Search

Spine fractures, including associated spinal cord injury, account for 3%–6% of all skeletal fractures annually in the United States. Patients who undergo interhospital transfer after injury may have a greater likelihood of nonroutine disposition, longer hospital stay, and higher cost. We evaluated the effects of patient transfer on functional outcomes after spine trauma. Patients were treated after acute traumatic spine injury at a rehabilitation hospital in 2011–2017. Compared patients were those directly admitted to the tertiary hospital or transferred from a community hospital. A total of 188 patients (mean age 46.1 ± 18.6 years, 77.1% men) were evaluated, including 130 (69.1%) directly admitted and 58 (30.9%) transferred patients. The most common levels of injury were at C5 (19.1%) and C6 (12.2%), and most injuries were American Spinal Injury Association injury severity score grade D (33.2%) or grade A (32.1%). No statistical difference in age, injury pattern, timing from injury to surgery, or rehabilitation length of stay was seen between admitted and transferred patients. A significant improvement in ambulation distances was seen at discharge for directly admitted compared with transferred patients (447.7 ± 724.9 vs. 159.9 ± 359.5 feet; P = 0.005). However, no significant difference primary outcomes, namely American Spinal Injury Association injury severity score distribution (P = 0.2) or Functional Independence Measures (Δ30.9 ± 15.9 vs. 30.1 ± 17.1; P = 0.7), were seen between admitted and transferred patients at time of rehabilitation discharge. Interhospital transfer status did not diminish time to rehabilitation after injury or reduce functional recovery, suggesting early surgical treatment in community settings may have merit prior to transfer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]