The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
-
Comparative Study
Decompression alone vs. decompression plus fusion for claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis.
Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a common condition, predominantly affecting middle-aged and elderly people. This study focused on patients with neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar stenosis without spondylolisthesis or deformity. ⋯ The addition of fusion to decompression did not result in improved outcomes at 3-, 12-, or 24-month follow-up. The addition of fusion to decompression provides no advantage to decompression alone for the treatment of patients with neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar stenosis without spondylolisthesis or deformity.
-
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are notorious complications in spinal surgery and cause substantial patient morbidity. Intraoperative decontamination of the wound with povidone-iodine irrigation or vancomycin powder has gained attention lately, but the efficacy of either intervention is unclear. ⋯ Intrawound application of vancomycin was associated with a significant reduction in both deep and superficial SSIs in instrumented spinal surgery. A 1.3g/L intrawound povidone-iodine solution did not show a reduction in deep SSIs, although a reduction of superficial SSIs was observed.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
A prospective, randomized, multicenter study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain.
Current literature suggests that degenerated or damaged vertebral endplates are a significant cause of chronic low back pain (LBP) that is not adequately addressed by standard care. Prior 2-year data from the treatment arm of a sham-controlled randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed maintenance of clinical improvements at 2 years following radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the basivertebral nerve (BVN). ⋯ Minimally invasive RF ablation of the BVN led to significant improvement of pain and function at 3-months in patients with chronic vertebrogenic related LBP.
-
Comparative Study
Which NDI domains best predict change in physical function in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery?
Physical function is a critical aspect of patient outcomes. NDI is a widely validated outcome measure in cervical spine disease, yet to what extent its individual domains predict changes in physical function remains unknown. ⋯ All NDI domains improve significantly after cervical spine surgery and demonstrate significant correlation with changes in PROMIS PF and SF-36 PCS. The work, recreation, and pain intensity domains were the only independent predictors of physical function changes postoperatively. Considering physical function, our findings highlight the importance of presenting changes in individual NDI domains in addition to the total score.
-
The current Bundled Payment for Care Improvement model relies on the use of "Diagnosis Related Groups" (DRGs) to risk-adjust reimbursements associated with a 90-day episode of care. Three distinct DRG groups exist for defining payments associated with cervical fusions: (1) DRG-471 (cervical fusions with major comorbidity/complications), (2) DRG-472 (with comorbidity/complications), and (3) DRG-473 (without major comorbidity/complications). However, this DRG system may not be entirely suitable in controlling the large amounts of cost variation seen among cervical fusions. For instance, these DRGs do not account for area/location of surgery (upper cervical vs. lower cervical), type of surgery (primary vs. revision), surgical approach (anterior vs. posterior), extent of fusion (1-3 level vs. >3 level), and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology). ⋯ The current cervical fusion bundled payment model fails to employ a robust risk adjustment of prices resulting in the large amount of cost variation seen within 90-day reimbursements. Under the proposed DRG-based risk adjustment model, providers would be reimbursed the same amount for cervical fusions regardless of the surgical approach (posterior vs. anterior), the extent of fusion, use of adjunct procedures (decompressions), and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology), despite each of these factors having different resource utilization and associated reimbursements. Our findings suggest that defining payments based on DRG codes only is an imperfect way of employing bundled payments for spinal fusions and will only end up creating major financial disincentives and barriers to access of care in the healthcare system.