Search

Health care costs comprise a substantial portion of total national expenditure. Although interest in cost-effectiveness analysis in neurosurgery has increased, there has been little cross-comparison of neurosurgical procedures. The aim of this study was to compare costs across elective neurosurgical procedures to understand whether drivers of cost differ. The Value Driven Outcomes database was used to evaluate treatment costs for resection of vestibular schwannoma, intracranial meningioma, gliomas, and pituitary adenoma; anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and lumbar spinal fusion; and aneurysm treatment. A total of 1997 patients (mean age 54.6 ± 14.5 years; 45.2% male) were evaluated. The mean length of stay (LOS) was 4.0 ± 4.4 days. For cases involving hardware implantation, including spine fusion or aneurysm treatment, supplies and implants (49.1%) accounted for the largest fraction of costs followed by facility costs (37.9%). For cases that did not involve hardware, including tumor cases, facility costs (63.9%) were the largest fraction, followed by supplies and implants (16.2%). Aneurysm treatment and lumbar fusion were 1.5–3 times more costly than cranial tumor resection and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion per patient. Multivariate linear regression demonstrated that LOS (β = 0.7, P = 0.0001) and patient treatment type (β = 0.2, P = 0.0001) had the greatest effect on costs. LOS correlated with cost differently depending on case type; its effect was largest for patients with meningioma and smallest for patients with vestibular schwannoma. Costs across time increased similarly for all case types. Costs for neurosurgical procedures vary widely depending on treatment type and correlated directly with LOS. Strategies to reduce cost may require different approaches depending on procedure type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has undergone significant evolution since its conception as a fusion technique to treat lumbar spondylosis. Minimally invasive TLIF is commonly performed using intraoperative two-dimensional fluoroscopic x-rays. However, intraoperative computed tomography (CT)–based navigation during minimally invasive TLIF is gaining popularity for improvements in visualizing anatomy and reducing intraoperative radiation to surgeons and operating room staff. This is the first study to compare clinical outcomes and cost between these 2 imaging techniques during minimally invasive TILF. Methods For comparison, 28 patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive TLIF using fluoroscopy were matched to 28 patients undergoing single-level minimally invasive TLIF using CT navigation based on race, sex, age, smoking status, payer type, and medical comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index). The minimum follow-up time was 6 months. The 2 groups were compared in regard to clinical outcomes and hospital reimbursement from the payer perspective. Results Average surgery time, anesthesia time, and hospital length of stay were similar for both groups, but average estimated blood loss was lower in the fluoroscopy group compared with the CT navigation group (154 mL vs. 262 mL; P = 0.016). Oswestry Disability Index, back visual analog scale, and leg visual analog scale scores similarly improved in both groups ( P > 0.05) at 6-month follow-up. Cost analysis showed that average hospital payments were similar in the fluoroscopy versus the CT navigation groups ($32,347 vs. $32,656; P = 0.925) as well as payments for the operating room ( P = 0.868). Conclusions Single minimally invasive TLIF performed with fluoroscopy versus CT navigation showed similar clinical outcomes and cost at 6 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]