Cargando…

Trends and Costs of External Electrical Bone Stimulators and Grafting Materials in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. PURPOSE: To identify the trends in stimulator use, pair those trends with various grafting materials, and determine the influence of stimulators on the risk of revision surgery. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: A large number of studies has reported beneficial effects of e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: D’Oro, Anthony, Buser, Zorica, Brodke, Darrel Scott, Park, Jong-Beom, Yoon, Sangwook Tim, Youssef, Jim Aimen, Meisel, Hans-Joerg, Radcliff, Kristen Emmanuel, Hsieh, Patrick, Wang, Jeffrey Chun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6284136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30322261
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.12.6.973
_version_ 1783379281112465408
author D’Oro, Anthony
Buser, Zorica
Brodke, Darrel Scott
Park, Jong-Beom
Yoon, Sangwook Tim
Youssef, Jim Aimen
Meisel, Hans-Joerg
Radcliff, Kristen Emmanuel
Hsieh, Patrick
Wang, Jeffrey Chun
author_facet D’Oro, Anthony
Buser, Zorica
Brodke, Darrel Scott
Park, Jong-Beom
Yoon, Sangwook Tim
Youssef, Jim Aimen
Meisel, Hans-Joerg
Radcliff, Kristen Emmanuel
Hsieh, Patrick
Wang, Jeffrey Chun
author_sort D’Oro, Anthony
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. PURPOSE: To identify the trends in stimulator use, pair those trends with various grafting materials, and determine the influence of stimulators on the risk of revision surgery. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: A large number of studies has reported beneficial effects of electromagnetic energy in healing long bone fractures. However, there are few clinical studies regarding the use of electrical stimulators in spinal fusion. METHODS: We used insurance billing codes to identify patients with lumbar disc degeneration who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Comparisons between patients who did and did not receive electrical stimulators following surgery were performed using logistic regression analysis, chi-square test, and odds ratio (OR) analysis. RESULTS: Approximately 19% of the patients (495/2,613) received external stimulators following ALIF surgery. There was a slight increase in stimulator use from 2008 to 2014 (multi-level R(2)=0.08, single-level R(2)=0.05). Patients who underwent multi-level procedures were more likely to receive stimulators than patients who underwent single-level procedures (p<0.05; OR, 3.72; 95% confidence interval, 3.02–4.57). Grafting options associated with most frequent stimulator use were bone marrow aspirates (BMA) plus autograft or allograft for single-level and allograft alone for multi-level procedures. In both cohorts, patients treated with bone morphogenetic proteins were least likely to receive electrical stimulators (p<0.05). Patients who received stimulation generally had higher reimbursements. Concurrent posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) (ALIF+PLF) increased the likelihood of receiving stimulators (p<0.05). Patients who received electrical stimulators had similar revision rates as those who did not receive stimulation (p>0.05), except those in the multilevel ALIF+PLF cohort, wherein the patients who underwent stimulation had higher rates of revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent PLF or multi-level procedures increased patients’ likelihood of receiving stimulators, however, the presence of comorbidities did not. Patients who received BMA plus autograft or allograft were more likely to receive stimulation. Patients with and without bone stimulators had similar rates of revision surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6284136
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Korean Society of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62841362018-12-20 Trends and Costs of External Electrical Bone Stimulators and Grafting Materials in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion D’Oro, Anthony Buser, Zorica Brodke, Darrel Scott Park, Jong-Beom Yoon, Sangwook Tim Youssef, Jim Aimen Meisel, Hans-Joerg Radcliff, Kristen Emmanuel Hsieh, Patrick Wang, Jeffrey Chun Asian Spine J Clinical Study STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. PURPOSE: To identify the trends in stimulator use, pair those trends with various grafting materials, and determine the influence of stimulators on the risk of revision surgery. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: A large number of studies has reported beneficial effects of electromagnetic energy in healing long bone fractures. However, there are few clinical studies regarding the use of electrical stimulators in spinal fusion. METHODS: We used insurance billing codes to identify patients with lumbar disc degeneration who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Comparisons between patients who did and did not receive electrical stimulators following surgery were performed using logistic regression analysis, chi-square test, and odds ratio (OR) analysis. RESULTS: Approximately 19% of the patients (495/2,613) received external stimulators following ALIF surgery. There was a slight increase in stimulator use from 2008 to 2014 (multi-level R(2)=0.08, single-level R(2)=0.05). Patients who underwent multi-level procedures were more likely to receive stimulators than patients who underwent single-level procedures (p<0.05; OR, 3.72; 95% confidence interval, 3.02–4.57). Grafting options associated with most frequent stimulator use were bone marrow aspirates (BMA) plus autograft or allograft for single-level and allograft alone for multi-level procedures. In both cohorts, patients treated with bone morphogenetic proteins were least likely to receive electrical stimulators (p<0.05). Patients who received stimulation generally had higher reimbursements. Concurrent posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) (ALIF+PLF) increased the likelihood of receiving stimulators (p<0.05). Patients who received electrical stimulators had similar revision rates as those who did not receive stimulation (p>0.05), except those in the multilevel ALIF+PLF cohort, wherein the patients who underwent stimulation had higher rates of revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent PLF or multi-level procedures increased patients’ likelihood of receiving stimulators, however, the presence of comorbidities did not. Patients who received BMA plus autograft or allograft were more likely to receive stimulation. Patients with and without bone stimulators had similar rates of revision surgery. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2018-12 2018-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6284136/ /pubmed/30322261 http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.12.6.973 Text en Copyright © 2018 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
D’Oro, Anthony
Buser, Zorica
Brodke, Darrel Scott
Park, Jong-Beom
Yoon, Sangwook Tim
Youssef, Jim Aimen
Meisel, Hans-Joerg
Radcliff, Kristen Emmanuel
Hsieh, Patrick
Wang, Jeffrey Chun
Trends and Costs of External Electrical Bone Stimulators and Grafting Materials in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title Trends and Costs of External Electrical Bone Stimulators and Grafting Materials in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_full Trends and Costs of External Electrical Bone Stimulators and Grafting Materials in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_fullStr Trends and Costs of External Electrical Bone Stimulators and Grafting Materials in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_full_unstemmed Trends and Costs of External Electrical Bone Stimulators and Grafting Materials in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_short Trends and Costs of External Electrical Bone Stimulators and Grafting Materials in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_sort trends and costs of external electrical bone stimulators and grafting materials in anterior lumbar interbody fusion
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6284136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30322261
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.12.6.973
work_keys_str_mv AT doroanthony trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT buserzorica trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT brodkedarrelscott trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT parkjongbeom trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT yoonsangwooktim trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT youssefjimaimen trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT meiselhansjoerg trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT radcliffkristenemmanuel trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT hsiehpatrick trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT wangjeffreychun trendsandcostsofexternalelectricalbonestimulatorsandgraftingmaterialsinanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion