Stonnington, Henry O.

ABSTRACT Introduction Chronic back/neck pain costs the United States around 250 billion dollars annually. Treatment strategies include medication, physical therapy, and specialized procedures. This study aimed to investigate the trends in procedural frequency and Medicare reimbursement rates for common back pain procedures. Methods Data from 2000 to 2020 were extracted from Medicare Part B National Summary Data files, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to identify reimbursement for cervical/thoracic and lumbar/sacral epidural injections, radiofrequency ablation, facet joint injections, and spinal cord stimulators (both percutaneous and paddle). Key metrics included annual total physician charges, reimbursements, and the number of procedures performed. Results From 2000 to 2020, 53,208,205 pain procedures were performed. The most common was lumbar/sacral epidural injections, followed by facet joint injections and radiofrequency ablations. Paddle SCS placement was the least common. Percutaneous SCS had the greatest volume growth, increasing from 3595 to 111,172 [+2992%], followed by lumbar/sacral epidural injections with 118,884 to 1,965,445 [+1553%], and cervical/thoracic epidural injections, 22,480–348,642 [+1451%]. All procedures saw a significant increase in volume except for facet joint injections. Inflation‐adjusted reimbursement per service also increased, with paddle SCS demonstrating the largest increase ($618–$2960 [+379.0%]), followed by percutaneous SCS ($353–$1428 [+304.5%]) and cervical/thoracic epidural injections ($128–$153 [+19.5%]). Conclusions Pain management procedures have increased in volume and reimbursement over the last 20 years. This increased reimbursement may allow for broader access to these procedures compared to prior decades and support a shift from traditional and more invasive surgical procedures to minimally invasive treatments for chronic pain patients.

In a period when the budding field of neurosurgery was believed to have little promise, Dr Alfred Washington Adson founded and led the first neurosurgical department at Mayo Clinic. He was not without reservations—surgical intervention for neurological conditions was rarely pursued because of poor outcomes and high complication rates, and Dr Adson acknowledged his early concerns about the future of neurosurgery in his memoirs. However, his education, mentorship, his training, and his first neurosurgical cases helped to shape the impact he ultimately had on the field and his legacy as a neurosurgeon. Dr Adson trained with several renowned Mayo general surgeons, notably his mentor Dr Emil Beckman, whose desire for operative precision shaped Dr Adson's drive to develop his own skills as a surgeon. Two years into his residency, he became the youngest staff surgeon and was tasked with managing the neurosurgical cases at Mayo. The five neurosurgical cases overseen by Dr Adson in the next year illuminated the opportunity for neurosurgery to drastically improve the lives of patients. Dr Adson, given the option of continuing as either a general surgeon or a neurosurgeon, ultimately chose to pursue neurosurgery. This article seeks to provide a historical perspective on the neurosurgeon Dr Alfred Washington Adson using primary and secondary accounts from the Mayo archives, highlighting his contributions to the early understanding of intracranial pathology and how his early experiences as a trainee developed into a personal passion for self-improvement, education, and advocacy for health care in America.

Introduction Arteriovenous fistulas at the craniocervical junction (CCAVFs) are challenging to treat due to variation in angioarchitecture and shunting sites. No consensus exists as to whether open surgery or endovascular approaches are better in regards to outcomes, complications, and need for reintervention. As such, weexplore the efficacy, outcomes, and complications of endovascular versus open surgery for dural arteriovenous fistulas at the craniocervical junction. Methods A systematic review was performed using the EMBASE, PubMed,and Cochrane databases in April 2022. MeSH search terms included (craniocervical) AND (arteriovenous OR fistula OR AVF). Inclusion criteria were defined as patients with CCAVFs who were treated with open surgery or endovascular therapy with reported clinical outcomes at 6 months or later. Results A total of 357 studies were screened; of which 75 were included. A total of 416 patients (309 males, 91 females) were included with an average age of 61.9 years. A total of 236 patients underwent surgery (mean age: 61.5), 71 patients underwent embolization (mean age: 62.6), and 25 patients underwent a combination (mean age: 54.7). Outcomes were reported in 39 surgery cases (mean follow up time: 31.4 months), and 54 endovascular cases (mean follow up time: 24.2 months). Within the open surgery group 47 (57.3%) had complete symptom resolution, 23 (28%) had symptom improvement or stabilization, 11 (13.4%) permanent deficit, and 1 (1.2%) resulted in death. Within the endovascular group 26 (56.5%) had complete symptom resolution, 5 (10.9%) had symptom improvement or stabilization, 15 (32.6%) permanent deficit, and 0 (0%) resulted in death. Conclusions Open surgery and embolization yield comparable symptomatic improvement and stabilization. However, the rate of permanent deficits is higher withembolization, while mortality is higher with open surgery. Further studies are required to better associate these outcomes to baseline parameters including treatment decision making, size of the lesion, patient age, and co‐morbidities.

Introduction While neurovascular surgeries have largely been performed by neurosurgeons, the advent of endovascular procedures has produced increasing involvement of other specialists in this arena (i.e. neurologists and radiologists).This study aims to analyzethe involvement of different specialties within theneuroendovascular workforce by characterizingthem by their primary specialty. Methods The Medicare Provider Utilization Database was queried from 2013 to 2019 for all primary Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes identified by the American Medical Association as pertaining to endovascular procedures of the nervous system (61623, 61624, 61630, 61635, 61626, 61645, and 61650). We counted the number of unique providers in respective fields (neurology, neurosurgery, and radiology) who performed these procedures. Statistical analyses, including data aggregation, exploratory analysis, and propensity adjustment, were performed using R, version 4.0.1 (The R Foundation, Vienna, Austria). The two‐sided Mann‐Kendall trend test, a non‐parametric statistical test that assesses for monotonic trends in either an upward or downward trend, was utilized to assess for trends over time. Within each year analyzed, a Chi‐squared test for trend in proportions was used. A significance level of 0.05 was used. Results In 2013, neurosurgeons comprised 45% of the workforce performing these procedures, neurologists were 9%, and radiologists were 47%. By 2019, neurosurgeons decreased to 34.5% of the workforce, while neurologists increased to 21.5%, and radiologists decreased slightly to 44%. Neurologists were the only field in which the proportional shift in providers was noted to have a significant change in trajectory (p:0.04), an upward trajectory. Overall proportional differences between respective specialists were statistically significant each year (p< 0.01). Conclusions Neurologists are increasingly performing endovascular procedures. Increased communication and coordination between specialties can improve disparities in care to ensure adequate access to neurovascular care across the US.

Introduction Endovascular procedures have become increasingly popular in recent years due to preference of minimally invasive approaches and technological advancement.This study aims to characterize the trends in procedural rates of common neuro‐endovascular procedures performed by neurologists, neurosurgeons, and radiologists. Methods The Medicare Provider Utilization Database was queried from 2013 to 2019 for all primary Current Procedural Terminology codes identified by the American Medical Association as pertaining to endovascular procedures of the nervous system (61623, 61624, 61630, 61635, 61626, 61645, and 61650). Statistical analyses, including data aggregation, exploratory analysis, and propensity adjustment, were performed using R, version 4.0.1 (The R Foundation, Vienna, Austria). The two‐sided Mann‐Kendall trend test, a non‐parametric statistical test that assesses for monotonic trends in either an upward or downward trend, was utilized to assess for trends over time. A significance level of 0.05 was used. Results Between 2013 to 2019 a total of 40,730 endovascular procedures were performed by neurosurgeons, neurologists and radiologists treating Medicare patients. When all codes were combined, there was a significant increase in the number of procedures done by all specialists: Radiology (2013:1080; 2019:4938; p:0.02), Neurosurgery (2013:1230; 2019:4508; p< 0.01), and Neurology (2013:205; 2019:2397; p:0.04). Significant increases in mechanical thrombectomy (CPT61645) were observed in all fields: Radiology (2016:1287, 2019:3542; p< 0.01), Neurosurgery (2016:610; 2019:2326; p< 0.01), Neurology (2016:569; 2019:1951; p< 0.01). Increases in transcatheter permanent occlusion (CPT61624) were observed in neurosurgery (2013:1230; 2019:2049; p:0.04). Increases in temporary balloon artery occlusion (CPT61623) were noted in neurology (2013:21; 2019:27; p:0.04). Conclusions Endovascular procedures have seen a dramatic rise in utilization over a short amount of time, particularly mechanical thrombectomy. Future investigation should include more inclusive datasets beyond the Medicare population.