Cargando…

Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy

BACKGROUND: Cervical laminoplasty (CLP) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (CLF) are well-established surgical procedures used in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). In situations of clinical equipoise, an influential factor in procedural decision making could be the e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Warren, Daniel T., Ricart-Hoffiz, Pedro A., Andres, Tate M., Hoelscher, Christian M., Protopsaltis, Themistocles S., Goldstein, Jeffrey A., Bendo, John A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier, Inc. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25694907
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsp.2013.04.001
_version_ 1782353591847092224
author Warren, Daniel T.
Ricart-Hoffiz, Pedro A.
Andres, Tate M.
Hoelscher, Christian M.
Protopsaltis, Themistocles S.
Goldstein, Jeffrey A.
Bendo, John A.
author_facet Warren, Daniel T.
Ricart-Hoffiz, Pedro A.
Andres, Tate M.
Hoelscher, Christian M.
Protopsaltis, Themistocles S.
Goldstein, Jeffrey A.
Bendo, John A.
author_sort Warren, Daniel T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cervical laminoplasty (CLP) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (CLF) are well-established surgical procedures used in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). In situations of clinical equipoise, an influential factor in procedural decision making could be the economic effect of the chosen procedure. The object of this study is to compare and analyze the total hospital costs and charges pertaining to patients undergoing CLP or CLF for the treatment of CSM. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 81 consecutive patients from a single institution; 55 patients were treated with CLP and 26 with CLF. CLP was performed via the double-door allograft technique that does not require implants, whereas laminectomy fusion procedures included metallic instrumentation. We analyzed 10,682 individual costs (HC) and charges (HCh) for all patients, as obtained from hospital accounting data. The Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to estimate the physicians’ fees as such fees are not accounted for via hospital billing records. Total cost (TC) therefore equaled the sum of the hospital cost and the estimated physicians’ fees. RESULTS: The mean length of stay was 3.7 days for CLP and 5.9 days for CLF (P < .01). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age, gender, previous surgical history, and medical insurance. The TC mean was $17,734 for CLP and $37,413 for CLF (P < .01). Mean HCh for CLP was 42% of that for CLF, and therefore the mean charge for CLF was 238% of that for CLP (P < .01). Mean HC was $15,426 for CLP and $32,125 for CLF (P < .01); the main contributor was implant cost (mean $2582). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that, in clinically similar populations, CLP results in reduced length of stay, TC, and hospital charges. In CSM cases requiring posterior decompression, we demonstrate CLP to be a less costly procedure. However, in the presence of neck pain, kyphotic deformity, or gross instability, this procedure may not be sufficient and posterior CLF may be required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4300974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Elsevier, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43009742015-02-18 Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy Warren, Daniel T. Ricart-Hoffiz, Pedro A. Andres, Tate M. Hoelscher, Christian M. Protopsaltis, Themistocles S. Goldstein, Jeffrey A. Bendo, John A. Int J Spine Surg Full Length Article BACKGROUND: Cervical laminoplasty (CLP) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (CLF) are well-established surgical procedures used in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). In situations of clinical equipoise, an influential factor in procedural decision making could be the economic effect of the chosen procedure. The object of this study is to compare and analyze the total hospital costs and charges pertaining to patients undergoing CLP or CLF for the treatment of CSM. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 81 consecutive patients from a single institution; 55 patients were treated with CLP and 26 with CLF. CLP was performed via the double-door allograft technique that does not require implants, whereas laminectomy fusion procedures included metallic instrumentation. We analyzed 10,682 individual costs (HC) and charges (HCh) for all patients, as obtained from hospital accounting data. The Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to estimate the physicians’ fees as such fees are not accounted for via hospital billing records. Total cost (TC) therefore equaled the sum of the hospital cost and the estimated physicians’ fees. RESULTS: The mean length of stay was 3.7 days for CLP and 5.9 days for CLF (P < .01). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age, gender, previous surgical history, and medical insurance. The TC mean was $17,734 for CLP and $37,413 for CLF (P < .01). Mean HCh for CLP was 42% of that for CLF, and therefore the mean charge for CLF was 238% of that for CLP (P < .01). Mean HC was $15,426 for CLP and $32,125 for CLF (P < .01); the main contributor was implant cost (mean $2582). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that, in clinically similar populations, CLP results in reduced length of stay, TC, and hospital charges. In CSM cases requiring posterior decompression, we demonstrate CLP to be a less costly procedure. However, in the presence of neck pain, kyphotic deformity, or gross instability, this procedure may not be sufficient and posterior CLF may be required. Elsevier, Inc. 2013-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4300974/ /pubmed/25694907 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsp.2013.04.001 Text en © 2013 ISASS - The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Full Length Article
Warren, Daniel T.
Ricart-Hoffiz, Pedro A.
Andres, Tate M.
Hoelscher, Christian M.
Protopsaltis, Themistocles S.
Goldstein, Jeffrey A.
Bendo, John A.
Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_full Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_fullStr Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_short Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_sort retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
topic Full Length Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25694907
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsp.2013.04.001
work_keys_str_mv AT warrendanielt retrospectivecostanalysisofcervicallaminectomyandfusionversuscervicallaminoplastyinthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy
AT ricarthoffizpedroa retrospectivecostanalysisofcervicallaminectomyandfusionversuscervicallaminoplastyinthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy
AT andrestatem retrospectivecostanalysisofcervicallaminectomyandfusionversuscervicallaminoplastyinthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy
AT hoelscherchristianm retrospectivecostanalysisofcervicallaminectomyandfusionversuscervicallaminoplastyinthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy
AT protopsaltisthemistocless retrospectivecostanalysisofcervicallaminectomyandfusionversuscervicallaminoplastyinthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy
AT goldsteinjeffreya retrospectivecostanalysisofcervicallaminectomyandfusionversuscervicallaminoplastyinthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy
AT bendojohna retrospectivecostanalysisofcervicallaminectomyandfusionversuscervicallaminoplastyinthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy