There is no "Value Penalty" for revision spine surgery: an application of the operative value index for primary versus revision lumbar fusions

被引:0
|
作者
Sarikonda, Advith [1 ]
Glener, Steven [1 ]
Self, D. Mitchell [1 ]
Quraishi, Danyal [2 ]
Sami, Ashmal [1 ]
Keppetipola, Kavantissa M. [1 ]
Amaravadi, Cheritesh R. [1 ]
Isch, Emily L. [3 ]
Heller, Joshua [1 ]
Prasad, Srinivas K. [1 ]
Sharan, Ashwini [1 ]
Jallo, Jack [1 ]
Vaccaro, Alexander R. [4 ]
Harrop, James [1 ]
Clark, Nicholas [5 ]
Sivaganesan, Ahilan [5 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Jefferson Hosp Neurosci, Dept Neurosurg, 909 Walnut St,2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[2] Drexel Univ, Dept Surg, Philadelphia, PA USA
[3] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Dept Gen Surg, Philadelphia, PA USA
[4] Rothman Orthopaed Inst, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Philadelphia, PA USA
[5] NCH, Hosp Special Surg, Naples, FL, Italy
关键词
Revision; Lumbar fusion; TDABC; Operative value index; OVI; COST; COMPLICATIONS; LAMINECTOMY; TRENDS;
D O I
10.1007/s10143-025-03480-7
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
The increasing prevalence of elective lumbar fusions has been accompanied by a steady rise in revision procedures. Few studies have identified the relative cost-effectiveness of revision lumbar fusion using detailed costing methodology. Here, we aim to compare the "value" (outcomes achieved per dollar spent) of primary versus revision lumbar fusion by integrating time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). 292 patients were prospectively enrolled to undergo elective lumbar fusion. Revision surgery was defined as any case of lumbar fusion after a previous lumbar spine surgery. TDABC was employed to identify intraoperative costs for all cases. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected both preoperatively and at 6-months postoperatively. "Value" was measured through the Operative Value Index (OVI), defined as the percent improvement in ODI per $1,000 spent intraoperatively. Multivariable linear regression, accounting for confounders, was performed to assess whether revision surgery was significantly associated with total cost and OVI. Secondary analyses were performed to compare costs and OVI between primary fusions, revisions for prior decompression and fusion, and revisions for prior decompression alone. The average total cost of a revision fusion was $18,252 +/- $8,496, compared to $18,073 +/- $8,894 for a primary fusion. The average OVI for these groups were 1.79 and 1.65, respectively. On multivariable regression analysis, there were no significant differences in OVI (p = 0.423) or total cost (p = 0.841) between primary and revision cohorts.In the era of value-based care, it is increasingly important for hospitals to identify drivers of variation in the cost-effectiveness of neurosurgical care. By integrating PROs with detailed cost data, we demonstrate that revision lumbar fusions may not significantly differ in cost or value compared to primary fusions.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] What Is the Value Proposition of Evidence-Based Guidelines? An Application of the Operative Value Index for Lumbar Fusions
    Sarikonda, Advith
    Sami, Ashmal
    Hines, Kevin
    Self, D. Mitchell
    Isch, Emily
    Leibold, Adam
    Keppetipola, Kavantissa M.
    Gonzalez, Glenn
    Ali, Daniyal Mansoor
    Thalheimer, Sara
    Heller, Joshua
    Prasad, Srinivas
    Jallo, Jack
    Sharan, Ashwini
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Harrop, James
    Sivaganesan, Ahilan
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 189
  • [2] The value of intraoperative Gram stain in revision spine surgery
    Shifflett, Grant D.
    Nwachukwu, Benedict U.
    Bjerke-Kroll, Benjamin T.
    Kueper, Janina
    Koltsov, Jayme B.
    Sama, Andrew A.
    Girardi, Federico P.
    Cammisa, Frank P.
    Hughes, Alexander P.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 15 (10): : 2198 - 2205
  • [3] Rationale of Revision Lumbar Spine Surgery
    Elgafy, Hossein
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Chapman, Jens R.
    Dvorak, Marcel F.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2012, 2 (01) : 7 - 14
  • [4] Can We Finally Quantify Value for Lumbar Fusions? Introducing the Operative Value Index (OVI)
    Sarikonda, Advith
    Sami, Ashmal
    Leibold, Adam T.
    Thalheimer, Sara
    Ali, Daniyal Mansoor
    Dougherty, Conor
    Medina, Robert
    Sharan, Ashwini Dayal
    Heller, Joshua E.
    Jallo, Jack
    Harrop, James S.
    Vaccaro, Alexander
    NEUROSURGERY, 2025, 71 : 139 - 140
  • [5] An Approach to Lumbar Revision Spine Surgery in Adults
    Askin, Stanley R.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2017, 25 (01) : E20 - E21
  • [6] An Approach to Lumbar Revision Spine Surgery in Adults
    Bederman, S. Samuel
    Le, Vu H.
    Pahlavan, Sohrab
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2016, 24 (07) : 433 - 442
  • [7] Clinical outcomes in revision lumbar spine fusions: an observational cohort study
    Montenegro, Thiago S.
    Gonzalez, Glenn A.
    Al Saiegh, Fadi
    Philipp, Lucas
    Hines, Kevin
    Hattar, Ellina
    Franco, Daniel
    Mahtabfar, Aria
    Keppetipola, Kavantissa M.
    Leibold, Adam
    Atallah, Elias
    Fatema, Umma
    Thalheimer, Sara
    Wu, Chengyuan
    Prasad, Srinivas K.
    Jallo, Jack
    Heller, Joshua
    Sharan, Ashwini
    Harrop, James
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2020, 35 (04) : 437 - 445
  • [8] An Approach to Lumbar Revision Spine Surgery in Adults Reply
    Bederman, S. Samuel
    Le, Vu H.
    Pahlavan, Sohrab
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2017, 25 (01) : E21 - E22
  • [9] Remote Cerebellar Hemorrhage after Revision Lumbar Spine Surgery
    Haller, Justin M.
    Calvert, Graham
    Spiker, William R.
    Brodke, Darrel S.
    Lawrence, Brandon D.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 5 (06) : 535 - 537
  • [10] A comparison of relative value units in revision hip versus revision knee arthroplasty
    Sodhi, Nipun
    Dalton, Sarah E.
    Gold, Peter A.
    Garbarino, Luke J.
    Anis, Hiba K.
    Newman, Jared M.
    Mahmood, Bilal
    Khlopas, Anton
    Sultan, Assem A.
    Piuzzi, Nicolas S.
    Mont, Michael A.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, 2019, 16 (01) : 45 - 48