Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN: Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative morbidity of patients with cardiac stents after spine surgery who continue to take aspirin before and after the operation with a similar group of patients who preoperatively discontinued aspirin. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The preoperative discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy has been the standard of care for orthopedic surgical procedures. However, recent literature has demonstrated significant cardiac risk associated with aspirin withdrawal in patients with cardiac stents. Although it has recently been demonstrated that performing orthopedic surgery while continuing low-dose aspirin therapy seems to be safe, studies focused on spinal surgery have not yet been performed. Because of the risk of intraspinal bleeding and the serious consequences of subsequent epidural hematoma with associated spinal cord compression, spinal surgeons have been reluctant to operate on patients taking aspirin. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved study included 200 patients. Preoperative parameters and postoperative outcome measures were analyzed for 100 patients who underwent spinal surgery after the discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy and 100 patients who continued to take daily aspirin through the perioperative period. The primary outcome measure was serious bleeding-related postoperative complications such as spinal epidural hematoma. The operative time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, transfusion of blood products, and 30-day hospital readmission rates were also recorded and compared. RESULTS: The patients who continued taking aspirin in the perioperative period had a shorter hospital length of stay on average (4.1 +/- 2.7 vs. 6.2 +/- 5.8; P < 0.005), as well as a reduced operative time (210 +/- 136 vs. 266 +/- 143; P < 0.01), whereas there was no significant difference in the estimated blood loss (642 +/- 905 vs. 697 +/- 1187), the amount of blood products transfused, overall intra- and postoperative complication rate (8% vs. 11%), or 30-day hospital readmission rate (5% vs. 5%). No clinically significant spinal epidural hematomas were observed in either of the study groups. CONCLUSION: The current study has observed no appreciable increase in bleeding-related complication rates in patients with cardiac stents undergoing spine surgery while continuing to take aspirin compared with patients who discontinued aspirin prior to surgery. Although very large studies will be needed to determine whether aspirin administration results in a small complication rate increase, the current study provides evidence that perioperative aspirin therapy is relatively safe in patients undergoing spinal surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate and causes of unplanned readmissions after surgical treatment of common degenerative lumbar pathologies within 90 days. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: With pay-for performance and bundled payment compensation models being implemented; there is a growing emphasis to decrease the number of unplanned readmissions after surgery. Reports on degenerative lumbar spine pathology readmission rates are often obtained from national databases that lack clinical detail. Less published are the results from single-center institutions. METHODS: Hospital administrative database from a single-tertiary institution was queried to identify patients who underwent surgery for 6 common lumbar pathologies during a period from 2011 to 2013. All readmissions within 90 days of discharge were reviewed for cause and rate of unplanned readmissions was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1306 patients were identified who underwent surgery for various lumbar pathologies during a 2-year time period. There were a total of 70 readmissions captured in the database that included 14 planned, 43 unplanned readmissions, and 13 coding errors. The unplanned readmission rate varied between 2.1% and 7.1% depending on pathology, with an overall rate of 3.3% within 90 days of discharge. Index length of stay, discharge disposition, severity of illness scores, and surgical approach were associated with readmission. The addition of fusion to decompression procedures did not seem to increase readmission rates. Surgical site infections and wound complications were the 2 most common reasons for readmissions accounting for 72% of all readmissions during the 90-day postdischarge period. CONCLUSION: The rate of readmission after surgery for common lumbar degenerative pathologies is relatively low. Surgical site infections and wound complications were the most common cause of readmission in this patient cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital readmissions result in significant clinical and financial burdens to patients and the healthcare system. Readmission rates and causes have been investigated using large administrative databases which have certain limitations in data reporting and coding. The objective of this study was to provide a description of 90 day post-discharge readmissions following surgery for common degenerative cervical spine pathologies at a large-volume tertiary hospital. The study also compared the readmission rates of patients who underwent anterior- and posterior-approach procedures. METHODS: The administrative records from a single-center, high-volume tertiary institution were queried using ICD-9 codes for common cervical pathology over a three year period to determine the rate and causes of readmissions within the 90 days following the index surgery. RESULTS: A total of 768 patients underwent degenerative cervical spine surgery during the three year study period. Within 90 days of discharge, 24 (3.13%) patients were readmitted; 16 (2.06%) readmissions were planned for lumbar surgery; 8 (1.04%) readmissions were unplanned. 640 patients underwent procedures involving an anterior approach and 128 patients underwent procedures involving a posterior approach. There were 14 (2.17%) planned readmissions in the anterior group and 2 (1.5%) in the posterior group. The unplanned readmission rate was 0.63% (4 patients) and 3.13% (4 patients) in the anterior and posterior groups, respectively. (p=0.0343). CONCLUSION: The 90 day post-discharge unplanned readmission rate that followed elective degenerative cervical spine surgery was 1.04%. The unplanned readmission rate associated with posterior-approach procedures (3.13%) was significantly higher than that of anterior-approach procedures (0.63%). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM) of spinal cord and nerve root injury through somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEP), spontaneous electromyography (sEMG), and triggered electromyography (tEMG) modalities is vital during spinal surgery. However, there are currently no practice guidelines or practice patterns for the utilization of unimodal or multimodal IOM (MIOM) for specific spinal surgeries. PURPOSE: This pilot study documents practice patterns of IOM for select spinal procedures. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Questionnaire survey. PATIENT SAMPLE: 22 fellowship-trained spine surgeons, both surgeons and neurosurgeons, were queried on use of IOM modality combination in various spine procedures. Surgical experience varied from three to 29 years, with an average of 14.4 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of surgeons using IOM modality or MIOM combination was calculated for each procedure. METHODS: Spine surgeons at two hospitals were surveyed on practice patterns of use of intraoperative monitoring for three deformity procedures and 21 non-deformity procedures. RESULTS: Of the 18 (81%) responses received: 15 from orthopaedic surgeons and 3 from neurosurgeons. Deformity Surgery: For both cervical and thoracic deformity surgeries, all surgeons used at least SSEP+TcMEP. For cervical surgeries, 47% of surgeons additionally used sEMG while for thoracic 71% of surgeons additionally used sEMG+tEMG. Most surgeons (44%) used all four modalities for lumbar deformity surgery. Non-Deformity surgery: For patients having radiculopathy undergoing ACDF, SSEP alone was utilized by 29%. However, in patients undergoing ACDF with symptoms of myelopathy, most surgeons (31%) used SSEP+TcMEP with only 13% using SSEP only. Fourty-six percent of surgeons utilized SSEP+TcMEP+sEMG for cervical arthroplasty procedures. SSEP+ TcMEP+sEMG was most commonly used for posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy, posterior cervical laminectomy and posterior cervical laminect!

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Comparative effectiveness as well as cost analysis research are gaining popularity within the field of spinal surgery. In general, prior studies have shown that surgical interventions with a cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) less than >=100,000 are cost-effective for our society. Cost-effectiveness studies for surgical management of spondylolisthesis are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the cost/QALYof lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with multiple surgical techniques, and to identify preoperative factors that lead to cost-effectiveness at 2-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent surgery for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis at a single institution from 2009-2011. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Index, change in QALY, cost/QALY. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on 44 patients who underwent surgery for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. There were 30 cases of degenerative and 14 cases of isthmic spondylolisthesis. There were 27 women and 17 men, with an average age at surgery of 59.7 years old (SD 14.8). The change in QALY was determined from the 2-year outcome scores using EuroQol-5D. Outcomes were also assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Hospital DRG codes were used to assess Medicare based hospital costs. Surgical, neuromonitoring, and anesthesia CPT codes were used to determine additional direct care costs of surgery. Analysis was performed to determine which factors were associated with a cost/QALY less than >=100,000, thereby making the procedure cost-effective. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, Chi Square, and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The average length of follow up was 2 years (SD 0.82). The average postoperative improvement in ODI was 24.5 (SD 23.9) and change in QALYwas 0.4449 (SD 0.2984). The average cost/QALYat 2-year follow-up !

BACKGROUND: Patients with cervical disc herniations resulting in radiculopathy or myelopathy from single level disease have traditionally been treated with Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), yet Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA) is a new alternative. Expert suggestion of reduced adjacent segment degeneration is a promising future result of CDA. A cost-utility analysis of these procedures with long-term follow-up has not been previously reported. METHODS: We reviewed single institution prospective data from a randomized trial comparing single-level ACDF and CDA in cervical disc disease. Both Medicare reimbursement schedules and actual hospital cost data for peri-operative care were separately reviewed and analyzed to estimate the cost of treatment of each patient. QALYs were calculated at 1 and 2 years based on NDI and SF-36 outcome scores, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) analysis was performed to determine relative cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Patients of both groups showed improvement in NDI and SF-36 outcome scores. Medicare reimbursement rates to the hospital were $11,747 and $10,015 for ACDF and CDA, respectively; these figures rose to $16,162 and $13,171 when including physician and anesthesiologist reimbursement. The estimated actual cost to the hospital of ACDF averaged $16,108, while CDA averaged $16,004 (p = 0.97); when including estimated physicians fees, total hospital costs came to $19,811 and $18,440, respectively. The cost/QALY analyses therefore varied widely with these discrepancies in cost values. The ICERs of ACDF vs CDA with Medicare reimbursements were $18,593 (NDI) and $19,940 (SF-36), while ICERs based on actual total hospital cost were $13,710 (NDI) and $9,140 (SF-36). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the efficacy of ACDF and CDA in the treatment of cervical disc disease, as our results suggest similar clinical outcomes at one and two year follow-up. The ICER suggests that the non-significant added benefit via ACDF comes at a reasonable cost, whether we use actual hospital costs or Medicare reimbursement values, though the actual ICER values vary widely depending upon the CUA modality used. Long term follow-up may illustrate a different profile for CDA due to reduced cost and greater long-term utility scores. It is crucial to note that financial modeling plays an important role in how economic treatment dominance is portrayed.

BACKGROUND: Cervical laminoplasty (CLP) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (CLF) are well-established surgical procedures used in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). In situations of clinical equipoise, an influential factor in procedural decision making could be the economic effect of the chosen procedure. The object of this study is to compare and analyze the total hospital costs and charges pertaining to patients undergoing CLP or CLF for the treatment of CSM. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 81 consecutive patients from a single institution; 55 patients were treated with CLP and 26 with CLF. CLP was performed via the double-door allograft technique that does not require implants, whereas laminectomy fusion procedures included metallic instrumentation. We analyzed 10,682 individual costs (HC) and charges (HCh) for all patients, as obtained from hospital accounting data. The Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to estimate the physicians' fees as such fees are not accounted for via hospital billing records. Total cost (TC) therefore equaled the sum of the hospital cost and the estimated physicians' fees. RESULTS: The mean length of stay was 3.7 days for CLP and 5.9 days for CLF (P < .01). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age, gender, previous surgical history, and medical insurance. The TC mean was $17,734 for CLP and $37,413 for CLF (P < .01). Mean HCh for CLP was 42% of that for CLF, and therefore the mean charge for CLF was 238% of that for CLP (P < .01). Mean HC was $15,426 for CLP and $32,125 for CLF (P < .01); the main contributor was implant cost (mean $2582). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that, in clinically similar populations, CLP results in reduced length of stay, TC, and hospital charges. In CSM cases requiring posterior decompression, we demonstrate CLP to be a less costly procedure. However, in the presence of neck pain, kyphotic deformity, or gross instability, this procedure may not be sufficient and posterior CLF may be required.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence of potential total disc replacement (TDR) candidates among cervical and lumbar fusion patient populations using strict Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria and with relative exclusion criteria removed. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Recent studies suggest that the potential percentage of patients that are candidates for TDR ranges from 0-5% in lumbar fusions and 43% in cervical fusions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 280 consecutive patients who had lumbar (n = 174) and cervical (n = 106) fusion or TDR performed by one of four independent adult orthopaedic spine surgeons. Charts were screened for investigational device exemption (IDE) inclusion/exclusion criteria and later reanalyzed excluding relative exclusion criteria, such as history of chronic medical illness, twolevel disease (cervical cases), and history of prior fusion surgery in the anatomic region. RESULTS: Of the 174 lumbar surgeries, 10 were TDR with Prodisc-L and 164 were lumbar fusions. The most common TDR exclusion criteria were lytic spondylolisthesis or spinal stenosis (47.7% of patients) and more than 2 level degenerative disc disease (37.9%). 14.9% had no IDE exclusion criteria and would be considered candidates for TDR. After excluding the relative lumbar exclusion criteria, this percentage increased to 25.8%. Of the 106 cervical cases, 3 had a TDR with Prodisc-C and 103 had a cervical fusion. Twenty eight percent had no IDE exclusion criteria and would be considered candidates for cervical TDR. CONCLUSIONS: A larger percentage of cervical fusion candidates are potential candidates for TDR (28%) than lumbar fusion candidates (14.9%) based on the strict IDE criteria