Shravan Asthana, Pranav Bajaj, Jacob Staub, Connor Workman, Rushmin Khazanchi, Samuel Reyes, Alpesh A Patel, Wellington K Hsu, Srikanth N Divi
{"title":"Comparison of RVU Reimbursement in Anterior or Posterior Approach for Single- and Multilevel Cervical Spinal Fusion.","authors":"Shravan Asthana, Pranav Bajaj, Jacob Staub, Connor Workman, Rushmin Khazanchi, Samuel Reyes, Alpesh A Patel, Wellington K Hsu, Srikanth N Divi","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective database study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to quantify and compare mean work RVUs (wRVUs), mean operative time (OpTime), and wRVUs/min in single- and multilevel anterior and posterior cervical spine fusions performed between 2011 and 2020.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Prior research has demonstrated inconsistencies in technical skill, operative time, and surgical difficulty with reimbursement in various orthopedic subspecialties. Although trends investigating physician effort and reimbursement have been investigated in lumbar spine surgery, less research has examined these relationships with respect to cervical spine procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes reflecting anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF), and the number of levels involved. The cohort was stratified into 10 groups: single-level, 2-level, 3-level, 4-level, 5+ level anterior or posterior cervical fusions. Mean operative times, mean wRVUs, and wRVU/min were calculated and compared by Student t test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 100,997 patients met inclusion criteria in this study, of which 79,141 (78.36%) underwent ACDF, whereas 21,836 (21.62%) underwent PCDF. One- and 2-level fusions were most common in both ACDF and PCDF. In 1-, 3-, 4-, and 5+ level fusion, the anterior approach demonstrated significantly lower mean wRVU (P<0.001). In 1-, 2-, and 3-level fusions, the anterior approach had significantly lower operation times (P<0.001). The anterior approach demonstrated significantly higher wRVU/min in 1- and 2- levels (P<0.001) but lower wRVU/min in 3- and 4-level fusions (P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clear discrepancies exist between surgical approach and levels of fusion in cervical spine procedures incongruous with markers of surgical difficulty, physician effort, or expertise required. These specific results suggest that the complexity of multi-level anterior cervical fusions are not effectively accounted for by existing RVU measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001684","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective database study.
Objective: This study aims to quantify and compare mean work RVUs (wRVUs), mean operative time (OpTime), and wRVUs/min in single- and multilevel anterior and posterior cervical spine fusions performed between 2011 and 2020.
Summary of background data: Prior research has demonstrated inconsistencies in technical skill, operative time, and surgical difficulty with reimbursement in various orthopedic subspecialties. Although trends investigating physician effort and reimbursement have been investigated in lumbar spine surgery, less research has examined these relationships with respect to cervical spine procedures.
Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes reflecting anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF), and the number of levels involved. The cohort was stratified into 10 groups: single-level, 2-level, 3-level, 4-level, 5+ level anterior or posterior cervical fusions. Mean operative times, mean wRVUs, and wRVU/min were calculated and compared by Student t test.
Results: A total of 100,997 patients met inclusion criteria in this study, of which 79,141 (78.36%) underwent ACDF, whereas 21,836 (21.62%) underwent PCDF. One- and 2-level fusions were most common in both ACDF and PCDF. In 1-, 3-, 4-, and 5+ level fusion, the anterior approach demonstrated significantly lower mean wRVU (P<0.001). In 1-, 2-, and 3-level fusions, the anterior approach had significantly lower operation times (P<0.001). The anterior approach demonstrated significantly higher wRVU/min in 1- and 2- levels (P<0.001) but lower wRVU/min in 3- and 4-level fusions (P<0.001).
Conclusions: Clear discrepancies exist between surgical approach and levels of fusion in cervical spine procedures incongruous with markers of surgical difficulty, physician effort, or expertise required. These specific results suggest that the complexity of multi-level anterior cervical fusions are not effectively accounted for by existing RVU measures.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure.
Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.