Abstract Background Minimally invasive spine surgery requires placement of the skin incision at an ideal location in the patient's back by the surgeon. However, numerous fluoroscopic x-ray images are sometimes required to find the site of entry, thereby exposing patients and Operating Room personnel to additional radiation. To minimize this exposure, a radiopaque localizer grid was devised to increase planning efficiency and reduce radiation exposure. Results The radiopaque localizer grid was utilized to plan the point of entry for minimally invasive spine surgery. Use of the grid allowed the surgeon to accurately pinpoint the ideal entry point for the procedure with just one or two fluoroscopic X-ray images. Conclusions The reusable localizer grid is a simple and practical device that may be utilized to more efficiently plan an entry site on the skin, thus reducing radiation exposure. This device or a modified version may be utilized for any procedure involving the spine.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate whether anterior cervical spine surgery offers sustained (7 years) relief in patients with cervicogenic headaches (CGHs), and evaluate the difference between cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for 1 and 2-level surgeries from a multicenter randomized clinical trial. METHODS:A post hoc analysis was performed of 575 patients who underwent one or 2-level CDA or ACDF for symptomatic cervical spondylosis as part of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Assessment of pain and functional outcome was done with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in the trial. We used the NDI headache component to assess headache outcome. RESULTS:For both 1- and 2-level CDA and ACDF groups, there was significant headache improvement from preoperative baseline out to 7 years (p < 0.0001). For 1-level surgeries, headache improvement was similar for both groups at the 7-year point. For 2-level treatment, CDA patients had significantly improved headache scores versus ACDF patients at the 7-year point (p = 0.016). CONCLUSION:The headache improvement noted at early follow-up was sustained over the long-term period with ACDF and CDA populations. In the case of 2-level operations, CDA patients demonstrated significantly greater benefit compared to ACDF patients over the long-term. Sinuvertebral nerve irritation at the unco-vasculo-radicular junction and anterior dura may be the cause of CGH. Therefore, it is possible that improved cervical kinematics and preservation of range of motion at adjacent uncovertebral joints in CDA may contribute to the observed difference between the groups.

Background

The cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion.

Objective

Cost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years.

Methods

Data were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate.

Results

The cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34 377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was -$165 103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY in all scenarios (-$225 816 per QALY to $22 071 per QALY).

Conclusion

This study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality.

Abbreviations

ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusionAWP, average wholesale priceCE, cost-effectivenessCEA, cost-effectiveness analysisCPT, Current Procedural TerminologycTDR, cervical total disc replacementCUA, cost-utility analysisDDD, degenerative disc diseaseDRG, diagnosis-related groupFDA, US Food and Drug AdministrationICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratioIDE, Investigational Device ExemptionNDI, neck disability indexQALY, quality-adjusted life yearsRCT, randomized controlled trialRTW, return-to-workSF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health SurveyVAS, visual analog scaleWTP, willingness-to-pay.

Purpose

Despite being an extremely successful procedure, recurrent disc herniation is one of the most common post-discectomy complications in the lumbar spine and contributes significant health care and socioeconomic costs. Patients with large annular defects are at a high risk for reherniation, but an annular closure device (ACD) has been designed to reduce reherniation risk in this population and may, in turn, help control direct health care costs after discectomy.

Patients and methods

This analysis examined the 90-day post-discectomy cost estimates among ACD-treated (n=272) and control (discectomy alone; n=278) patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Direct medical costs were estimated based on 2017 Humana and Medicare claims. Index discectomies were assumed to occur in an outpatient (OP) setting, whereas repeat discectomies were assumed to be 60% in OP and 40% in inpatient (IP). A sensitivity analysis was performed on this assumption. The device cost was not included in the analysis in order to focus on costs in the 90-day post-operative period.

Results

Within 90 days of follow-up, post-operative complications occurred in 3.3% of the ACD patients and 8.6% of the control patients (P=0.01). The average 90-day cost to treat an ACD patient was $10,257 compared to $11,299 per control patient for a 80:20 distribution of Commercial:Medicare coverage ($1,042 difference). This difference varied from $687 with 100% Medicare to $1,132 with 100% Commercial coverage. Varying the IP vs OP distribution resulted in a cost difference range of $968 to $1,156 with the ACD.

Conclusion

Augmenting discectomy with an ACD in high-risk patients with a large annular defect reduced reherniation and reoperation rates, which translated to a reduction of direct health care costs between $687 and $1,156 per patient during the 90-day post-operative period. Large annular defect patients are an easily identifiable high-risk population. Operative strategies that reduce complication risks in these patients, such as the ACD, could be advantageous from both patient care and economic perspectives.

Arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) for surgical treatment of SIJ dysfunction has regained interest among spine specialists. Current techniques described in the literature most often utilize intraoperative fluoroscopy to aid in implant placement; however, image guidance for SIJ fusion may allow for minimally invasive percutaneous instrumentation with more precise implant placement. In the following cases, we performed percutaneous stereotactic navigated sacroiliac instrumentation using O-arm^® multidimensional surgical imaging with StealthStation^® navigation (Medtronic, Inc. Minneapolis, MN). Patients were positioned prone and an image-guidance reference frame was placed contralateral to the surgical site. O-arm^® integrated with StealthStation^® allowed immediate auto-registration. The skin incision was planned with an image-guidance probe. An image-guided awl, drill and tap were utilized to choose a starting point and trajectory. Threaded titanium cage(s) packed with autograft and/or allograft were then placed. O-arm^® image-guidance allowed for implant placement in the SIJ with a small skin incision. However, we could not track the cage depth position with our current system, and in one patient, the SIJ cage had to be revised secondary to the anterior breach of sacrum.

Study design

A nonrandomized, two-armed prospective study.

Objective

Water-tight dural closure is paramount to the prevention of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage and associated complications. Synthetic polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel has been used as an adjunct to sutured dural repair; however, its expansion postoperatively is a concern for neurological complications. A low-swell formulation of PEG sealant was introduced as DuraSeal Exact Spine Sealant System (DESS). A Post-Approval Study was performed primarily to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DESS for spinal dural repair compared to current alternatives, in a large patient population, reflecting a real-world practice.

Methods

A total of 36 sites in the United States enrolled 429 patients treated with DESS as an adjunct to dural repair in the spinal sealant group and 406 patients treated with all other modalities in the control arm, from October 2011 to June 2016. The primary endpoint was the incidence of CSF leak within 90 days of operation. The secondary endpoints evaluated were deep surgical site infection and neurological serious adverse events.

Results

The CSF leakage in the DESS group (6.6%) was not significantly different from the control group (6.5%) (p = .83), and there was no significant difference in the time to first leak. The two groups had no significant differences in deep surgical site infection (1.6% versus control 2.1%, p = .61) or proportion of subjects with neurological serious adverse events (2.9% versus control 1.6%, p = .516).

Conclusions

DuraSeal Exact Spinal Sealant is safe when compared to current alternatives for spinal dural repair.

Background: Given the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to motion preservation, activities of daily living, and cost, it is critical to fully understand the healthcare economic impact of new devices being tested in large FDA randomized controlled trials (RCT). The purpose of this analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the novel Total Posterior Spine (TOPS™) System investigational device compared with the trial control group, standard transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TOPS™ compared with TLIF. Methods: The study patient population was extracted from a multicenter RCT with current enrollment at n=121 with complete 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness, expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcomes were health-related utility, presented as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost, calculated in US dollars. Analysis was conducted following Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness Health and Medicine recommendations. The base case analysis utilized SF-36 survey data from the RCT. Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. A cohort Markov model was constructed to analyze perioperative and postoperative costs and QALYs for both TOPS™ and control groups. Scenario, probabilistic, and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration. Results: The primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2 years after index surgery. From a health system perspective, assuming a 50/50 split between Medicare and private payers, the TOPS™ cohort is cost-effective 2 years postoperatively ($6158/QALY) compared with control. At 6 years and beyond, TOPS™ becomes dominant, irrespective of payer mix and surgical setting. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000/QALY, 63% of all 5000 input parameter simulations favor TOPS, even with a $4000 upcharge vs TLIF. Discussion: The novel TOPS™ device is cost-effective compared with TLIF and becomes the dominant economic strategy over time. Conclusions: In the emerging, rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and society.

Objective Traditionally, laminectomy has been the preferred surgical approach for the resection of intradural spinal tumors. Recent trends towards minimally invasive techniques have generated interest in hemilaminectomy as an effective alternative surgical approach to resect spinal tumors. However, it remains unclear if the potential benefits of hemilaminectomies, used in other routine spinal procedures, apply to intradural spinal tumors. This report presents a six-year single institutional analysis of open resection of intradural tumors using laminectomies as compared to hemilaminectomies. Methods A single institution, multisurgeon, retrospective review of 52 patients undergoing resection of intradural spinal tumors over a six-year period was performed. Estimated blood loss, operative time, post-operative complications, length of stay, and post-operative clinical spinal instability were analyzed and compared between the two surgical techniques. Results The mean follow-up was 34 and 20 months for the laminectomy and hemilaminectomy groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in operative times between the two groups (hemilaminectomy: 250.13±76.44 minutes, laminectomy: 244.49±92.85 minutes; p=0.43). Similarly, there was no difference in overall estimated blood loss (hemilaminectomy: 125±74 cc, laminectomy: 256.05±320.8 cc; p=0.27) or mean hospital length of stay (hemilaminectomy: 4.00±2.12 days, laminectomy: 5.26±3.0 days; p=0.60). No patient in either surgical group had post-operative evidence of clinical spinal instability. Conclusion Hemilaminectomy is a viable approach for the resection of intradural spinal tumors, with similar rates of post-operative complications to laminectomy when using an open surgical approach. The laminectomy allows for bilateral exposure of the entire spinal canal and neural foramina; and continues to be the preferred method for resection of large tumors with complex morphology.

Background

Given the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to activities of daily living and cost, it is critical to fully understand the health care economic impact of enabling technologies. The use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM) during spine surgery has long been controversial. Questions pertaining to utility, medico-legal considerations, and cost-effectiveness continue to be unresolved. The purpose of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness by assessing quality-of-life due to adverse events averted, decreased postoperative pain, decreased revision rates, and improved patient reported outcomes (PROs).

Methods

The study patient population was extracted from a large multicenter database collected by a single, national IOM provider. Over 50,000 patient charts were abstracted and included in this analysis. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the second panel on cost-effectiveness health and medicine. Health-related utility was derived from questionnaire answers and expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for IOM. A value under the commonly accepted United States-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. Scenario (including litigation), probabilistic (PSA), and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration.

Results

The primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2-years following index surgery. On average, index surgery for patients with IOM costs are approximately $1,547 greater than non-IOM cases. The base case assumed an inpatient Medicare population however multiple outpatient and payer scenarios were assessed in the sensitivity analysis. From a health system perspective IOM is cost-effective, yielding better utilities but at a higher cost than the non-IOM strategy (ICER $60,734 per QALY). From a societal perspective the IOM strategy was dominant, suggesting that better outcomes were achieved at less cost. Except for an entirely privately insured population, alternative scenarios such as, outpatient and a 50:50 Medicare/privately insured population sample also demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Notably, IOM benefits were unable to overcome the sheer costs associated many litigation scenarios, but the data was severely limited. In the 5,000 iteration PSA, at a WTP of $100,000, 74% of simulations using IOM were cost-effective.

Conclusions

The use of IOM in spine surgery is cost-effective in most scenarios examined. In the emerging and rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and the health care system.