Literature DB >> 36131225

Thoracic posterior spinal instrumented fusion vs. thoracic anterior spinal tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with a minimum of 2-year follow-up: a cost comparison of index and revision operations.

Alekos A Theologis1, Hao-Hua Wu1, Mohammad Diab2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare direct costs of index and revision operations of thoracic posterior spinal instrumented fusion (TPSIF) and thoracic anterior spinal tethering (TAST) for adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis in children.
METHODS: Children (ages 11-18 years) who underwent TPSIF and TAST (2/2013-9/2019) were reviewed. Follow-up < 2 years and cervical instrumentation and/or instrumentation of a lumbar level at L3 or below were exclusion criteria. Patient demographics, radiographic curve magnitude, index operations and postoperative data, as well as indications for revisions/readmissions were collected. Direct costs were identified and compared for index and revision operations during follow-up.
RESULTS: One hundred and four patients were included (TPSIF: 78; TAST: 25). TAST procedures were performed in children significantly younger and for smaller curve magnitudes. They had significantly fewer levels instrumented, shorter operating room (OR) times, and less estimated blood loss (EBL). After operation, a significantly higher percentage of TAST were admitted to ICU. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups. Index operations' average direct costs were significantly higher for TAST than TPSIF ($52,947 v. $46,641; p = 0.02). Major cost drivers for both groups were implants, OR services, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and room/board. Revisions following TAST were more frequent than for TPSIF (36 v. 11.5%). Majority of TPSIF revisions were for junctional deformity. Curve progression and overcorrection were most common reason for TAST revisions. Average direct costs for revisions/readmissions were similar between groups (TPSIF: $28,485 v. TAST: $27,590; p = 0.46).
CONCLUSIONS: Index operations' average direct costs were statistically similar between TPSIF and TAST for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Major cost drivers were implants, OR services, PACU, and room/board. TAST index operations' direct costs and associated direct costs for implants and room/board were significantly higher, while their anesthesia and OR services were significantly lower than TPSIF. TAST revisions were for overcorrection and curve progression, while TPSIF revisions were most commonly for junctional deformity. Overall average direct costs for revisions were similar despite revision rates being higher for TAST. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adolescent idiopathic scolosis; Anterior vertebral body tethering; Direct costs; Posterior fusion; Reoperation; Revisions

Year:  2022        PMID: 36131225     DOI: 10.1007/s43390-022-00586-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine Deform        ISSN: 2212-134X


  15 in total

1.  Patient-Reported Outcomes Are Equivalent in Patients Who Receive Vertebral Body Tethering Versus Posterior Spinal Fusion in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

Authors:  Catherine Qiu; Divya Talwar; James Gordon; Anthony Capraro; Carina Lott; Patrick J Cahill
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 1.390

Review 2.  Anterior Vertebral Body Growth-Modulation Tethering in Idiopathic Scoliosis: Surgical Technique.

Authors:  Stefan Parent; Jesse Shen
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 3.020

3.  Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering for Adolescent Scoliosis with Growth Remaining: A Retrospective Review of 2 to 5-Year Postoperative Results.

Authors:  Daniel G Hoernschemeyer; Melanie E Boeyer; Madeline E Robertson; Christopher M Loftis; John R Worley; Nicole M Tweedy; Sumit U Gupta; Dana L Duren; Christina M Holzhauser; Venkataraman M Ramachandran
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Risk of early complication following anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Abdullah Abdullah; Stefan Parent; Firoz Miyanji; Kevin Smit; Joshua Murphy; David Skaggs; Purnendu Gupta; Michael Vitale; Jean Ouellet; Neil Saran; Robert H Cho; Pediatric Spine Study Group; Ron El-Hawary
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-04-09

5.  Anterior vertebral body tethering for immature adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: one-year results on the first 32 patients.

Authors:  Amer F Samdani; Robert J Ames; Jeff S Kimball; Joshua M Pahys; Harsh Grewal; Glenn J Pelletier; Randal R Betz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Prospective Follow-up Report on Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering for Idiopathic Scoliosis: Interim Results from an FDA IDE Study.

Authors:  Amer F Samdani; Joshua M Pahys; Robert J Ames; Harsh Grewal; Glenn J Pelletier; Steven W Hwang; Randal R Betz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Anterior vertebral body tethering shows mixed results at 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Courtney E Baker; Gary M Kiebzak; Kevin M Neal
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-10-28

8.  Radiographic Results after Vertebral Body Tethering.

Authors:  Alice Baroncini; Per David Trobisch; Christof Birkenmaier; Stephanie Da Paz; Filippo Migliorini
Journal:  Z Orthop Unfall       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 1.108

9.  Safety and efficacy of anterior vertebral body tethering in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Firoz Miyanji; Jeff Pawelek; Luigi A Nasto; Andrea Simmonds; Stefan Parent
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 5.082

10.  Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering (AVBT) for Treatment Of Idiopathic Scoliosis in the Skeletally Immature: Results of 112 Cases.

Authors:  Paul R P Rushton; Luigi Nasto; Stefan Parent; Isabelle Turgeon; Sultan Aldebeyan; Firoz Miyanji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.