Daniels, Alan H.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine predictors of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) following cervical spinal deformity surgery. METHODS A retrospective review was performed of a prospective, multicenter adult cervical spinal deformity database. All patients had baseline and 1-year NDI scores. Patients met MCID with an improvement of NDI by 7 points between baseline and 1 year, as previously established. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and both baseline and 1-year spinopelvic parameters were evaluated for statistical significance in a univariate logistic regression analysis. Significant variables, in addition to baseline NDI, were analyzed in a multivariable logistic regression model by backward selection with Akaike information criterion minimization. RESULTS A total of 122 patients were included with a median age of 62 (IQR 56, 69) years; 62% of patients were female. Of the 122 patients, 72 (59%) achieved NDI MCID at 1 year. Predictors of achieving MCID on univariate analysis included a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) total score (OR 0.70, p = 0.03), depression as a comorbidity (OR 2.9, p = 0.02), lower C2 tilt at the 1-year follow-up (OR 0.92, p = 0.02), and a greater difference between 1-year postoperative C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and preoperative C2–7 SVA (OR 0.98, p = 0.0495). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, predictors of achieving MCID included a lower CCI (OR 0.62, p = 0.03), depression as a comorbidity (OR 3.1, p = 0.059), a greater change in C2–7 SVA at the 1-year follow-up compared with baseline (OR 0.97, p = 0.055), and baseline NDI (OR 1.02, p = 0.24) with an area under the curve of 0.74. CONCLUSIONS The best-fit multivariable model included higher baseline NDI, a greater change in C2–7 SVA, patient-reported baseline depression, and lower CCI as important factors in predicting NDI MCID.

OBJECTIVE Procedural reimbursement for spine surgery has changed drastically over the past 20 years. A comprehensive understanding of these trends is important as major changes in reimbursement models of spine surgery continue to evolve within various spine specialties as well as broader national healthcare policy. In this study the authors evaluated the monetary trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for the 15 most common spinal surgery procedures from 2000 to 2021. METHODS The National Surgery Quality Improvement Project database (2019) was queried to determine the 15 most commonly performed spine surgery procedures. The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for each of these procedures were obtained from the Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and comprehensive reimbursement data for each code were extracted. Changes in Medicare reimbursement rates were calculated and averaged for each procedure as both raw percent changes and percent changes adjusted for inflation to 2021 US dollars (USD) based on the consumer price index (CPI). The adjusted R2 value, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR), and both the average annual and the total percent change in reimbursement were calculated based on these adjusted trends for all included procedures. RESULTS After adjustment for inflation, average reimbursement for all procedures decreased by 33.8% from 2000 to 2021. The greatest mean decrease was seen in anterior cervical arthrodesis (−38.7%), while the smallest mean decrease was in vertebral body excision (−17.1%). From 2000 to 2021, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all included procedures decreased by an average of 1.9% each year, with an average R2 value of 0.69. CONCLUSIONS This is the first study to evaluate monetary trends in Medicare reimbursement for spine surgery procedures. After adjusting for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for the 15 most commonly performed spine procedures has steadily decreased from 2000 to 2021. Increased awareness of these trends and the forces driving them will be critical in the coming years as negotiations regarding reimbursement models continue to unfold. Greater understanding of spine surgery reimbursement among policy makers, hospitals, and surgeons will be important to ensure continued access to quality surgical spine care in the United States.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate monetary trends from 2000 to 2018 in Medicare reimbursement rates for the most common general surgery procedures. Summary Background Data: A complete understanding of financial trends in general surgery in the United States is lacking. As such, an evaluation of trends in reimbursement rates in general surgery is important for defining the specialty's current and future financial health. Methods: The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was queried for each of the 20 top codes top in general surgery. The total raw percent change in Medicare reimbursement rate for each procedure from 2000 to 2018 was calculated and averaged. All data was corrected for inflation. Both average annual and total percentage change were calculated based on these adjusted trends. Compound annual growth rate was calculated using the adjusted data. Results: After adjusting all data for inflation, the reimbursement rate for all included procedures decreased by an average of 24.4% throughout the study period. During this time, the adjusted reimbursement rate decreased by an average of 1.4% each year with an average compound annual growth rate of −1.6%. Conclusion: After adjusting for inflation, Medicare reimbursement rates in general surgery have steadily decreased from 2000 to 2018. It is important that these trends are understood and considered by surgeons, healthcare administrators, and policy-makers in order to develop and implement agreeable models of reimbursement while ensuring access to quality general surgery care in the United States.

Study Design: Descriptive analysis using publicly available data. Objectives: The purpose of this study was 2-fold: to assess patient-rated trustworthiness of spine surgeons as a whole and to assess if academic proclivity, region of practice, or physician sex affects ratings of patient perceived trust. Methods: Orthopedic spine surgeons were randomly selected from the North American Spine Society directory. Surgeon profiles on 3 online physician rating websites, HealthGrades, Vitals, and RateMDs were analyzed for patient-reported trustworthiness. Whether or not the surgeon had published a PubMed-indexed paper in 2016 was assessed with regard to trustworthiness scores. Total number of publications was also assessed. Individuals with >300 publications were excluded due to the likelihood of repeat names. Results: Recent publication and total number of publications has no relationship with online patient ratings of trustworthiness across all surgeons in this study. Region of practice likewise has no influence on mean trust ratings, yet varied levels of correlation are observed. Furthermore, there was no difference in trust scores between male and female surgeons. Conclusion: Total academic proclivity via indexed publications does not correlate with patient perceived physician trustworthiness among spine surgeons as reported on physician review websites. Furthermore, region of practice within the United States does not have an influence on these trust scores. Likewise, there is no difference in trust score between female and male spine surgeons. This study also highlights an increasing utility for physician rating websites in spine surgery for evaluating and monitoring patient perception.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. Objective: To examine the incidence of iatrogenic spinal cord injury following elective cervical spine surgery. Methods: A retrospective multicenter case series study involving 21 high-volume surgical centers from the AOSpine North America Clinical Research Network was conducted. Medical records for 17 625 patients who received cervical spine surgery (levels from C2 to C7) between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, were reviewed to identify occurrence of iatrogenic spinal cord injury. Results: In total, 3 cases of iatrogenic spinal cord injury following cervical spine surgery were identified. Institutional incidence rates ranged from 0.0% to 0.24%. Of the 3 patients with quadriplegia, one underwent anterior-only surgery with 2-level cervical corpectomy, one underwent anterior surgery with corpectomy in addition to posterior surgery, and one underwent posterior decompression and fusion surgery alone. One patient had complete neurologic recovery, one partially recovered, and one did not recover motor function. Conclusion: Iatrogenic spinal cord injury following cervical spine surgery is a rare and devastating adverse event. No standard protocol exists that can guarantee prevention of this complication, and there is a lack of consensus regarding evaluation and treatment when it does occur. Emergent imaging with magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography myelography to evaluate for compressive etiology or malpositioned instrumentation and avoidance of hypotension should be performed in cases of intraoperative and postoperative spinal cord injury.