重新审视利用内窥镜技术治疗颈椎病的后路方法:与前路颈椎椎间盘切除和融合术的短期疗效和成本比较。

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY International Journal of Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.14444/8629
Campbell Liles, Hani Chanbour, Alexander T Lyons, Emma Ye, Omar Zakieh, Robert J Dambrino, Iyan Younus, Soren Jonzzon, Richard A Berkman, Julian G Lugo-Pico, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens, Scott L Zuckerman, Raymond J Gardocki
{"title":"重新审视利用内窥镜技术治疗颈椎病的后路方法:与前路颈椎椎间盘切除和融合术的短期疗效和成本比较。","authors":"Campbell Liles, Hani Chanbour, Alexander T Lyons, Emma Ye, Omar Zakieh, Robert J Dambrino, Iyan Younus, Soren Jonzzon, Richard A Berkman, Julian G Lugo-Pico, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens, Scott L Zuckerman, Raymond J Gardocki","doi":"10.14444/8629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical radiculopathy is a spine ailment frequently requiring surgical decompression via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior foraminotomy/discectomy. While endoscopic posterior foraminotomy/discectomy is gaining popularity, its financial impact remains understudied despite equivalent randomized long-term outcomes to ACDF. In a cohort of patients undergoing ACDF vs endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy, we sought to compare the total cost of the surgical episode while confirming an equivalent safety profile and perioperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy undergoing ACDF or endoscopic cervical foraminotomy between 2018 and 2023 was undertaken. Primary outcomes included the total cost of care for the initial surgical episode (not charges or reimbursement). Perioperative variables and neurological recovery were recorded. Multivariable analysis tested age, body mass index, race, gender, insurance type, operative time, and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 38 ACDF and 17 endoscopic foraminotomy/discectomy operations were performed. All patients underwent single-level surgery except for 2 two-level endoscopic decompressions. No differences were found in baseline characteristics and symptom length except for younger age (46.8 ± 9.4 vs 57.6 ± 10.3, <i>P</i> = 0.002) and more smokers (18.4% vs 11.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.043) in the ACDF group. Actual hospital costs for the episode of surgical care were markedly higher in the ACDF cohort (mean ±95% CI; $27,782 ± $2011 vs $10,103 ± $720, <i>P</i> < 0.001) driven by the ACDF approach (β = $17,723, <i>P</i> < 0.001) on multivariable analysis. On sensitivity analysis, ACDF was never cost-efficient compared with endoscopic foraminotomy, and endoscopic failure rates of 64% were required for break-even cost. ACDF was associated with significantly longer operative time (167.7 ± 22.0 vs 142.7 ± 27.4 minutes, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and length of stay (1.1 ± 0.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.2 days, <i>P</i> < 0.001). No significant difference was found regarding 90-day neurological improvement, readmission, reoperation, or complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with patients treated with a single-level ACDF for unilateral cervical radiculopathy, endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy can achieve a similar safety profile, pain relief, and neurological recovery at considerably less cost. These findings may help patients and surgeons revisit offering the posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy utilizing endoscopic techniques.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy offers comparable safety, pain relief, and neurological recovery to traditional methods but at a significantly lower cost.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 3: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":38486,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11483441/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting the Posterior Approach for Cervical Radiculopathy Utilizing Endoscopic Techniques: A Favorable Short-Term Outcome and Cost Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.\",\"authors\":\"Campbell Liles, Hani Chanbour, Alexander T Lyons, Emma Ye, Omar Zakieh, Robert J Dambrino, Iyan Younus, Soren Jonzzon, Richard A Berkman, Julian G Lugo-Pico, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens, Scott L Zuckerman, Raymond J Gardocki\",\"doi\":\"10.14444/8629\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical radiculopathy is a spine ailment frequently requiring surgical decompression via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior foraminotomy/discectomy. While endoscopic posterior foraminotomy/discectomy is gaining popularity, its financial impact remains understudied despite equivalent randomized long-term outcomes to ACDF. In a cohort of patients undergoing ACDF vs endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy, we sought to compare the total cost of the surgical episode while confirming an equivalent safety profile and perioperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy undergoing ACDF or endoscopic cervical foraminotomy between 2018 and 2023 was undertaken. Primary outcomes included the total cost of care for the initial surgical episode (not charges or reimbursement). Perioperative variables and neurological recovery were recorded. Multivariable analysis tested age, body mass index, race, gender, insurance type, operative time, and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 38 ACDF and 17 endoscopic foraminotomy/discectomy operations were performed. All patients underwent single-level surgery except for 2 two-level endoscopic decompressions. No differences were found in baseline characteristics and symptom length except for younger age (46.8 ± 9.4 vs 57.6 ± 10.3, <i>P</i> = 0.002) and more smokers (18.4% vs 11.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.043) in the ACDF group. Actual hospital costs for the episode of surgical care were markedly higher in the ACDF cohort (mean ±95% CI; $27,782 ± $2011 vs $10,103 ± $720, <i>P</i> < 0.001) driven by the ACDF approach (β = $17,723, <i>P</i> < 0.001) on multivariable analysis. On sensitivity analysis, ACDF was never cost-efficient compared with endoscopic foraminotomy, and endoscopic failure rates of 64% were required for break-even cost. ACDF was associated with significantly longer operative time (167.7 ± 22.0 vs 142.7 ± 27.4 minutes, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and length of stay (1.1 ± 0.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.2 days, <i>P</i> < 0.001). No significant difference was found regarding 90-day neurological improvement, readmission, reoperation, or complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with patients treated with a single-level ACDF for unilateral cervical radiculopathy, endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy can achieve a similar safety profile, pain relief, and neurological recovery at considerably less cost. These findings may help patients and surgeons revisit offering the posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy utilizing endoscopic techniques.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy offers comparable safety, pain relief, and neurological recovery to traditional methods but at a significantly lower cost.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 3: </strong></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11483441/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14444/8629\",\"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/10.14444/8629","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:颈椎病是一种脊柱疾病,经常需要通过颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)或后路椎板切除/椎间盘切除术进行手术减压。虽然内窥镜后椎板切除术/椎间盘切除术越来越受欢迎,但尽管其随机长期疗效与 ACDF 相当,对其经济影响的研究仍然不足。在一组接受 ACDF 与内窥镜颈椎后路椎板切除术/椎间盘切除术的患者中,我们试图比较手术的总费用,同时确认同等的安全性和围手术期结果:我们对2018年至2023年间接受ACDF或内窥镜颈椎椎板切除术的单侧颈椎根病变患者进行了单中心回顾性队列研究。主要结果包括初始手术疗程的总护理成本(非收费或报销)。围手术期变量和神经功能恢复情况均有记录。多变量分析检测了年龄、体重指数、种族、性别、保险类型、手术时间和住院时间:共进行了 38 例 ACDF 和 17 例内窥镜椎板切除/椎间盘切除手术。除2例双层内窥镜减压手术外,所有患者均接受了单层手术。除ACDF组患者年龄较小(46.8 ± 9.4 vs 57.6 ± 10.3,P = 0.002)和吸烟者较多(18.4% vs 11.8%,P = 0.043)外,基线特征和症状持续时间均无差异。在多变量分析中,ACDF组的手术治疗实际住院费用明显更高(平均值±95% CI;27782美元±2011美元 vs1010103美元±720美元,P<0.001),原因是ACDF方法(β=17723美元,P<0.001)。在敏感性分析中,与内窥镜椎板切除术相比,ACDF始终没有成本效益,内窥镜失败率需要达到64%才能实现成本平衡。ACDF 的手术时间(167.7 ± 22.0 分钟 vs 142.7 ± 27.4 分钟,P < 0.001)和住院时间(1.1 ± 0.5 天 vs 0.1 ± 0.2 天,P < 0.001)明显更长。在90天神经功能改善、再入院、再次手术或并发症方面没有发现明显差异:结论:与采用单水平 ACDF 治疗单侧颈椎病的患者相比,内窥镜颈椎后路椎板切除术/椎间盘切除术可实现相似的安全性、疼痛缓解和神经功能恢复,且费用更低。这些发现可能有助于患者和外科医生重新考虑利用内窥镜技术进行颈椎后椎板切除术/椎间盘切除术:临床相关性:内窥镜颈椎后椎板切除术/椎间盘切除术的安全性、疼痛缓解和神经功能恢复与传统方法相当,但费用明显更低:3:
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
Revisiting the Posterior Approach for Cervical Radiculopathy Utilizing Endoscopic Techniques: A Favorable Short-Term Outcome and Cost Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Background: Cervical radiculopathy is a spine ailment frequently requiring surgical decompression via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior foraminotomy/discectomy. While endoscopic posterior foraminotomy/discectomy is gaining popularity, its financial impact remains understudied despite equivalent randomized long-term outcomes to ACDF. In a cohort of patients undergoing ACDF vs endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy, we sought to compare the total cost of the surgical episode while confirming an equivalent safety profile and perioperative outcomes.

Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy undergoing ACDF or endoscopic cervical foraminotomy between 2018 and 2023 was undertaken. Primary outcomes included the total cost of care for the initial surgical episode (not charges or reimbursement). Perioperative variables and neurological recovery were recorded. Multivariable analysis tested age, body mass index, race, gender, insurance type, operative time, and length of stay.

Results: A total of 38 ACDF and 17 endoscopic foraminotomy/discectomy operations were performed. All patients underwent single-level surgery except for 2 two-level endoscopic decompressions. No differences were found in baseline characteristics and symptom length except for younger age (46.8 ± 9.4 vs 57.6 ± 10.3, P = 0.002) and more smokers (18.4% vs 11.8%, P = 0.043) in the ACDF group. Actual hospital costs for the episode of surgical care were markedly higher in the ACDF cohort (mean ±95% CI; $27,782 ± $2011 vs $10,103 ± $720, P < 0.001) driven by the ACDF approach (β = $17,723, P < 0.001) on multivariable analysis. On sensitivity analysis, ACDF was never cost-efficient compared with endoscopic foraminotomy, and endoscopic failure rates of 64% were required for break-even cost. ACDF was associated with significantly longer operative time (167.7 ± 22.0 vs 142.7 ± 27.4 minutes, P < 0.001) and length of stay (1.1 ± 0.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.2 days, P < 0.001). No significant difference was found regarding 90-day neurological improvement, readmission, reoperation, or complications.

Conclusion: Compared with patients treated with a single-level ACDF for unilateral cervical radiculopathy, endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy can achieve a similar safety profile, pain relief, and neurological recovery at considerably less cost. These findings may help patients and surgeons revisit offering the posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy utilizing endoscopic techniques.

Clinical relevance: Endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy offers comparable safety, pain relief, and neurological recovery to traditional methods but at a significantly lower cost.

Level of evidence: 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