CPT 62380 内窥镜腰椎减压术与传统腰椎手术的学习曲线、复杂性、心理压力和工作相对价值单位的比较分析:一项配对 Rasch 调查研究。

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY International Journal of Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.14444/8594
Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Heber Humberto Alfaro Pachicano, Rossano Kepler Alvim Fiorelli, John C Elfar, Stefan Landgraeber, Joachim Oertel, Stefan Hellinger, Álvaro Dowling, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De Carvalho, Max R F Ramos, Helton Defino, João Paulo Bergamaschi, Paul Houle, Nicola Montemurro, Christopher Yeung, Marcelo Brito, Douglas P Beall, Gerd Ivanic, Zhang Xifeng, Zhen-Zhou Li, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Jin-Sung L Kim, Morgan P Lorio
{"title":"CPT 62380 内窥镜腰椎减压术与传统腰椎手术的学习曲线、复杂性、心理压力和工作相对价值单位的比较分析:一项配对 Rasch 调查研究。","authors":"Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Heber Humberto Alfaro Pachicano, Rossano Kepler Alvim Fiorelli, John C Elfar, Stefan Landgraeber, Joachim Oertel, Stefan Hellinger, Álvaro Dowling, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De Carvalho, Max R F Ramos, Helton Defino, João Paulo Bergamaschi, Paul Houle, Nicola Montemurro, Christopher Yeung, Marcelo Brito, Douglas P Beall, Gerd Ivanic, Zhang Xifeng, Zhen-Zhou Li, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Jin-Sung L Kim, Morgan P Lorio","doi":"10.14444/8594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (RVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. An international team of endoscopic spine surgeons conducted a study, endorsed by several spine societies, analyzing the learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and estimated work RVUs of endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression compared with other common lumbar spine surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey comparing CPT 62380 to 10 other comparator CPT codes reflective of common spine surgeries was developed to assess the work RVUs in terms of learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and work effort using a paired Rasch method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey was sent to 542 spine specialists. Of 322 respondents, 150 completed the survey for a 43.1% completion rate. Rasch analysis of the submitted responses statistically corroborated common knowledge that the learning curve with lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery is steeper and more complex than with traditional translaminar lumbar decompression surgeries. It also showed that the psychological stress and mental and work effort with the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery were perceived to be higher by responding spine surgeons compared with posterior comparator decompression and fusion surgeries and even posterior interbody and posterolateral fusion surgeries. The regression analysis of work effort vs procedural difficulty showed the real-world evaluation of the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery described in CPT code 62380 with a calculated work RVU of 18.2464.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Rasch analysis suggested the valuation for the endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery should be higher than for standard lumbar surgeries: 111.1% of the laminectomy with exploration and/or decompression of spinal cord and/or cauda equina (CPT 63005), 118.71% of the laminectomy code (CPT 63047), which includes foraminotomy and facetectomy, 152.1% of the hemilaminectomy code (CPT 63030), and 259.55% of the interlaminar or interspinous process stabilization/distraction without decompression code (CPT 22869). This research methodology was endorsed by the Interamerican Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SICCMI), the Mexican Society of Spinal Surgeons (AMCICO), the International Society For Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (ISMISS), the Brazilian Spine Society (SBC), the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), the Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (KOMISS), and the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS).</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This study provides an updated reimbursement recommendation for endoscopic spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level 3.</p>","PeriodicalId":38486,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287802/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Learning Curve, Complexity, Psychological Stress, and Work Relative Value Units for CPT 62380 Endoscopic Lumbar Spinal Decompression vs Traditional Lumbar Spine Surgeries: A Paired Rasch Survey Study.\",\"authors\":\"Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Heber Humberto Alfaro Pachicano, Rossano Kepler Alvim Fiorelli, John C Elfar, Stefan Landgraeber, Joachim Oertel, Stefan Hellinger, Álvaro Dowling, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De Carvalho, Max R F Ramos, Helton Defino, João Paulo Bergamaschi, Paul Houle, Nicola Montemurro, Christopher Yeung, Marcelo Brito, Douglas P Beall, Gerd Ivanic, Zhang Xifeng, Zhen-Zhou Li, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Jin-Sung L Kim, Morgan P Lorio\",\"doi\":\"10.14444/8594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (RVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. An international team of endoscopic spine surgeons conducted a study, endorsed by several spine societies, analyzing the learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and estimated work RVUs of endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression compared with other common lumbar spine surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey comparing CPT 62380 to 10 other comparator CPT codes reflective of common spine surgeries was developed to assess the work RVUs in terms of learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and work effort using a paired Rasch method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey was sent to 542 spine specialists. Of 322 respondents, 150 completed the survey for a 43.1% completion rate. Rasch analysis of the submitted responses statistically corroborated common knowledge that the learning curve with lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery is steeper and more complex than with traditional translaminar lumbar decompression surgeries. It also showed that the psychological stress and mental and work effort with the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery were perceived to be higher by responding spine surgeons compared with posterior comparator decompression and fusion surgeries and even posterior interbody and posterolateral fusion surgeries. The regression analysis of work effort vs procedural difficulty showed the real-world evaluation of the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery described in CPT code 62380 with a calculated work RVU of 18.2464.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Rasch analysis suggested the valuation for the endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery should be higher than for standard lumbar surgeries: 111.1% of the laminectomy with exploration and/or decompression of spinal cord and/or cauda equina (CPT 63005), 118.71% of the laminectomy code (CPT 63047), which includes foraminotomy and facetectomy, 152.1% of the hemilaminectomy code (CPT 63030), and 259.55% of the interlaminar or interspinous process stabilization/distraction without decompression code (CPT 22869). This research methodology was endorsed by the Interamerican Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SICCMI), the Mexican Society of Spinal Surgeons (AMCICO), the International Society For Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (ISMISS), the Brazilian Spine Society (SBC), the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), the Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (KOMISS), and the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS).</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This study provides an updated reimbursement recommendation for endoscopic spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level 3.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287802/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14444/8594\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14444/8594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:自 2017 年 1 月 1 日起,单水平内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术被列入《现行医疗程序术语》(CPT)第 I 类代码 62380。然而,目前并未为该手术分配工作相对价值单位(RVUs)。一个由内窥镜脊柱外科医生组成的国际团队进行了一项研究,分析了内窥镜腰椎减压术与其他常见腰椎手术相比的学习曲线、难度、心理强度和估计的工作相对价值单位:方法: 我们制定了一项调查,将 CPT 62380 与其他 10 个反映常见脊柱手术的比较 CPT 代码进行比较,使用配对拉施法评估学习曲线、难度、心理强度和工作强度方面的工作 RVU:调查对象为 542 名脊柱专科医生。在 322 名受访者中,150 人完成了调查,完成率为 43.1%。对提交的答复进行的 Rasch 分析在统计学上证实了一个常识,即腰椎内窥镜脊柱手术的学习曲线比传统的层间腰椎减压手术更陡峭、更复杂。研究还显示,与后路比较减压和融合手术,甚至后路椎间孔镜和后外侧融合手术相比,受访脊柱外科医生认为腰椎内窥镜减压手术的心理压力、精神和工作强度更高。工作强度与手术难度的回归分析表明,CPT 编码 62380 中描述的腰椎内窥镜减压手术的真实世界评估计算工作 RVU 为 18.2464:Rasch 分析表明,内窥镜腰椎减压手术的估价应高于标准腰椎手术:椎板切除术加脊髓和/或马尾的探查和/或减压(CPT 63005)为 111.1%,椎板切除术代码(CPT 63047)为 118.71%,其中包括椎板切除术和面神经切除术,半椎板切除术代码(CPT 63030)为 152.1%,椎板间或棘突间稳定/牵引而不减压代码(CPT 22869)为 259.55%。该研究方法得到了美洲微创脊柱外科学会(SICCMI)、墨西哥脊柱外科学会(AMCICO)、国际微创脊柱外科学会(ISMISS)、巴西脊柱学会(SBC)、微创脊柱外科学会(SMISS)、韩国微创脊柱外科学会(KOMISS)和国际脊柱外科学促进会(ISASS)的认可:本研究为内窥镜脊柱手术提供了最新的报销建议:证据等级:3 级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparative Analysis of Learning Curve, Complexity, Psychological Stress, and Work Relative Value Units for CPT 62380 Endoscopic Lumbar Spinal Decompression vs Traditional Lumbar Spine Surgeries: A Paired Rasch Survey Study.

Background: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (RVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. An international team of endoscopic spine surgeons conducted a study, endorsed by several spine societies, analyzing the learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and estimated work RVUs of endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression compared with other common lumbar spine surgeries.

Methods: A survey comparing CPT 62380 to 10 other comparator CPT codes reflective of common spine surgeries was developed to assess the work RVUs in terms of learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and work effort using a paired Rasch method.

Results: The survey was sent to 542 spine specialists. Of 322 respondents, 150 completed the survey for a 43.1% completion rate. Rasch analysis of the submitted responses statistically corroborated common knowledge that the learning curve with lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery is steeper and more complex than with traditional translaminar lumbar decompression surgeries. It also showed that the psychological stress and mental and work effort with the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery were perceived to be higher by responding spine surgeons compared with posterior comparator decompression and fusion surgeries and even posterior interbody and posterolateral fusion surgeries. The regression analysis of work effort vs procedural difficulty showed the real-world evaluation of the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery described in CPT code 62380 with a calculated work RVU of 18.2464.

Conclusion: The Rasch analysis suggested the valuation for the endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery should be higher than for standard lumbar surgeries: 111.1% of the laminectomy with exploration and/or decompression of spinal cord and/or cauda equina (CPT 63005), 118.71% of the laminectomy code (CPT 63047), which includes foraminotomy and facetectomy, 152.1% of the hemilaminectomy code (CPT 63030), and 259.55% of the interlaminar or interspinous process stabilization/distraction without decompression code (CPT 22869). This research methodology was endorsed by the Interamerican Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SICCMI), the Mexican Society of Spinal Surgeons (AMCICO), the International Society For Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (ISMISS), the Brazilian Spine Society (SBC), the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), the Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (KOMISS), and the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS).

Clinical relevance: This study provides an updated reimbursement recommendation for endoscopic spine surgery.

Level of evidence: Level 3.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
162
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Spine Surgery is the official scientific journal of ISASS, the International Intradiscal Therapy Society, the Pittsburgh Spine Summit, and the Büttner-Janz Spinefoundation, and is an official partner of the Southern Neurosurgical Society. The goal of the International Journal of Spine Surgery is to promote and disseminate online the most up-to-date scientific and clinical research into innovations in motion preservation and new spinal surgery technology, including basic science, biologics, and tissue engineering. The Journal is dedicated to educating spine surgeons worldwide by reporting on the scientific basis, indications, surgical techniques, complications, outcomes, and follow-up data for promising spinal procedures.
期刊最新文献
Beyond the Limits to Become a Leading Force in Global Spine Surgery: Present and Future of Spine Surgery in Asia-Pacific. Comparing ACDF Outcomes by Cervical Spine Level: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study. Editorial: Embracing Rasch Analysis for Enhanced Spine Surgery Outcomes-The Outsider's Viewpoint. Editors' Introduction: High-Value Endoscopic Techniques: Integrating Surgeon Skill and Experience in Spine Surgery With Rasch Analysis. Invited Commentary: Rasch Analysis and High-Value Spinal Endoscopy.
×
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