Cervical Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion: A Comprehensive Time-driven Activity-based Cost Analysis.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine Pub Date : 2024-11-15 Epub Date: 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005150
Theresa Chua, Perry L Lim, Stuart H Hershman, Harold A Fogel, Daniel G Tobert
{"title":"Cervical Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion: A Comprehensive Time-driven Activity-based Cost Analysis.","authors":"Theresa Chua, Perry L Lim, Stuart H Hershman, Harold A Fogel, Daniel G Tobert","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the true cost between posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion and cervical laminoplasty using time driven activity-based costing methodology.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Cervical laminoplasty (LP) and posterior cervical laminectomy with fusion (LF) are effective procedures for treating cervical myelopathy. A comprehensive accounting of cost differences between LP versus LF is not available. Using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), we sought to compare the total facility costs in patients with cervical myelopathy undergoing LP versus LF.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of 277 LP and 229 LF performed between 2019 and 2023. Total facility costs, which included personnel and supply costs, were assessed using TDABC. Separate analyses including and excluding implant costs were performed. Multiple regression analysis was utilized to assess the independent effect of LP compared with LF on facility costs, with all costs standardized using cost units (CUs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients undergoing LP had lower total supply costs [672.5 vs. 765.0 CUs (0.88x), P <0.001] and lower total personnel costs [330.0 vs. 830.0 CUs (0.40x), P <0.001], resulting in a lower total facility cost both including [1003.8 vs. 1600.0 CUs (0.63x), P <0.001] and excluding implant costs [770.0 vs. 875.0 CUs (0.88x), P <0.001] (Table 1). After controlling for demographics and comorbidities, LF was associated with increased total facility costs, including (588.5 CUs, 95% CI: 517.1-659.9 CUs, P <0.001) and excluding implant costs (104.3 CUs, 95% CI: 57.6-151.0 CUs, P <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using time-driven activity-based costing, we found that total facility costs were lower in patients treated with laminoplasty. These findings suggest that laminoplasty may offer a less costly and more efficient surgical option for treating cervical myelopathy.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":"1555-1560"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005150","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective study.

Objective: To compare the true cost between posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion and cervical laminoplasty using time driven activity-based costing methodology.

Summary of background data: Cervical laminoplasty (LP) and posterior cervical laminectomy with fusion (LF) are effective procedures for treating cervical myelopathy. A comprehensive accounting of cost differences between LP versus LF is not available. Using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), we sought to compare the total facility costs in patients with cervical myelopathy undergoing LP versus LF.

Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 277 LP and 229 LF performed between 2019 and 2023. Total facility costs, which included personnel and supply costs, were assessed using TDABC. Separate analyses including and excluding implant costs were performed. Multiple regression analysis was utilized to assess the independent effect of LP compared with LF on facility costs, with all costs standardized using cost units (CUs).

Results: Patients undergoing LP had lower total supply costs [672.5 vs. 765.0 CUs (0.88x), P <0.001] and lower total personnel costs [330.0 vs. 830.0 CUs (0.40x), P <0.001], resulting in a lower total facility cost both including [1003.8 vs. 1600.0 CUs (0.63x), P <0.001] and excluding implant costs [770.0 vs. 875.0 CUs (0.88x), P <0.001] (Table 1). After controlling for demographics and comorbidities, LF was associated with increased total facility costs, including (588.5 CUs, 95% CI: 517.1-659.9 CUs, P <0.001) and excluding implant costs (104.3 CUs, 95% CI: 57.6-151.0 CUs, P <0.001).

Conclusions: Using time-driven activity-based costing, we found that total facility costs were lower in patients treated with laminoplasty. These findings suggest that laminoplasty may offer a less costly and more efficient surgical option for treating cervical myelopathy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
颈椎椎板成形术与椎板切除及融合术:基于时间驱动的活动成本综合分析》。
研究设计回顾性研究:使用基于时间驱动活动的成本计算方法,比较颈椎后路椎板切除融合术和颈椎椎板成形术的真实成本:颈椎椎板成形术(LP)和颈椎后路椎板切除融合术(LF)是治疗颈椎病的有效方法。目前还没有关于颈椎椎板成形术与颈椎后路椎板切除术的成本差异的全面统计。我们采用基于时间驱动活动的成本计算(TDABC)方法,试图比较接受LP与LF治疗的颈椎病患者的设施总成本:我们对 2019 年至 2023 年期间实施的 277 例 LP 和 229 例 LF 进行了回顾性分析。使用 TDABC 对包括人员和供应成本在内的设施总成本进行了评估。对包括和不包括植入成本的情况分别进行了分析。利用多元回归分析评估了LP与LF相比对设施成本的独立影响,所有成本均使用成本单位(CU)进行标准化:结果:接受 LP 治疗的患者总供应成本较低(672.5 对 765.0 CUs [0.88x],PC):通过使用时间驱动活动成本法,我们发现接受板层成形术治疗的患者的设施总成本较低。这些研究结果表明,在治疗颈椎病方面,板层成形术可能是一种成本更低、效率更高的手术选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Temporal Trends of Improvement After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Intraoperative Hypotension Is an Important Modifiable Risk Factor for Major Complications in Spinal Fusion Surgery. Clinical Outcome of Lumbar Hybrid Surgery in a Consecutive Series of Patients With Long-term Follow-up. Does Paraspinal Muscle Mass Predict Lumbar Lordosis Before and After Decompression for Degenerative Spinal Stenosis? The Utility of the Surgical Apgar Score in Assessing the Risk of Perioperative Complications Following Spinal Fusion Surgery for Pediatric Patients With Scoliosis and Cerebral Palsy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1