Browse

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • User-accessible content x
  • By Author: Mundis, Gregory M. x
  • By Author: Chou, Dean x
Clear All
Free access

Khoi D. Than, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Kelly J. Bridges, Stacie Tran, Paul Park, Dean Chou, Frank La Marca, Juan S. Uribe, Todd D. Vogel, Pierce D. Nunley, Robert K. Eastlack, Neel Anand, David O. Okonkwo, Adam S. Kanter and Gregory M. Mundis Jr.

OBJECTIVE

High-quality studies that compare outcomes of open and minimally invasively placed pedicle screws for adult spinal deformity are needed. Therefore, the authors compared differences in complications from a circumferential minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgery and those from a hybrid surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a multicenter database of patients with spinal deformity who were treated with an MIS surgery was performed. Database inclusion criteria included an age of ≥ 18 years and at least 1 of the following: a coronal Cobb angle of > 20°, a sagittal vertical axis of > 5 cm, a pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis angle of > 10°, and/or a pelvic tilt of > 20°. Patients were propensity matched according to the levels instrumented.

RESULTS

In this database, a complete data set was available for 165 patients, and after those who underwent 3-column osteotomy were excluded, 137 patients were available for analysis; 76 patients remained after propensity matching (MIS surgery group 38 patients, hybrid surgery group 38 patients). The authors found no difference in demographics, number of levels instrumented, or preoperative and postoperative radiographic results. At least 1 complication was suffered by 55.3% of patients in the hybrid surgery group and 44.7% of those in the MIS surgery group (p = 0.359). Patients in the MIS surgery group had significantly fewer neurological, operative, and minor complications than those in the hybrid surgery group. The reoperation rates in both groups were similar. The most common complication category for the MIS surgery group was radiographic and for the hybrid surgery group was neurological. Patients in both groups experienced postoperative improvement in their Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain scores (all p < 0.05); however, MIS surgery provided a greater reduction in leg pain according to VAS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall complication rates in the MIS and hybrid surgery groups were similar. MIS surgery resulted in significantly fewer neurological, operative, and minor complications. Reoperation rates in the 2 groups were similar, and despite complications, the patients reported significant improvement in their pain and function.

Free access

Pierce D. Nunley, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Richard G. Fessler, Paul Park, Joseph M. Zavatsky, Juan S. Uribe, Robert K. Eastlack, Dean Chou, Michael Y. Wang, Neel Anand, Kelly A. Frank, Marcus B. Stone, Adam S. Kanter, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Praveen V. Mummaneni and the International Spine Study Group

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to educate medical professionals about potential financial impacts of improper diagnosis-related group (DRG) coding in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.

METHODS

Medicare’s Inpatient Prospective Payment System PC Pricer database was used to collect 2015 reimbursement data for ASD procedures from 12 hospitals. Case type, hospital type/location, number of operative levels, proper coding, length of stay, and complications/comorbidities (CCs) were analyzed for effects on reimbursement. DRGs were used to categorize cases into 3 types: 1) anterior or posterior only fusion, 2) anterior fusion with posterior percutaneous fixation with no dorsal fusion, and 3) combined anterior and posterior fixation and fusion.

RESULTS

Pooling institutions, cases were reimbursed the same for single-level and multilevel ASD surgery. Longer stay, from 3 to 8 days, resulted in an additional $1400 per stay. Posterior fusion was an additional $6588, while CCs increased reimbursement by approximately $13,000. Academic institutions received higher reimbursement than private institutions, i.e., approximately $14,000 (Case Types 1 and 2) and approximately $16,000 (Case Type 3). Urban institutions received higher reimbursement than suburban institutions, i.e., approximately $3000 (Case Types 1 and 2) and approximately $3500 (Case Type 3). Longer stay, from 3 to 8 days, increased reimbursement between $208 and $494 for private institutions and between $1397 and $1879 for academic institutions per stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Reimbursement is based on many factors not controlled by surgeons or hospitals, but proper DRG coding can significantly impact the financial health of hospitals and availability of quality patient care.

Free access

Khoi D. Than, Paul Park, Kai-Ming Fu, Stacie Nguyen, Michael Y. Wang, Dean Chou, Pierce D. Nunley, Neel Anand, Richard G. Fessler, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Shay Bess, Behrooz A. Akbarnia, Vedat Deviren, Juan S. Uribe, Frank La Marca, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Praveen V. Mummaneni and the International Spine Study Group

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques are increasingly used to treat adult spinal deformity. However, standard minimally invasive spinal deformity techniques have a more limited ability to restore sagittal balance and match the pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) than traditional open surgery. This study sought to compare “best” versus “worst” outcomes of MIS to identify variables that may predispose patients to postoperative success.

METHODS

A retrospective review of minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery cases was performed to identify parameters in the 20% of patients who had the greatest improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores versus those in the 20% of patients who had the least improvement in ODI scores at 2 years' follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred four patients met the inclusion criteria, and the top 20% of patients in terms of ODI improvement at 2 years (best group, 22 patients) were compared with the bottom 20% (worst group, 21 patients). There were no statistically significant differences in age, body mass index, pre- and postoperative Cobb angles, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, levels fused, operating room time, and blood loss between the best and worst groups. However, the mean preoperative ODI score was significantly higher (worse disability) at baseline in the group that had the greatest improvement in ODI score (58.2 vs 39.7, p < 0.001). There was no difference in preoperative PI-LL mismatch (12.8° best vs 19.5° worst, p = 0.298). The best group had significantly less postoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA; 3.4 vs 6.9 cm, p = 0.043) and postoperative PI-LL mismatch (10.4° vs 19.4°, p = 0.027) than the worst group. The best group also had better postoperative visual analog scale back and leg pain scores (p = 0.001 and p = 0.046, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors recommend that spinal deformity surgeons using MIS techniques focus on correcting a patient's PI-LL mismatch to within 10° and restoring SVA to < 5 cm. Restoration of these parameters seems to impact which patients will attain the greatest degree of improvement in ODI outcomes, while the spines of patients who do the worst are not appropriately corrected and may be fused into a fixed sagittal plane deformity.