrust is particularly evident in treating common spinal disease where both incidences and costs are generally high and practice patterns are variable. It is often challenging to obtain direct surgical costs for these analyses, which hinders the understanding of cost drivers and cost variation. Using a novel tool, the authors sought to understand the costs of posterior lumbar arthrodesis with interbody devices. METHODS The Value Driven Outcomes (VDO) database at the University of Utah was used to evaluate the care of patients who underwent open or minimally invasive surgery (MIS), 1- and 2-level lumbar spine fusion (Current Procedural Terminology code 22263). Patients treated from January 2012 through June 2017 were included. RESULTS A total of 276 patients (mean age 58.9 ± 12.4 years) were identified; 46.7% of patients were men. Most patients (82.2%) underwent 1-level fusion. Thirteen patients (4.7%) had major complications and 11 (4.1%) had minor complications. MIS (β = 0.16, p = 0.002), length of stay (β = 0.47, p = 0.0001), and number of operated levels (β = 0.37, p = 0.0001) predicted costs in a multivariable analysis. Supplies and implants (55%) and facility cost (36%) accounted for most of the expenditure. Other costs included pharmacy (7%), laboratory (1%), and imaging (1%). CONCLUSIONS These results provide direct cost accounting for lumbar fusion procedures using the VDO database. Efforts to improve the value of lumbar surgery should focus on high cost areas, i.e., facility and supplies/implant.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists; MIS; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; VDO = Value Driven Outcomes; cost variation; cost-effectiveness; lumbar fusion; minimally invasive; spine surgery; value-driven outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29712516     DOI: 10.3171/2018.1.FOCUS17724

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


  6 in total

1.  Effect of patient age on glioblastoma perioperative treatment costs: a value driven outcome database analysis.

Authors:  Brandon A Sherrod; Nicholas T Gamboa; Christopher Wilkerson; Herschel Wilde; Mohammed A Azab; Michael Karsy; Randy L Jensen; Sarah T Menacho
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  Cost Analysis of Inpatient Rehabilitation after Spinal Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Authors:  Austin Gamblin; Jason G Garry; Herschel W Wilde; Jared C Reese; Brandon Sherrod; Michael Karsy; Jian Guan; Janel Mortenson; Alexandra Flis; Jeffrey P Rosenbluth; Erica Bisson; Andrew Dailey
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-09-24

3.  Spine Instrumented Surgery on a Budget-Tools for Lowering Cost Without Changing Outcome.

Authors:  Ilyas Eli; Robert G Whitmore; Zoher Ghogawala
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2021-04

4.  Neurosurgery outcomes and complications in a monocentric 7-year patient registry.

Authors:  Johannes Sarnthein; Victor E Staartjes; Luca Regli
Journal:  Brain Spine       Date:  2022-01-19

5.  Evaluation of Cost, Payments, Healthcare Utilization, and Perioperative and Post-Operative Outcomes of Patients Treated with Posterior Lumbar Spinal Surgery Using Open versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches.

Authors:  Chantal E Holy; Katherine A Corso; Dawn E Bowden; Michael J Erb; Jill R Ruppenkamp; Sandra Coombs; John B Pracyk
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2021-06-15

6.  Effect of bone graft granule volume on postoperative fusion after lumber spinal internal fixation: A retrospective analysis of 82 cases.

Authors:  Jianxue Hao; Chongchao Yan; Suoli Liu; Pengfa Tu
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2018 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.088

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.