Christopher I. Shaffrey and Justin S. Smith
Adam S. Kanter, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Praveen Mummaneni, Michael Y. Wang and Juan S. Uribe
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Michael Y. Wang, Stacie Tran, G. Damian Brusko, Robert Eastlack, Paul Park, Pierce D. Nunley, Adam S. Kanter, Juan S. Uribe, Neel Anand, David O. Okonkwo, Khoi D. Than, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Virginie Lafage, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Praveen V. Mummaneni and the MIS-ISSG Group
The past decade has seen major advances in techniques for treating more complex spinal disorders using minimally invasive surgery (MIS). While appealing from the standpoint of patient perioperative outcomes, a major impediment to adoption has been the significant learning curve in utilizing MIS techniques.
Data were retrospectively analyzed from a multicenter series of adult spinal deformity surgeries treated at eight tertiary spine care centers in the period from 2008 to 2015. All patients had undergone a less invasive or hybrid approach for a deformity correction satisfying the following inclusion criteria at baseline: coronal Cobb angle ≥ 20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm, or pelvic tilt > 20°. Analyzed data included baseline demographic details, severity of deformity, surgical metrics, clinical outcomes (numeric rating scale [NRS] score and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), radiographic outcomes, and complications. A minimum follow-up of 2 years was required for study inclusion.
Across the 8-year study period, among 222 patients, there was a trend toward treating increasingly morbid patients, with the mean age increasing from 50.7 to 62.4 years (p = 0.013) and the BMI increasing from 25.5 to 31.4 kg/m2 (p = 0.12). There was no statistical difference in the severity of coronal and sagittal deformity treated over the study period. With regard to radiographic changes following surgery, there was an increasing emphasis on sagittal correction and, conversely, less coronal correction. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes over the 8-year period, and meaningful improvements were seen in all years (ODI range of improvement: 15.0–26.9). Neither were there statistically significant differences in major complications; however, minor complications were seen less often as the surgeons gained experience (p = 0.064). Operative time was decreased on average by 47% over the 8-year period.
Trends in surgical practice were seen as well. Total fusion construct length was unchanged until the last year when there was a marked decrease in conjunction with a decrease in interbody levels treated (p = 0.004) while obtaining a higher degree of sagittal correction, suggesting more selective but powerful interbody reduction methods as reflected by an increase in the lateral and anterior column resection techniques being utilized.
The use of minimally invasive methods for adult spinal deformity surgery has evolved over the past decade. Experienced surgeons are treating older and more morbid patients with similar outcomes. A reliance on selective, more powerful interbody approaches is increasing as well.
Praveen V. Mummaneni, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Lawrence G. Lenke, Paul Park, Michael Y. Wang, Frank La Marca, Justin S. Smith, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., David O. Okonkwo, Bertrand Moal, Richard G. Fessler, Neel Anand, Juan S. Uribe, Adam S. Kanter, Behrooz Akbarnia and Kai-Ming G. Fu
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is an alternative to open deformity surgery for the treatment of patients with adult spinal deformity. However, at this time MIS techniques are not as versatile as open deformity techniques, and MIS techniques have been reported to result in suboptimal sagittal plane correction or pseudarthrosis when used for severe deformities. The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery (MISDEF) algorithm was created to provide a framework for rational decision making for surgeons who are considering MIS versus open spine surgery.
A team of experienced spinal deformity surgeons developed the MISDEF algorithm that incorporates a patient's preoperative radiographic parameters and leads to one of 3 general plans ranging from MIS direct or indirect decompression to open deformity surgery with osteotomies. The authors surveyed fellowship-trained spine surgeons experienced with spinal deformity surgery to validate the algorithm using a set of 20 cases to establish interobserver reliability. They then resurveyed the same surgeons 2 months later with the same cases presented in a different sequence to establish intraobserver reliability. Responses were collected and tabulated. Fleiss' analysis was performed using MATLAB software.
Over a 3-month period, 11 surgeons completed the surveys. Responses for MISDEF algorithm case review demonstrated an interobserver kappa of 0.58 for the first round of surveys and an interobserver kappa of 0.69 for the second round of surveys, consistent with substantial agreement. In at least 10 cases there was perfect agreement between the reviewing surgeons. The mean intraobserver kappa for the 2 surveys was 0.86 ± 0.15 (± SD) and ranged from 0.62 to 1.
The use of the MISDEF algorithm provides consistent and straightforward guidance for surgeons who are considering either an MIS or an open approach for the treatment of patients with adult spinal deformity. The MISDEF algorithm was found to have substantial inter- and intraobserver agreement. Although further studies are needed, the application of this algorithm could provide a platform for surgeons to achieve the desired goals of surgery.
Michael Y. Wang, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Kai-Ming G. Fu, Neel Anand, David O. Okonkwo, Adam S. Kanter, Frank La Marca, Richard Fessler, Juan Uribe, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Virginie Lafage, Raqeeb M. Haque, Vedat Deviren and Gregory M. Mundis Jr.
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options for the treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) have advanced significantly over the past decade. However, a wide array of options have been described as being MIS or less invasive. In this study the authors investigated a multiinstitutional cohort of patients with ASD who were treated with less invasive methods to determine the extent of deformity correction achieved.
This study was a retrospective review of multicenter prospectively collected data in 85 consecutive patients with ASD undergoing MIS surgery. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age older than 45 years; minimum 20° coronal lumbar Cobb angle; and 1 year of follow-up. Procedures were classified as follows: 1) stand-alone (n = 7); 2) circumferential MIS (n = 43); or 3) hybrid (n = 35).
An average of 4.2 discs (range 3–7) were fused, with a mean follow-up duration of 26.1 months in this study. For the stand-alone group the preoperative Cobb range was 22°–51°, with 57% greater than 30° and 28.6% greater than 50°. The mean Cobb angle improved from 35.7° to 30°. A ceiling effect of 23° for curve correction was observed, regardless of preoperative curve severity. For the circumferential MIS group the preoperative Cobb range was 19°–62°, with 44% greater than 30° and 5% greater than 50°. The mean Cobb angle improved from 32° to 12°. A ceiling effect of 34° for curve correction was observed. For the hybrid group the preoperative Cobb range was 23°–82°, with 74% greater than 30° and 23% greater than 50°. The mean Cobb angle improved from 43° to 15°. A ceiling effect of 55° for curve correction was observed.
Specific procedures for treating ASD have particular limitations for scoliotic curve correction. Less invasive techniques were associated with a reduced ability to straighten the spine, particularly with advanced curves. These data can guide preoperative technique selection when treating patients with ASD.
Praveen V. Mummaneni, Paul Park, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Michael Y. Wang, Juan S. Uribe, Richard G. Fessler, Dean Chou, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Robert K. Eastlack, Pierce D. Nunley, Neel Anand, Michael S. Virk, Lawrence G. Lenke, Khoi D. Than, Leslie C. Robinson, Kai-Ming Fu and the International Spine Study Group (ISSG)
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can be used as an alternative or adjunct to traditional open techniques for the treatment of patients with adult spinal deformity. Recent advances in MIS techniques, including advanced anterior approaches, have increased the range of candidates for MIS deformity surgery. The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery (MISDEF2) algorithm was created to provide an updated framework for decision-making when considering MIS techniques in correction of adult spinal deformity.
A modified algorithm was developed that incorporates a patient’s preoperative radiographic parameters and leads to one of 4 general plans ranging from basic to advanced MIS techniques to open deformity surgery with osteotomies. The authors surveyed 14 fellowship-trained spine surgeons experienced with spinal deformity surgery to validate the algorithm using a set of 24 cases to establish interobserver reliability. They then re-surveyed the same surgeons 2 months later with the same cases presented in a different sequence to establish intraobserver reliability. Responses were collected and analyzed. Correlation values were determined using SPSS software.
Over a 3-month period, 14 fellowship-trained deformity surgeons completed the surveys. Responses for MISDEF2 algorithm case review demonstrated an interobserver kappa of 0.85 for the first round of surveys and an interobserver kappa of 0.82 for the second round of surveys, consistent with substantial agreement. In at least 7 cases, there was perfect agreement between the reviewing surgeons. The mean intraobserver kappa for the 2 surveys was 0.8.
The MISDEF2 algorithm was found to have substantial inter- and intraobserver agreement. The MISDEF2 algorithm incorporates recent advances in MIS surgery. The use of the MISDEF2 algorithm provides reliable guidance for surgeons who are considering either an MIS or an open approach for the treatment of patients with adult spinal deformity.
Erica F. Bisson, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Michael S. Virk, John Knightly, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Anshit Goyal, Andrew K. Chan, Jian Guan, Steven Glassman, Kevin Foley, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Regis W. Haid Jr., Kai-Ming Fu, Michael Y. Wang, Paul Park, Anthony L. Asher and Mohamad Bydon
Lumbar decompression without arthrodesis remains a potential treatment option for cases of low-grade spondylolisthesis (i.e., Meyerding grade I). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have recently been increasingly used because of their touted benefits including lower operating time, blood loss, and length of stay. Herein, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics and postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing open versus MIS lumbar decompression.
The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Among more than 200 participating sites, the 12 with the highest enrollment of patients into the lumbar spine module came together to initiate a focused project to assess the impact of fusion on PROs in patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. For the current study, only patients in this cohort from the 12 highest-enrolling sites who underwent a decompression alone were evaluated and classified as open or MIS (tubular decompression). Outcomes of interest included PROs at 2 years; perioperative outcomes such as blood loss and complications; and postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, discharge disposition, and reoperations.
A total of 140 patients undergoing decompression were selected, of whom 71 (50.7%) underwent MIS and 69 (49.3%) underwent an open decompression. On univariate analysis, the authors observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of PROs at 2-year follow-up, including back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction. On multivariable analysis, compared to MIS, open decompression was associated with higher satisfaction (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.41–23.2, p = 0.0005). Patients undergoing MIS decompression had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to the open group (0.68 days [SD 1.18] vs 1.83 days [SD 1.618], p < 0.001).
In this multiinstitutional prospective study, the authors found comparable PROs as well as clinical outcomes at 2 years between groups of patients undergoing open or MIS decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.