Joseph L Laratta1, Jamal N Shillingford2, Alex Ha2, Joseph M Lombardi1, Hemant P Reddy2, Comron Saifi3, Steven C Ludwig4, Ronald A Lehman2, Lawrence G Lenke2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, KY, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, The Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA. 3. Penn Orthopaedics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To identify temporal changes to the demographics and utilization of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) throughout the United States (U.S.). METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried for IONM of central and peripheral nervous electrical activity (ICD-9-CM 00.94) between 2008 and 2014. The NIS database represents a 20% sample of discharges from U.S. Hospitals, weighted to provide national estimates. Demographic and economic data were obtained which included the annual number of surgeries, age, sex, insurance type, location, and frequency of routine discharge. RESULTS: The estimated use of IONM of central and peripheral nervous electrical activity increased 296%, from 31,762 cases in 2008 to 125,835 cases in 2014. Based on payer type, privately insured patients (45.0%), rather than Medicare (36.8%) or Medicaid patients (9.2%), were more likely to undergo IONM during spinal procedures. When stratifying by median income for patient zip code, there was a substantial difference in the rates of IONM between low (19.9%) and high-income groups (78.1%). IONM was significantly more likely to be utilized at urban teaching hospitals (72.9%) rather than nonteaching hospitals (25.0%) or rural centers (2.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, there has been a massive increase of 296% in utilization of IONM during spine surgery. This is likely due to its proven benefit in reducing neurologic morbidity in spinal deformity surgery, while introducing minimal additional risk. While IONM may improve patient care, it is still rather isolated to teaching hospitals and patients from higher income zip codes.
BACKGROUND: To identify temporal changes to the demographics and utilization of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) throughout the United States (U.S.). METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried for IONM of central and peripheral nervous electrical activity (ICD-9-CM 00.94) between 2008 and 2014. The NIS database represents a 20% sample of discharges from U.S. Hospitals, weighted to provide national estimates. Demographic and economic data were obtained which included the annual number of surgeries, age, sex, insurance type, location, and frequency of routine discharge. RESULTS: The estimated use of IONM of central and peripheral nervous electrical activity increased 296%, from 31,762 cases in 2008 to 125,835 cases in 2014. Based on payer type, privately insured patients (45.0%), rather than Medicare (36.8%) or Medicaid patients (9.2%), were more likely to undergo IONM during spinal procedures. When stratifying by median income for patient zip code, there was a substantial difference in the rates of IONM between low (19.9%) and high-income groups (78.1%). IONM was significantly more likely to be utilized at urban teaching hospitals (72.9%) rather than nonteaching hospitals (25.0%) or rural centers (2.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, there has been a massive increase of 296% in utilization of IONM during spine surgery. This is likely due to its proven benefit in reducing neurologic morbidity in spinal deformity surgery, while introducing minimal additional risk. While IONM may improve patient care, it is still rather isolated to teaching hospitals and patients from higher income zip codes.
Authors: Alok Sharan; Michael W Groff; Andrew T Dailey; Zoher Ghogawala; Daniel K Resnick; William C Watters; Praveen V Mummaneni; Tanvir F Choudhri; Jason C Eck; Jeffrey C Wang; Sanjay S Dhall; Michael G Kaiser Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2014-07
Authors: Parthasarathy Thirumala; James Zhou; Piruthiviraj Natarajan; Jeffrey Balzer; Edward Dixon; David Okonkwo; D K Hamilton Journal: Spine J Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: D Kojo Hamilton; Justin S Smith; Charles A Sansur; Steven D Glassman; Christopher P Ames; Sigurd H Berven; David W Polly; Joseph H Perra; Dennis Raymond Knapp; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Richard E McCarthy; Christopher I Shaffrey Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Earl D Thuet; Jacquelyn C Winscher; Anne M Padberg; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Matthew B Dobbs; Mario Schootman; Scott J Luhmann Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jacob M Buchowski; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Craig A Kuhns; Ronald A Lehman; Youngjung J Kim; David Stewart; Chris Baldus Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Alfredo Guiroy; Marcelo Valacco; Martin Gagliardi; Juan Pablo Cabrera; Juan Emmerich; Gaston Camino Willhuber; Asdrubal Falavigna Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2020-05-30