ObjectiveWe investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding robotic technology in spine surgery to an active neurosurgical practice. MethodsThe time of operative procedures, infection rates, revision rates, length of stay, and possible conversion of open to minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) secondary to robotic image guidance technology were calculated using a combination of institution-specific and national data points. This cost matrix was subsequently applied to 1 year of elective clinical case volume at an academic practice with regard to payor mix, procedural mix, and procedural revenue. ResultsA total of 1,985 elective cases were analyzed over a 1-year period; of these, 557 thoracolumbar cases (28%) were analyzed. Fifty-eight (10.4%) were MIS fusions. Independent review determined an additional ~10% cases (50) to be candidates for MIS fusion. Furthermore, 41.4% patients had governmental insurance, while 58.6% had commercial insurance. The weighted average diagnosis-related group reimbursement for thoracolumbar procedures for the hospital system was calculated to be $25,057 for Medicare and $42,096 for commercial insurance. Time savings averaged 3.4 minutes per 1-level MIS procedure with robotic technology, resulting in annual savings of $5,713. Improved pedicle screw accuracy secondary to robotic technology would have resulted in 9.47 revisions being avoided, with cost savings of $314,661. Under appropriate payor mix components, robotic technology would have converted 31 Medicare and 18 commercial patients from open to MIS. This would have resulted in 140 fewer total hospital admission days ($251,860) and avoided 2.3 infections ($36,312). Robotic surgery resulted in immediate conservative savings estimate of $608,546 during a 1-year period at an academic center performing 557 elective thoracolumbar instrumentation cases. ConclusionApplication of robotic spine surgery is cost-effective, resulting in lesser revision surgery, lower infection rates, reduced length of stay, and shorter operative time. Further research is warranted, evaluating the financial impact of robotic spine surgery.
Object Complications following lumboperitoneal (LP) shunting have been reported in 18% to 85% of cases. The need for multiple revision surgeries, development of iatrogenic Chiari malformation, and frequent wound complications have prompted many to abandon this procedure altogether for the treatment of idiopathic benign intracranial hypertension (pseudotumor cerebri), in favor of ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunting. A direct comparison of the complication rates and health care charges between first-choice LP versus VP shunting is presented. Methods The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried for all patients with the diagnosis of benign intracranial hypertension (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code 348.2) from 2005 to 2009. These data were stratified by operative intervention, with demographic and hospitalization charge data generated for each. Results A weighted sample of 4480 patients was identified as having the diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), with 2505 undergoing first-time VP shunt placement and 1754 undergoing initial LP shunt placement. Revision surgery occurred in 3.9% of admissions (n = 98) for VP shunts and in 7.0% of admissions (n = 123) for LP shunts (p < 0.0001). Ventriculoperitoneal shunts were placed at teaching institutions in 83.8% of cases, compared with only 77.3% of first-time LP shunts (p < 0.0001). Mean hospital length of stay (LOS) significantly differed between primary VP (3 days) and primary LP shunt procedures (4 days, p < 0.0001). The summed charges for the revisions of 92 VP shunts ($3,453,956) and those of the 6 VP shunt removals ($272,484) totaled $3,726,352 over 5 years for the study population. The summed charges for revision of 70 LP shunts ($2,229,430) and those of the 53 LP shunt removals ($3,125,569) totaled $5,408,679 over 5 years for the study population. Conclusions The presented results appear to call into question the selection of LP shunt placement as primary treatment for IIH, as this procedure is associated with a significantly greater likelihood of need for shunt revision, increased LOS, and greater overall charges to the health care system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.