Back to Journals » Risk Management and Healthcare Policy » Volume 5

Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period

Authors Lucio JC, VanConia RB, DeLuzio KJ, Lehmen JA, Rodgers JA, Rodgers WB

Received 17 February 2012

Accepted for publication 6 March 2012

Published 20 August 2012 Volume 2012:5 Pages 65—74

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S30974

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 4

John C Lucio,1 R Brent VanConia,1 Kevin J DeLuzio,2 Jeffrey A Lehmen,3 Jody A Rodgers,3 WB Rodgers3

1St Mary's Health Center, Jefferson City, MO, USA; 2Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; 3Spine Midwest, Inc, Jefferson City, MO, USA

Background: There is great debate about the costs and benefits of technology-driven medical interventions such as instrumented lumbar fusion. With most analyses using charge data, the actual costs incurred by medical institutions performing these procedures are not well understood. The object of the current study was to examine the differences in hospital operating costs between open and minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) during the perioperative period.
Methods: Data were collected in the form of a prospective registry from a community hospital after specific Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. The analysis included consecutive adult patients being surgically treated for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine, with either an MIS or open approach for two-level instrumented lumbar fusion. Patient outcomes and costs were collected for the perioperative period. Hospital operating costs were grouped by hospitalization/operative procedure, transfusions, reoperations, and residual events (health care interactions).
Results: One hundred and one open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Open group) and 109 MIS patients were treated primarily for stenosis coupled with instability (39.6% and 59.6%, respectively). Mean total hospital costs were $27,055.53 for the Open group and $24,320.16 for the MIS group. This represents a statistically significant cost savings of $2,825.37 (10.4% [95% confidence interval: $522.51–$5,128.23]) when utilizing MIS over traditional Open techniques. Additionally, residual events, complications, and blood transfusions were significantly more frequent in the Open group, compared to the MIS group.
Conclusions/level of evidence: Utilizing minimally invasive techniques for instrumented spinal fusion results in decreased hospital operating costs compared to similar open procedures in the early perioperative period. Additionally, patient benefits of minimally invasive techniques include significantly less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower complication rate, and a lower number of residual events. Long-term outcome comparisons are needed to evaluate the efficacy of the two treatments. Level of evidence: III
Clinical relevance: This work represents a true cost-of-operating comparison between open and MIS approaches for lumbar spine fusion, which has relevance to surgeons, hospitals and payers in medical decision-making.

Keywords: lumbar, degenerative, complications, MIS, residual events

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Readers of this article also read:

Perioperative management of hemophilia patients receiving total hip and knee arthroplasty: a complication report of two cases

Tateiwa T, Takahashi Y, Ishida T, Kubo K, Masaoka T, Shishido T, Sano K, Yamamoto K

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2015, 11:1383-1389

Published Date: 15 September 2015

Emerging and future therapies for hemophilia

Carr ME, Tortella BJ

Journal of Blood Medicine 2015, 6:245-255

Published Date: 3 September 2015

A new recombinant factor VIII: from genetics to clinical use

Santagostino E

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2014, 8:2507-2515

Published Date: 12 December 2014

Patient preference and ease of use for different coagulation factor VIII reconstitution device scenarios: a cross-sectional survey in five European countries

Cimino E, Linari S, Malerba M, Halimeh S, Biondo F, Westfeld M

Patient Preference and Adherence 2014, 8:1713-1720

Published Date: 12 December 2014

Second case report of successful electroconvulsive therapy for a patient with schizophrenia and severe hemophilia A

Saito N, Shioda K, Nisijima K, Kobayashi T, Kato S

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2014, 10:865-867

Published Date: 16 May 2014

Managing hemophilia: the role of mobile technology

Khair K, Holland M

Smart Homecare Technology and TeleHealth 2014, 2:39-44

Published Date: 6 May 2014

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012