Introduction: Costs and benefits of modern-day spine care

Application of Wearable Sensors Technology for Lumbar Spine Kinematic Measurements during Daily Activities following Microdiscectomy Due to Severe Sciatica

Simple Summary

The recurrence rate after lumbar spine disc surgeries is estimated to be 5–15%. Lumbar spine flexion of more than 10° is mentioned in the literature as the most harmful load to the operated disc level that could lead to recurrence during the first six postoperative weeks. The purpose of this study is to quantify flexions during daily living following such surgeries, for six weeks postoperatively, using wearable sensors technology. These data determine the patients’ kinematic pattern, reflecting a high-risk factor for pathology recurrence. The operated patients were measured to have 30% normal lumbar motion after the first postoperative week, while they were restored to almost 75% at the end of the sixth, respectively. Further in vitro studies should be carried out using these data to identify if such kinematic patterns could lead to pathology recurrence.

Abstract

Background: The recurrence rate of lumbar spine microdiscectomies (rLSMs) is estimated to be 5–15%. Lumbar spine flexion (LSF) of more than 10° is mentioned as the most harmful load to the intervertebral disc that could lead to recurrence during the first six postoperative weeks. The purpose of this study is to quantify LSFs, following LSM, at the period of six weeks postoperatively. Methods: LSFs were recorded during the daily activities of 69 subjects for 24 h twice per week, using Inertial Measurement Units (IMU). Results: The mean number of more than 10 degrees of LSFs per hour were: 41.3/h during the 1st postoperative week (P.W.) (29.9% healthy subjects-H.S.), 2nd P.W. 60.1/h (43.5% H.S.), 3rd P.W. 74.2/h (53.7% H.S.), 4th P.W. 82.9/h (60% H.S.), 5th P.W. 97.3/h (70.4% H.S.) and 6th P.W. 105.5/h (76.4% H.S.). Conclusions: LSFs constitute important risk factors for rLDH. Our study records the lumbar spine kinematic pattern of such patients for the first time during their daily activities. Patients’ data report less sagittal plane movements than healthy subjects. In vitro studies should be carried out, replicating our results to identify if such a kinematic pattern could cause rLDH. Furthermore, IMU biofeedback capabilities could protect patients from such harmful movements.

Impact of the Economic Downturn on Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery in the United States: A National Trend Analysis, 2003 to 2013

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The impact of the 2008-2009 economic downtown on elective lumbar spine surgery is unknown. Our objective was to investigate the effect of the economic downturn on the overall trends of elective lumbar spine surgery in the United States.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used in conjunction with US Census and macroeconomic data to determine historical trends. The economic downturn was defined as 2008 to 2009. Codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), were used in order to identify appropriate procedures. Confidence intervals were determined using subgroup analysis techniques.

RESULTS

From 2003 to 2012, there was a 19.8% and 26.1% decrease in the number of lumbar discectomies and laminectomies, respectively. Over the same time period, there was a 56.4% increase in the number of lumbar spinal fusions. The trend of elective lumbar spine surgeries per 100 000 persons in the US population remained consistent from 2008 to 2009. The number of procedures decreased by 4.5% from 2010 to 2011, 7.6% from 2011 to 2012, and 3.1% from 2012 to 2013. The R² value between the number of surgeries and the S&P 500 Index was statistically significant (P ≤ .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The economic downturn did not affect elective lumbar fusions, which increased in total from 2003 to 2013. The relationship between the S&P 500 Index and surgical trends suggests that during recessions, individuals may utilize other means, such as insurance, to cover procedural costs and reduce out-of-pocket expenditures, accounting for no impact of the economic downturn on surgical trends. These findings can assist multiple stakeholders in better understanding the interconnectedness of macroeconomics, policy, and elective lumbar spine surgery trends.

An Outcome and Cost Analysis Comparing Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Intraoperative Fluoroscopy versus Computed Tomography-Guided Navigation

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has undergone significant evolution since its conception as a fusion technique to treat lumbar spondylosis. Minimally invasive TLIF is commonly performed using intraoperative two-dimensional fluoroscopic x-rays. However, intraoperative computed tomography (CT)-based navigation during minimally invasive TLIF is gaining popularity for improvements in visualizing anatomy and reducing intraoperative radiation to surgeons and operating room staff. This is the first study to compare clinical outcomes and cost between these 2 imaging techniques during minimally invasive TILF.

METHODS

For comparison, 28 patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive TLIF using fluoroscopy were matched to 28 patients undergoing single-level minimally invasive TLIF using CT navigation based on race, sex, age, smoking status, payer type, and medical comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index). The minimum follow-up time was 6 months. The 2 groups were compared in regard to clinical outcomes and hospital reimbursement from the payer perspective.

RESULTS

Average surgery time, anesthesia time, and hospital length of stay were similar for both groups, but average estimated blood loss was lower in the fluoroscopy group compared with the CT navigation group (154 mL vs. 262 mL; P = 0.016). Oswestry Disability Index, back visual analog scale, and leg visual analog scale scores similarly improved in both groups (P > 0.05) at 6-month follow-up. Cost analysis showed that average hospital payments were similar in the fluoroscopy versus the CT navigation groups ($32,347 vs. $32,656; P = 0.925) as well as payments for the operating room (P = 0.868).

CONCLUSIONS

Single minimally invasive TLIF performed with fluoroscopy versus CT navigation showed similar clinical outcomes and cost at 6 months.