Tag: Cost

Posted on

Comparison of suboccipital craniectomy versus suboccipital cranioplasty in foramen magnum decompression for adult Chiari malformation

J Neurosurg Spine 43:237–245, 2025

This retrospective study compared suboccipital craniectomy and cranioplasty for foramen magnum decompression in adult Chiari malformation. Both techniques improved symptoms and syrinx size, but cranioplasty incurred higher costs without significant clinical or radiological advantages. Cost considerations should be discussed during shared decision-making.

• Suboccipital craniectomy and suboccipital cranioplasty are two surgical techniques for foramen magnum decompression (FMD) in adult Chiari malformation.

• Both procedures significantly improve preoperative symptoms and reduce syrinx size, with no significant difference in clinical outcomes.

• Suboccipital craniectomy results in a greater increase in subarachnoid space compared to cranioplasty.

• No significant differences were found in surgical time, estimated blood loss, or cervical alignment between the two groups.

• Suboccipital cranioplasty incurs higher daily medical costs due to the use of plates and screws for bony reconstruction.

• Both techniques have similar rates of complications and secondary surgeries.

• The additional costs of cranioplasty should be discussed with patients during shared decision-making.

• Study limitations include retrospective design, small sample size, surgeon preference, and shorter follow-up for cranioplasty.

Posted on

How Do the True Intraoperative Costs of Endoscopic Diskectomy Compare With Microdiskectomy for Lumbar Disk Herniations?

Operative Neurosurgery 27:690–697, 2024

Endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (ED) is a minimally invasive option for addressing lumbar disk herniations. With the introduction of value-based care systems, assessing the true cost of certain procedures is critical when creating reimbursement models and comparing procedures. Here, we compared the costs of performing a microdiskectomy (MD) and ED using time-driven activity-based costing.

METHODS: Total cost for the intraoperative episode was calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation and electronic medical records and through querying multiple departments (business operations, sterile processing, plant operations, and pharmacy). Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. A retrospective analysis was performed on 202 patients who underwent lumbar diskectomy through either MD (n = 167) or ED (n = 35) from 2018 to 2022. Personnel cost was calculated by multiplying the cost per unit time for each personnel type by the length of time spent in the operating room. Supply cost was calculated by aggregating the cost of all individual supplies, from medications to consumables to surgical trays, used during the case. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed comparing the costs between these procedures.

RESULTS: The average intraoperative cost per case for ED and MD was $3915 ± $1025 and $3162 ± $954, respectively. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that ED had higher total cost ( β -coefficient: $912 ± $281, P = <.01) and supply cost ( β -coefficient: $474 ± $155, P = <.01) than MD. When accounting for surgeon as a covariate, however, total cost (P = .478) and supply cost (P = .468) differences between ED and MD were negligible.

CONCLUSION: ED has shown to be a better value option in addressing lumbar disk herniations, mostly because of advantages in perioperative care. Here, we show that when correcting for surgeon-level effects, the cost between the two procedures is statistically insignificant, reaffirming the value provided by ED.

Posted on

What is the Marginal Cost of Using Robot Assistance or Navigation for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis

Neurosurgery 95:556–565, 2024

Our primary objective was to compare the marginal intraoperative cost of 3 different methods for pedicle screw placement as part of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs). Specifically, we used time-driven activity-based costing to compare costs between robot-assisted TLIF (RA-TLIF), TLIF with intraoperative navigation (ION-TLIF), and freehand (non-navigated, nonrobotic) TLIF.

METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. We identified all instances of RA-TLIF (n = 20), ION-TLIF (n = 59), and freehand TLIF (n = 233) from 2020 to 2022 at our institution. Software was developed to automate the extraction of all intraoperatively used personnel and material resources from the electronic medical record. Total costs were determined through a combination of direct observation, electronic medical record extraction, and interdepartmental collaboration (business operations, sterile processing, pharmacy, and plant operation departments). Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to compare costs between TLIF modalities, accounting for patient-specific factors as well as number of levels fused, surgeon, and hospital site.

RESULTS: The average total intraoperative cost per case for the RA-TLIF, ION-TLIF, and freehand TLIF cohorts was $24 838 ± $10 748, $15 991 ± $6254, and $14 498 ± $6580, respectively. Regression analysis revealed that RA-TLIF had significantly higher intraoperative cost compared with both ION-TLIF ( β -coefficient: $7383 ± $1575, P < .001) and freehand TLIF ( β -coefficient: $8182 ± $1523, P < .001). These cost differences were primarily driven by supply cost. However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative cost between ION-TLIF and freehand TLIF (P = .32).

CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a novel use of time-driven activity-based costing methodology to compare different modalities for executing the same type of lumbar fusion procedure. RA-TLIF entails significantly higher supply cost when compared with other modalities, which explains its association with higher total intraoperative cost. The use of ION, however, does not add extra expense compared with freehand TLIF when accounting for confounders. This might have implications as surgeons and hospitals move toward bundled payments.

Posted on

Economic burden of nonoperative treatment of adult spinal deformity

J Neurosurg Spine 39:751–756, 2023

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost utility of nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD).

METHODS Nonoperatively and operatively treated patients who met database criteria for ASD and in whom complete radiographic and health-related quality of life data at baseline and at 2 years were available were included. A cost analysis was completed on the PearlDiver database assessing the average cost of nonoperative treatment prior to surgical intervention based on previously published treatments (NSAIDs, narcotics, muscle relaxants, epidural steroid injections, physical therapy, and chiropractor). Utility data were calculated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) converted to SF-6D with published conversion methods. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) used a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline in life expectancy (78.7 years). Minor and major comorbidities and complications were assessed according to the CMS.gov manual’s definitions. Successful nonoperative treatment was defined as a gain in the minimum clinically importance difference (MCID) in both ODI and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)–pain scores, and failure was defined as a loss in MCID or conversion to operative treatment. Patients with baseline ODI ≤ 20 and continued ODI of ≤ 20 at 2 years were considered nonoperative successful maintenance. The average utilization of nonoperative treatment and cost were applied to the ASD cohort.

RESULTS A total of 824 patients were included (mean age 58.24 years, 81% female, mean body mass index 27.2 kg/m 2 ). Overall, 75.5% of patients were in the operative and 24.5% were in the nonoperative cohort. At baseline patients in the operative cohort were significantly older, had a greater body mass index, increased pelvic tilt, and increased pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch (all p < 0.05). With respect to deformity, patients in the operative group had higher rates of severe (i.e., ++) sagittal deformity according to SRS–Schwab modifiers for pelvic tilt, sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch (p < 0.05). At 2 years, patients in the operative cohort showed significantly increased rates of a gain in MCID for physical component summary of SF-36, ODI, and SRS-activity, SRS-pain, SRSappearance, and SRS-mental scores. Cost analysis showed the average cost of nonoperative treatment 2 years prior

to surgical intervention to be $2041. Overall, at 2 years patients in the nonoperative cohort had again in ODI of 0.36, did not show a gain in QALYs, and nonoperative treatment was determined to be cost-ineffective. However, a subset of patients in this cohort underwent successful maintenance treatment and had a decrease in ODI of 1.1 and a gain in utility of 0.006 at 2 years. If utility gained for this cohort was sustained to full life expectancy, patients’ cost per QALY was $18,934 compared to a cost per QALY gained of $70,690.79 for posterior-only and $48,273.49 for combined approach in patients in the operative cohort.

CONCLUSIONS Patients with ASD undergoing operative treatment at baseline had greater sagittal deformity and greater improvement in health-related quality of life postoperatively compared to patients treated nonoperatively. Additionally, patients in the nonoperative cohort overall had an increase in ODI and did not show improvement in utility gained. Patients in the nonoperative cohort who had low disability and sagittal deformity underwent successful maintenance and cost-effective treatment.

Posted on

Comparing costs of microsurgical resection and stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma

J Neurosurg 131:1395–1404, 2019

Given rising scrutiny of healthcare expenditures, understanding intervention costs is increasingly important. This study aimed to compare and characterize costs for vestibular schwannoma (VS) management with microsurgery and radiosurgery to inform practice decisions and appraise cost reduction strategies.

METHODS In conjunction with medical records, internal hospital financial data were used to evaluate costs. Total cost was divided into index costs (costs from arrival through discharge for initial intervention) and follow-up costs (through 36 months) for 317 patients with unilateral VSs undergoing initial management between June 2011 and December 2015. A retrospective matched cohort based on tumor size with 176 patients (88 undergoing each intervention) was created to objectively compare costs between microsurgery and radiosurgery. The full sample of 203 patients treated with resection and 114 patients who underwent radiosurgery was used to evaluate a broad range of outcomes and identify cost contributors within each intervention group.

RESULTS Within the matched cohort, average index costs were significantly higher for microsurgery (100% by definition, because costs are presented as a percentage of the average index cost for the matched microsurgery group; 95% CI 93–107) compared to radiosurgery (38%, 95% CI 38–39). Microsurgery had higher average follow-up costs (1.6% per month, 95% CI 0.8%–2.4%) compared to radiosurgery (0.5% per month, 95% CI 0.4%–0.7%), largely due to costs incurred in the initial months after resection. A major contributor to total cost and cost variability for both resection and radiosurgery was the need for additional interventions in the follow-up period, which were necessary due to complications or persistent functional deficits. Although tumor size was not associated with increased total costs for radiosurgery, linear regression analysis demonstrated that, for patients who underwent microsurgery, each centimeter increase in tumor maximum diameter resulted in an estimated increase in total cost of 50.2% of the average index cost of microsurgery (95% CI 34.6%–65.7%) (p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.17). There were no cost differences associated with the proportion of inpatient days in the ICU or with specific surgical approach for patients who underwent resection.

CONCLUSIONS This study is the largest assessment to date based on internal cost data comparing VS management with microsurgery and radiosurgery. Both index and follow-up costs are significantly higher when tumors were managed with resection compared to radiosurgery. Larger tumors were associated with increased resection costs, highlighting the incremental costs associated with observation as the initial management.

Posted on

Drivers of Variability in 90-Day Cost for Elective Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disease

Neurosurgery 83:898–904, 2018

Value-based episode of care reimbursement models is being investigated to curb unsustainable health care costs. Any variation in the cost of index spine surgery can affect the payment bundling during the 90-d global period.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the drivers of variability in cost for patients undergoing elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative cervical spine disease.

METHODS: Four hundred forty-five patients undergoing elective ACDF for cervical spine degenerative diagnoses were included in the study. The direct 90-d cost was derived as sum of cost of surgery, cost associated with postdischarge utilization. Multiple variable linear regression models were built for total 90-d cost.

RESULTS: The mean 90-d direct cost was $17685 ± $5731. In a multiple variable linear regression model, the length of surgery, number of levels involved, length of hospital stay, preoperative history of anticoagulation medication, health-care resource utilization including number of imaging, any complications and readmission encounter were the significant contributor to the 90-d cost. The model performance as measured by R2 was 0.616.

CONCLUSION: There was considerable variation in total 90-d cost for elective ACDF surgery. Our model can explain about 62% of these variations in 90-d cost. The episode of care reimbursement models needs to take into account these variations and be inclusive of the factors that drive the variation in cost to develop a sustainable payment model. The generalized applicability should take in to account the differences in patient population, surgeons’ and institution-specific differences.

Posted on

Reduced Acute Care Costs With the ERAS ® Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Conventional Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Neurosurgery 83:827–834, 2018

Enhancing Recovery After Surgery (ERAS (R)  ) programs have been widely adopted throughout the world, but not in spinal surgery. In this report, we review the implementation of a “fast track”surgery for lumbar fusion and its effect on acute care hospitalization costs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a “fast track” surgery methodology results in acute care cost savings.

METHODS: Thirty-eight consecutive ERAS patients were compared with patients undergoing conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Differences between these groups included the use of endoscopic decompression, injections of liposomal bupivacaine, and performing the surgery under sedation in the ERAS R  group.

RESULTS: Patients had similar medical comorbidities (2.02 vs 2 for ERAS R  and comparator groups, respectively; P = .458). Body mass index was similar (26.5 vs 27.0; P = .329). ERAS R  patients were older (65 vs 59 yr, P= .031). Both groups had excellent clinical results with an improvement of 23% and 24%, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss was less (68±31 cc vs 231±73, P<0.001). Length of staywas also less with ERAS R  surgery, at ameanof 1.23±0.8 d vs 3.9 ± 1.1 d (P = 0.009). When comparing ERAS R  surgery to standard minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, the total cost for the acute care hospitalization was $19212vs $22656, respectively(P<0.001). This reflected an average of $3444 in savings, which was a 15.2% reduction.

CONCLUSION: ERAS (R)  programs for spinal fusion surgery have the potential to reduce the costs of acute care. This is made possible by leveraging less invasive interventions to minimize soft tissue damage.

Posted on

The Cost of Brain Surgery: Awake vs Asleep Craniotomy for Perirolandic Region Tumors

Neurosurgery 81:307–314, 2017

Cost effectiveness has become an important factor in the health care system, requiring surgeons to improve efficacy of procedures while reducing costs. An awake craniotomy (AC) with direct cortical stimulation (DCS) presents one method to resect eloquent region tumors; however, some authors assert that this procedure is an expensive alternative to surgery under general anesthesia (GA) with neuromonitoring.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness and clinical outcomes between AC and GA patients.

METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a cohort of 17 patients with perirolandic gliomas who underwent an AC with DCS were case-control matched with 23 patients with perirolandic gliomas who underwent surgery under GA with neuromonitoring (ie, motor-evoked potentials, somatosensory-evoked potentials, phase reversal). Inpatient costs, qualityadjusted life years (QALY), extent of resection, and neurological outcome were compared between the groups.

RESULTS: Total inpatient expense per patient was $34 804 in the AC group and $46 798 in the GA group (P = .046). QALY score for the AC group was 0.97 and 0.47 for the GA group (P = .041). The incremental cost per QALY for the AC group was $82 720 less than the GA group. Postoperative Karnofsky performance status was 91.8 in the AC group and 81.3 in the GA group (P=.047). Length of hospitalization was 4.12 days in the AC group and 7.61 days in the GA group (P = .049).

CONCLUSION: The total inpatient costs for awake craniotomies were lower than surgery under GA. This study suggests better cost effectiveness and neurological outcome with awake craniotomies for perirolandic gliomas.

Posted on

Cost analysis of awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation

iCT-DBS

J Neurosurg 124:1517–1523, 2016

The objective of this study was to compare the cost of deep brain stimulation (DBS) performed awake versus asleep at a single US academic health center and to compare costs across the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Clinical Database.

Methods Inpatient and outpatient demographic and hospital financial data for patients receiving a neurostimulator lead implant (from the first quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2014) were collected and analyzed. Inpatient charges included those associated with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure code 0293 (implantation or replacement of intracranial neurostimulator lead). Outpatient charges included all preoperative charges ≤ 30 days prior to implant and all postoperative charges ≤ 30 days after implant. The cost of care based on reported charges and a cost-to-charge ratio was estimated. The UHC database was queried (January 2011 to March 2014) with the same ICD-9 code. Procedure cost data across like hospitals (27 UHC hospitals) conducting similar DBS procedures were compared.

Results Two hundred eleven DBS procedures (53 awake and 158 asleep) were performed at a single US academic health center during the study period. The average patient age (± SD) was 65 ± 9 years old and 39% of patients were female. The most common primary diagnosis was Parkinson’s disease (61.1%) followed by essential and other forms of tremor (36%). Overall average DBS procedure cost was $39,152 ± $5340. Asleep DBS cost $38,850 ± $4830, which was not significantly different than the awake DBS cost of $40,052 ± $6604. The standard deviation for asleep DBS was significantly lower (p ≤ 0.05). In 2013, the median cost for a neurostimulator implant lead was $34,052 at UHC-affiliated hospitals that performed at least 5 procedures a year. At Oregon Health & Science University, the median cost was $17,150 and the observed single academic health center cost for a neurostimulator lead implant was less than the expected cost (ratio 0.97).

Conclusions In this single academic medical center cost analysis, DBS performed asleep was associated with a lower cost variation relative to the awake procedure. Furthermore, costs compared favorably to UHC-affiliated hospitals. While asleep DBS is not yet standard practice, this center exclusively performs asleep DBS at a lower cost than comparable institutions.

 

Posted on

The effect of coiling vs clipping of ruptured and unruptured cerebral aneurysms on length of stay, hospital cost, hospital reimbursement, and surgeon reimbursement at the University of Florida

Neurosurgery 64:614–621, 2009 DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000340784.75352.A4

There are few studies comparing the economic costs and reimbursements for aneurysm clipping versus coiling, and none are from the United States. Our hypothesis predicted that coiling would result in shorter lengths of hospitalization than clipping in patients with unruptured aneurysms and would therefore result in lower hospital charges. However, because of the severity of subarachnoid hemorrhage, there would be no difference in length of hospitalization or hospital charges in patients with ruptured aneurysms.

Methods: We compared aneurysm coiling with aneurysm clipping in patients with unruptured and ruptured aneurysms treated at the University of Florida from January 2005 to June 2007 for differences in length of hospitalization, hospital costs, hospital collections, and surgeon collections. Patient demographic and aneurysm characteristic data were obtained from a clinical database. Length of hospitalization, cost, billing, and collection data were obtained from the hospital cost accounting database. Multivariate statistical analyses of length of hospitalization, hospital costs, hospital collections, and surgeon collections were performed using factors including patient age, sex, aneurysm size, aneurysm location, aneurysm treatment, presence of subarachnoid hemorrhage, clinical grade, payor, hospital billing, and surgeon billing.

Results: There were 565 patients with cerebral aneurysms treated either surgically (306 patients, 54%) or endovascularly (259 patients, 46%). In patients without subarachnoid hemorrhage (unruptured aneurysms) (n=367), surgery, compared with endovascular treatment, was associated with longer hospitalization (P<0.001), but lower hospital costs (P<0.001), higher surgeon collections (P<0.003), and similar hospital collections. In patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (ruptured aneurysms) (n=198), surgery was associated with lower hospital costs (P<0.011), but similar length of stay, surgeon collections, and hospital collections. Larger aneurysm size was significantly associated with longer hospitalization in the patients with unruptured aneurysms (P<0.001) and higher hospital costs for both patients with unruptured (P<0.001) and ruptured (P<0.015) aneurysms. The payor was significantly associated with hospital costs in patients with ruptured aneurysms (P<0.034) and length of stay (unruptured aneurysms, P<0.001; ruptured aneurysms, P<0.001), hospital collections (unruptured aneurysms, P<0.001; ruptured aneurysms, P<0.001), and surgeon collections (unruptured aneurysms, P<0.001; ruptured aneurysms, P<0.001) in both patients with unruptured and ruptured aneurysms. A worse clinical grade was significantly associated with higher hospital costs (P<0.001).

Conclusion: Despite a shorter length of hospitalization in patients with unruptured aneurysms, coiling was associated with higher hospital costs in both patients with unruptured and ruptured aneurysms. This is likely attributable to the higher device cost of coils than clips. The advantages of coiling over clipping would be better realized if the cost of coils could be comparably reduced to that of clips.

Proudly powered by WordPress