Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 8 of 8 items for

  • Author or Editor: Melanie Anderson x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Alan H. Daniels, Satoshi Kawaguchi, Alec G. Contag, Farbod Rastegar, Garrett Waagmeester, Paul A. Anderson, Melanie Arthur and Robert A. Hart

OBJECTIVE

Beginning in 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) determined that certain hospital-acquired adverse events such as surgical site infection (SSI) following spine surgery should never occur. The following year, they expanded the ruling to include deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) following total joint arthroplasty. Due to their ruling that “never events” are not the payers' responsibility, CMS insists that the costs of managing these complications be borne by hospitals and health care providers, rather than billings to health care payers for additional care required in their management. Data comparing the expected costs of such adverse events in patients undergoing spine and orthopedic surgery have not previously been reported.

METHODS

The California State Inpatient Database (CA-SID) from 2008 to 2009 was used for the analysis. All patients with primary procedure codes indicating anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), lumbar laminectomy (LL), total knee replacement (TKR), and total hip replacement (THR) were analyzed. Patients with diagnostic and/or treatment codes for DVT, PE, and SSI were separated from patients without these complication codes. Patients with more than 1 primary procedure code or more than 1 complication code were excluded. Median charges for treatment from primary surgery through 3 months postoperatively were calculated.

RESULTS

The incidence of the examined adverse events was lowest for ACDF (0.6% DVT, 0.1% PE, and 0.03% SSI) and highest for TKA (1.3% DVT, 0.3% PE, 0.6% SSI). Median inpatient charges for uncomplicated LL was $51,817, compared with $73,432 for ACDF, $143,601 for PLIF, $74,459 for THR, and $70,116 for TKR. Charges for patients with DVT ranged from $108,387 for TKR (1.5 times greater than index) to $313,536 for ACDF (4.3 times greater than index). Charges for patients with PE ranged from $127,958 for TKR (1.8 times greater than index) to $246,637 for PLIF (1.7 times greater than index). Charges for patients with SSI ranged from $168,964 for TKR (2.4 times greater than index) to $385,753 for PLIF (2.7 times greater than index).

CONCLUSIONS

Although incidence rates are low, adverse events of spinal procedures substantially increase the cost of care. Charges for patients experiencing DVT, PE, and SSI increased in this study by factors ranging from 1.8 to 4.3 times those for patients without such complications across 5 common spinal and orthopedic procedures. Cost projections by health care providers will need to incorporate expected costs of added care for patients experiencing such complications, assuming that the cost burden of such events continues to shift from payers to providers.

Full access

Han Yan, Eric Toyota, Melanie Anderson, Taylor J. Abel, Elizabeth Donner, Suneil K. Kalia, James Drake, James T. Rutka and George M. Ibrahim

OBJECTIVE

Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) presents a therapeutic challenge in children, necessitating the consideration of multiple treatment options. Although deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been studied in adults with DRE, little evidence is available to guide clinicians regarding the application of this potentially valuable tool in children. Here, the authors present the first systematic review aimed at understanding the safety and efficacy of DBS for DRE in pediatric populations, emphasizing patient selection, device placement and programming, and seizure outcomes.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendations. Relevant articles were identified from 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL) from their inception to November 17, 2017. Inclusion criteria of individual studies were 1) diagnosis of DRE; 2) treatment with DBS; 3) inclusion of at least 1 pediatric patient (age ≤ 18 years); and 4) patient-specific data. Exclusion criteria for the systematic review included 1) missing data for age, DBS target, or seizure freedom; 2) nonhuman subjects; and 3) editorials, abstracts, review articles, and dissertations.

RESULTS

This review identified 21 studies and 40 unique pediatric patients (ages 4–18 years) who received DBS treatment for epilepsy. There were 18 patients with electrodes placed in the bilateral or unilateral centromedian nucleus of the thalamus (CM) electrodes, 8 patients with bilateral anterior thalamic nucleus (ATN) electrodes, 5 patients with bilateral and unilateral hippocampal electrodes, 3 patients with bilateral subthalamic nucleus (STN) and 1 patient with unilateral STN electrodes, 2 patients with bilateral posteromedial hypothalamus electrodes, 2 patients with unilateral mammillothalamic tract electrodes, and 1 patient with caudal zona incerta electrode placement. Overall, 5 of the 40 (12.5%) patients had an International League Against Epilepsy class I (i.e., seizure-free) outcome, and 34 of the 40 (85%) patients had seizure reduction with DBS stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

DBS is an alternative or adjuvant treatment for children with DRE. Prospective registries and future clinical trials are needed to identify the optimal DBS target, although favorable outcomes are reported with both CM and ATN in children.

Restricted access

Han Yan, Taylor J. Abel, Naif M. Alotaibi, Melanie Anderson, Toba N. Niazi, Alexander G. Weil, Aria Fallah, John H. Phillips, Christopher R. Forrest, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, James M. Drake and George M. Ibrahim

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis the authors aimed to directly compare open surgical and endoscope-assisted techniques for the treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis, focusing on the outcomes of blood loss, transfusion rate, length of stay, operating time, complication rate, cost, and cosmetic outcome.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant articles were identified from 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials]) from their inception to August 2017. The quality of methodology and bias risk were assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Effect estimates between groups were calculated as standardized mean differences with 95% CIs. Random and fixed effects models were used to estimate the overall effect.

RESULTS

Of 316 screened records, 10 met the inclusion criteria, of which 3 were included in the meta-analysis. These studies reported on 303 patients treated endoscopically and 385 patients treated with open surgery. Endoscopic surgery was associated with lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), shorter length of stay (p < 0.001), and shorter operating time (p < 0.001). From the literature review of the 10 studies, transfusion rates for endoscopic procedures were consistently lower, with significant differences in 4 of 6 studies; the cost was lower, with differences ranging from $11,603 to $31,744 in 3 of 3 studies; and the cosmetic outcomes were equivocal (p > 0.05) in 3 of 3 studies. Finally, endoscopic techniques demonstrated complication rates similar to or lower than those of open surgery in 8 of 8 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic procedures are associated with lower estimated blood loss, operating time, and days in hospital. Future long-term prospective registries may establish advantages with respect to complications and cost, with equivalent cosmetic outcomes. Larger studies evaluating patient- or parent-reported satisfaction and optimal timing of intervention as well as heterogeneity in outcomes are indicated.

Restricted access

Han Yan, Taylor J. Abel, Naif M. Alotaibi, Melanie Anderson, Toba N. Niazi, Alexander G. Weil, Aria Fallah, John H. Phillips, Christopher R. Forrest, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, James M. Drake and George M. Ibrahim

OBJECTIVE

Despite increasing adoption of endoscopic techniques for repair of nonsagittal single-suture craniosynostosis, the efficacy and safety of the procedure relative to established open approaches are unknown. In this systematic review the authors aimed to directly compare open surgical and endoscope-assisted techniques for the treatment of metopic, unilateral coronal, and lambdoid craniosynostosis, with an emphasis on quantitative reported outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant articles were identified from 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials]) from their inception to August 2017. The quality of methodology and bias risk were assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies.

RESULTS

Of 316 screened records, 7 studies were included in a qualitative synthesis of the evidence, of which none were eligible for meta-analysis. These reported on 111 unique patients with metopic, 65 with unilateral coronal, and 12 with lambdoid craniosynostosis. For all suture types, 100 (53%) children underwent endoscope-assisted craniosynostosis surgery and 32 (47%) patients underwent open repair. These studies all suggest that blood loss, transfusion rate, operating time, and length of hospital stay were superior for endoscopically treated children. Although potentially comparable or better cosmetic outcomes are reported, the paucity of evidence and considerable variability in outcomes preclude meaningful conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data comparing open and endoscopic treatments for metopic, unilateral coronal, and lambdoid synostosis suggest a benefit for endoscopic techniques with respect to blood loss, transfusion, length of stay, and operating time. This report highlights shortcomings in evidence and gaps in knowledge regarding endoscopic repair of nonsagittal single-suture craniosynostosis, emphasizing the need for further matched-control studies.