Search

Objective Changing Behavior through Physical Therapy (CBPT), a cognitive-behavioral–based program, has been shown to improve outcomes after lumbar spine surgery in patients with a high psychosocial risk profile; however, little is known about potential mechanisms associated with CBPT treatment effects. The purpose of this study was to explore potential mediators underlying CBPT efficacy after spine surgery. Methods In this secondary analysis, 86 participants were enrolled in a randomized trial comparing a postoperative CBPT (n = 43) and education program (n = 43). Participants completed validated questionnaires at 6 weeks (baseline) and 3 and 6 months following surgery for back pain (Brief Pain Inventory), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), physical health (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey), fear of movement (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and pain self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire). Parallel multiple mediation analyses using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) were conducted to examine whether 3- and 6-month changes in fear of movement, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy mediate treatment outcome effects at 6 months. Results Six-month changes, but not 3-month changes, in fear of movement and pain self-efficacy mediated postoperative outcomes at 6 months. Specifically, changes in fear of movement mediated the effects of CBPT treatment on disability (indirect effect = −2.0 [95% CI = −4.3 to 0.3]), whereas changes in pain self-efficacy mediated the effects of CBPT treatment on physical health (indirect effect = 3.5 [95% CI = 1.2 to 6.1]). Conclusions This study advances evidence on potential mechanisms underlying cognitive-behavioral strategies. Future work with larger samples is needed to establish whether these factors are a definitive causal mechanism. Impact Fear of movement and pain self-efficacy may be important mechanisms to consider when developing and testing psychologically informed physical therapy programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs), morbidity, and costs of TLIF vs PLF to determine whether one treatment was superior in the setting of single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis.Methods: Patients undergoing TLIF or PLF for single-level spondylolisthesis were included for retrospective analysis. EQ-5D, ODI, SF-12 MCS/PCS, NRS-BP/LP scores were collected at baseline and 24 months after surgery. 90-day post-operative complications, revision surgery rates, and satisfaction scores were also collected. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare payment amounts (direct cost). Patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Total cost was used to assess mean total 2-year cost per QALYs gained after surgery.Results: 62 and 37 patients underwent TLIF and PLF, respectively. Patients in the PLF group were older (p < 0.01). No significant differences were seen in baseline or 24-month PROs between the two groups. There was a significant improvement in all PROs from baseline to 24 months after surgery (p < 0.001). Both groups had similar rates of 90-day complications, revision surgery, satisfaction, and similar gain in QALYs and cost per QALYs gained. There was no significant difference in 24-month direct, indirect, and total cost.Conclusions: Overall costs and health care utilization were similar in both the groups. Both TLIF and PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis provide improvement in disability, pain, quality of life, and general health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diabetes has been associated with poor outcomes following elective spine surgery. The purpose of our study was to determine if diabetes predicts worse patient-reported outcomes at two years postoperatively and to evaluate the effect of perioperative blood glucose levels and control on patient-reported outcomes in patients with diabetes.Methods: One thousand and five patients undergoing elective spine surgery were included in this prospective cohort study. The presence of diabetes and baseline and one and two-year patient-reported outcomes (Short Form-12 [SF-12], EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D], Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] or Neck Disability Index [NDI], and Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] pain scores) were recorded. The mean blood glucose measurements in patients with diabetes were collected during the postoperative period. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of one and two-year outcomes as well as the relationship between perioperative blood glucose and patient-reported outcomes in patients with diabetes.Results: Four hundred and thirty-four patients (43%) had diabetes. When compared with patients without diabetes at two years, patients with diabetes had lower SF-12 Physical Component Summary scores (34.4 points for the diabetic group compared with 38.6 points for the non-diabetic group), lower EQ-5D scores (0.67 for the diabetic group compared with 0.74 for the non-diabetic group), higher ODI or NDI scores (32.1 points for the diabetic group compared with 26.8 points for the non-diabetic group), and higher NRS scores (5.1 points for the diabetic group compared with 4.3 points for the non-diabetic group) (p < 0.05 for all). Although patients with diabetes improved significantly over time, they did not improve to the extent that patients without diabetes did in the ODI or NDI and EQ-5D scores (p < 0.05). Diabetes and preoperative opioid use were independent predictors of decreased SF-12 scores, decreased EQ-5D scores, increased ODI or NDI scores, and increased NRS scores (p < 0.05). Diabetes was associated with increased ODI or NDI (by 6.6 points) and decreased EQ-5D (by 0.1) at two years. Perioperative blood glucose control did not predict outcomes at either one or two years in patients with diabetes.Conclusions: Diabetes was associated with worse patient-reported outcomes when patients with diabetes were compared with patients without diabetes at two years following elective spine surgery. Although patients with diabetes improved when compared from baseline to the time following elective spine surgery, they did not improve to the same extent as patients without diabetes in the ODI or NDI and EQ-5D scores. Providers may use this information to counsel patients with diabetes on expectations following spine surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose. Fear of movement is a risk factor for poor post-operative outcomes in patients following spine surgery. The purposes of this case series were: (1) to describe the effects of a cognitive-behavioral–based physical therapy (CBPT) intervention in patients with high fear of movement following lumbar spine surgery and (2) to assess the feasibility of physical therapists delivering cognitive-behavioral techniques over the telephone. Case Description. Eight patients who underwent surgery for a lumbar degenerative condition completed the 6-session CBPT intervention. The intervention included empirically supported behavioral self-management, problem solving, and cognitive restructuring and relaxation strategies and was conducted in person and then weekly over the phone. Patient-reported outcomes of pain and disability were assessed at baseline (6 weeks after surgery), post-intervention (3 months after surgery), and at follow-up (6 months after surgery). Performance-based outcomes were tested at baseline and post-intervention. The outcome measures were the Brief Pain Inventory, Oswestry Disability Index, 5-Chair Stand Test, and 10-Meter Walk Test. Outcomes. Seven of the patients demonstrated a clinically significant reduction in pain, and all 8 of the patients had a clinically significant reduction in disability at 6-month follow-up. Improvement on the performance-based tests also was noted post-intervention, with 5 patients demonstrating clinically meaningful change on the 10-Meter Walk Test. Discussion. The findings suggest that physical therapists can feasibly implement cognitive-behavioral skills over the telephone and may positively affect outcomes after spine surgery. However, a randomized clinical trial is needed to confirm the results of this case series and the efficacy of the CBPT intervention. Clinical implications include broadening the availability of well-accepted cognitive-behavioral strategies by expanding implementation to physical therapists and through a telephone delivery model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal web-based registry data.Objective: To determine relative validity, responsiveness, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds in patients undergoing surgery for intradural extramedullary (IDEM) spinal tumors.Summary Of Background Data: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are vital in establishing the value of care in spinal pathology. There is limited availability of prospective, quality studies reporting PROs for IDEM spine tumors.Methods: . A total of 40 patients were analyzed. Baseline, postoperative 3-month, and 12-month PROs were recorded: Oswestry Disability Index or Neck disability Index (ODI/NDI), Quality of life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-pain scores. Responders were defined as those who achieved a level of improvement one or two, after surgery, on health transition index (HTI) of SF-36. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were generated to assess the validity of PROs, and the difference between standardized response means (SRMs) in responders versus nonresponders was utilized to determine the relative responsiveness of each PRO measure. MCID thresholds were derived using previously reported minimal detectable change approach.Results: A significant improvement across all PROs at 3-months and 12-months follow up was noted. The derived MCID thresholds were 13.9 points: ODI/NDI, 0.14 quality adjusted life years: EQ-5D, 2.8 points: SF-12PCS and 10.7 points: SF-12MCS, 1.9 points: NRS-back/neck pain, and 1.8 points: NRS-leg/arm pain. SF-12PCS was most accurate discriminator of meaningful improvement (area under the curve, AUC-0.83) and most responsive (SRM-1.36) to postoperative improvement. EQ-5D, ODI/NDI, NRS-pain scores were all accurate discriminator (AUC-0.7-0.8) and responsive measures (0.97-0.67) of meaningful postoperative improvement. SF-12MCS was neither a valid discriminator (AUC-0.48) nor a responsive measure (SRM: -1.5) of outcome.Conclusion: Surgical resection of IDEM spinal tumors provides significant and sustained improvement in quality of life, general health, disability, and pain at 12-month after surgery. The surgically resected IDEM-specific clinically meaningful thresholds are reported. All the PROs reported in this study can accurately discriminate responders and nonresponder based on SF-36 HTI index except for SF-12 MCS.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospective patient outcomes and cost data.Objective: To analyze the contribution of surgeon-specific variability in cost and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to overall variability in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), whereas adjusting for patient comorbidities.Summary Of Background Data: Cost reduction in surgical care has received increased attention. Patient factors contributing to cost variability in ACDF have been described; however, intersurgeon cost and outcome variability has received less attention in the literature.Methods: Adult patients undergoing elective primary ACDF by five different surgeons were analyzed from a prospective registry database. Direct and indirect 90-day costs were compared across each surgeon, along with PROs. Predicted costs were calculated based on patient co-morbidities, and an "observed versus expected" cost differential was measured for each surgeon; this O/E cost ratio was then compared with PROs.Results: A total of 431 patients were included in the analysis. There were no differences in comorbidities, age, smoking status, or narcotic use. There was significant variation between surgeons in total 90-day costs, as well as variation between each surgeon's observed versus expected cost ratio. Despite these surgeon-specific cost variations, there were no differences in PROs across the participating surgeons.Conclusion: Intersurgeon cost variation in elective ACDF persists even after adjusting for patient comorbidities. There was no apparent correlation between increased surgeon-specific costs and 90-day PROs. These findings show there is opportunity for improvement in inter-surgeon cost variation without compromise in PROs.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design. A retrospective review of a prospective database. Objective. The aim of this study was to determine cost and outcomes of revision cervical spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. Revision rates for cervical spine surgery are steadily increasing. It is important to counsel patients on expected results following a revision procedure. However, outcomes and cost of these procedures are poorly defined in the literature. Methods. Patients undergoing revision cervical spine surgery at a single institution were included between October 2010 and January 2016 in a prospective registry database. Patients were divided into three cohorts depending on their etiology for revision, including recurrent disease, pseudoarthrosis, or adjacent segment disease. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including Neck Disability Index (NDI), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, numeric rating scale-neck pain (NRS-NP), and numeric rating scale-arm pain (NRS-AP), were measured at baseline and 12 months following revision surgery. Mean costs at 12 months following revision surgery were also calculated. Satisfaction was determined by the NASS patient satisfaction index. Variables were compared using Student t test. Results. A total of 115 patients underwent cervical revision surgery for recurrent disease (n=21), pseudoarthrosis (n=45), and adjacent segment disease (n=49). There was significant improvement in all patient-reported outcomes at 12 months following surgery regardless of etiology (P<0.0001). Total cost of revision surgery ranged between 21,294 ±8614 and 23,914±15,396 depending on pathology. No significant differences were seen between costs among different revision groups (P=0.53). Satisfaction was met in 75.5% to 85.7% (P=0.21) of patients depending on the etiology of the revision need. Complication rates were between 4% and 9%. Conclusion. This is one of the first studies to determine costs and outcome measures in the setting of cervical spine revision surgery. On the basis of our analysis, a majority of patients can expect to receive some benefit by 12 months and are satisfied with their procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether 1-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can accurately assess effective care for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease.Summary Of Background Data: Prospective longitudinal PROs registries provide a means to accurately assess outcomes and determine the relative effectiveness of various spine treatments. Obtaining long-term PROs can be costly and challenging.Methods: Patients enrolled into a prospective registry who underwent lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease were included. Baseline, 1-year, and 2-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were captured. Previously published minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI (14.9) was used. Multivariable linear regression model was created to derive model-estimated 2-year ODI scores. Absolute differences between 1-year and 2-year ODI were compared to absolute differences between 2-year and model-estimated 2-year ODI. Concordance rates in achieving MCID at 1-year and 2-year and predictive values were calculated.Results: A total of 868 patients were analyzed. One-year ODI scores differed from 2-year scores by an absolute difference of 9.7 ± 8.9 points and predictive model-estimated 2-year scores differed from actual 2-year scores by 8.8 ± 7.3 points. The model-estimated 2-year ODI was significantly different than actual 1-year ODI in assessing actual 2-year ODI for all procedures (P = 0.001) except for primary (P = 0.932) and revision microdiscectomy (P = 0.978) and primary laminectomy (P = 0.267). The discordance rates of achieving or not achieving MCID for ODI ranged from 8% to 27%. Concordance rate was about 90% for primary and revision microdiscectomy. The positive and negative predictive value of 1-year ODI to predict 2-year ODI was 83% and 67% for all procedures and 92% and 67% for primary and 100% and 86% for revision microdiscectomy respectively.Conclusion: One-year disability outcomes can potentially estimate 2-year outcomes for patient populations, but cannot reliably predict 2-year outcomes for individual patients, except for patients undergoing primary and revision microdiscectomy.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background context: Postoperative spine infections have been reported to occur in 1% to 15% of patients and subsequently lead to significant morbidity and cost, with an elevated risk for instrumented cases. Every effort should be made to minimize the risk of intraoperative wound contamination. Consequently, certain practices are followed in the operating room to prevent contamination, many of which are not evidence based. Conversely, certain objects believed to be sterile are frequently overlooked as potential sources of contamination. Purpose: To assess to what degree contamination of spinal implants occurs during spine surgery and evaluate whether coverage of implants alters the rate of contamination. Study design: Prospective study. Study sample: This study included 105 consecutive noninfection surgical cases performed by a single spine surgeon that required the use of instrumentation. Outcome measure: Spinal implant contamination. Methods: Cases were randomized to have all implant trays either remain uncovered (n=54) or covered (n=51) with sterile surgical towels on opening until implants were required for the case. After the last implant was placed, a sterile culture swab was used to obtain a sample from all open implants that had been present at the start of the case. The paper outer wraps of the implant trays were sampled in each case as a positive control, and an additional 105 swabs were capped immediately after they were opened to obtain negative controls. Swab samples were assessed for bacterial growth on 5% sheep blood Columbia agar plates. Of note, only departmental funding was used and no applicable financial relationships exist with any author. Results: No growth was observed on any of the 105 negative controls, whereas 99.1% of positive controls demonstrated obvious contamination. Cultures from implant samples demonstrated a 9.5% overall rate of contamination with 2.0% (n=1) of covered implants versus 16.7% (n=9) of uncovered implants demonstrating contamination. Length of time implant trays were open before sample collection; implant type (plate, rods, vs. polyetheretherketone), number of scrubbed personnel, and number of implants used were all not found to be significantly associated with implant contamination (p>.05). However, coverage of implants was found to significantly reduce the implant contamination rate (p=.016). Conclusions: The contamination of sterile implants during spine surgery was found to occur. However, this contamination was independent of the amount of time the implant trays remained open. Coverage of implants significantly reduces this contamination. Therefore, no matter the expected duration of a case, implant coverage is a simple modifiable way to reduce the risk of intraoperative wound contamination and potentially reduce postoperative infections. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background context: Spinal surgical outcome studies rely on patient reported outcome (PRO) measurements to assess the effect of treatment. A shortcoming of these questionnaires is that the extent of improvement in their numerical scores lacks a direct clinical meaning. As a result, the concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been used to measure the critical threshold needed to achieve clinically relevant treatment effectiveness. Post hoc anchor-based MCID methods have not been applied to the surgical treatment for pseudoarthrosis. Purpose: To determine the most appropriate MCID values for visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form (SF)-12 physical component score (PCS), and European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) in patients undergoing revision lumbar arthrodesis for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Study design/ setting: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: In 47 patients undergoing revision fusion for pseudoarthrosis-associated back pain, PRO measures of back pain (BP-VAS), ODI, physical quality of life (SF-12 PCS), and general health utility (EQ-5D) were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Four subjective post hoc anchor-based MCID calculation methods were used to calculate MCID (average change; minimum detectable change; change difference; and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis) for two separate anchors (health transition index (HTI) of SF-36 and satisfaction index). Results: All patients were available for a 2-year PRO assessment. Two years after surgery, a significant improvement was observed for all PROs; Mean change score: BP-VAS (2.3±2.6; p<.001), ODI (8.6%±13.2%; p<.001), SF-12 PCS (4.0±6.1; p=.01), and EQ-5D (0.18±0.19; p<.001). The four MCID calculation methods generated a wide range of MCID values for each of the PROs (BP-VAS: 2.0–3.2; ODI: 4.0%–16.6%; SF-12 PCS: 3.2–6.1; and EQ-5D: 0.14–0.24). There was no difference in response between anchors for any patient, suggesting that HTI and satisfaction anchors are equivalent in this patient population. The wide variations in calculated MCID values between methods precluded any ability to reliably determine what the true value is for meaningful change in this disease state. Conclusions: Using subjective post hoc anchor-based methods of MCID calculation, MCID after revision fusion for pseudoarthrosis varies by as much as 400% per PRO based on the calculation technique. MCID was suggested to be as low as 2 points for ODI and 3 points for SF-12. These wide variations and low values of MCID question the face validity of such calculation techniques, especially when applied to heterogeneous disease and patient groups with a multitude of psychosocial confounders such as failed back syndromes. The variability of MCID thresholds observed in our study of patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion for pseudoarthrosis raises further questions to whether ante hoc or Delphi methods may be a more valid and consistent technique to define clinically meaningful, patient-centered changes in PRO measurements. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background context: Persistent back pain and leg pain after index surgery is distressing to patients and spinal surgeons. Revision surgical treatment is technically challenging and has been reported to yield unpredictable outcomes. Recently, affective disorders, such as depression and anxiety, have been considered potential predictors of surgical outcomes across many disease states of chronic pain. There remains a paucity of studies assessing the predictive value of baseline depression on outcomes in the setting of revision spine surgery. Purpose: To assess the predictive value of preoperative depression on 2-year postoperative outcome after revision lumbar surgery for symptomatic pseudarthrosis, adjacent segment disease (ASD), and same-level recurrent stenosis. Study design: Retrospective cohort study. Patient sample: One hundred fifty patients undergoing revision surgery for symptomatic ASD, pseudarthrosis, and same-level recurrent stenosis. Outcome measures: Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed using an outcomes questionnaire that included questions on health-state values (EQ-5D), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), pain (visual analog scale), depression (Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale), and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component scores. Methods: One hundred fifty patients undergoing revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for ASD (n=50), pseudarthrosis (n=47), or same-level recurrent stenosis (n=53) were included in this study. Preoperative Zung Self-Reported Depression Scale score was assessed for all patients. Preoperative and 2-year postoperative visual analog scale for back pain and leg pain scores and ODI were assessed. The association between preoperative Zung Depression Scale score and 2-year improvement in disability was assessed via multivariate regression analysis. Results: Compared to preoperative status, VAS-BP was significantly improved 2 years after surgery for ASD (8.72±1.85 vs. 3.92±2.84, p=.001), pseudoarthrosis (7.31±0.81 vs. 5.06±2.64, p=.001), and same-level recurrent stenosis (9.28±1.00 vs. 5.00±2.94, p=.001). Two-year ODI was also significantly improved after surgery for ASD (28.72±9.64 vs. 18.48±11.31, p=.001), pseudoarthrosis (29.74±5.35 vs. 25.42±6.00, p=.001), and same-level recurrent stenosis (36.01±6.00 vs. 21.75±12.07, p=.001). Independent of age, BMI, symptom duration, smoking, comorbidities, and level of preoperative pain and disability, increasing preoperative Zung depression score was significantly associated with less 2-year improvement in disability (ODI) after revision surgery for ASD, pseudoarthrosis, and recurrent stenosis. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the extent of preoperative depression is an independent predictor of functional outcome after revision lumbar surgery for ASD, pseudoarthrosis, and recurrent stenosis. Future comparative effectiveness studies assessing outcomes after revision lumbar surgery should account for depression as a potential confounder. The Zung depression questionnaire may help risk stratify patients presenting for revision lumbar surgery. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background context: The integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) has been proposed to be an integral aspect in the treatment algorithm for spinal trauma. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been reported as the ideal tool to determine the integrity of the PLC. The ability to assess disruption of the PLC by reviewers of differing levels of training has not been described. In addition, the MRI sequence most suggestive of injury for each component of the PLC has not been clearly determined. Purpose: This study was designed to determine the ability of reviewers with differing levels of training (fellowship-trained spine surgeon, fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist, senior orthopedic surgery resident, and junior orthopedic surgery resident) to accurately interpret the results of MRI. The secondary purpose was to evaluate the MRI sequence that was most indicative of injury to the components of the PLC. Study design: This is a prospective radiological study comparing reviewers of MRI to determine integrity of the PLC components using intraoperative notation as the gold standard for integrity. Patient sample: Forty-five consecutive spinal trauma patients who underwent operative fixation after obtaining MRI. Outcome measures: No patient outcome measures were used. Methods: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for each MRI reviewer in regard to MRI integrity were compared with the gold standard of intraoperative observation. In addition, the MRI sequence most suggestive of integrity of the PLC was noted by each reviewer for each component of the PLC. Results: Forty-five patients (29 men and 16 women) with traumatic spine injuries were enrolled in the study. The sensitivity and accuracy of the surgeon were 0.83 (0.66, 0.92) and 0.81 (0.70, 0.88), respectively. The sensitivity and accuracy of the attending spine surgeon were not statistically significantly different from the other reviewers (p value=.2317 and .2582). However, the specificity of the surgeon was statistically significantly higher than that of the other reviewers (p=.0043). In the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, the reviewers reached a 93% agreement that the sagittal short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequences were most helpful in visualizing injury to the supraspinous ligament (SSL), interspinous ligament (ISL), ligamentum flavum (LF), and the cervical facet capsules. The reviewers attained a 95% agreement that visualization of injury to the lumbar facet capsules is most optimal in the T2 axial sequences. Conclusions: The interpretation of traumatic MRI is very sensitive and accurate regardless of years of training of the observer. The attending-level spine surgeon was statistically more specific in the evaluation of injury MRIs. The fluid-weighted STIR sagittal sequences are most useful in determining injury to the SSL, ISL, LF, and cervical facets capsules. Lumbar facet capsules are best evaluated with axial T2 MRI. The evaluation of the PLC on MRI can be accurately and efficiently interpreted by physicians at multiple levels of training, thus providing a key imaging modality in determining stability and need for stabilization. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background context: Laminectomy for lumbar stenosis–associated radiculopathy is associated with improvement in pain, disability, and quality of life. However, given rising health-care costs, attention has been turned to question the cost-effectiveness of lumbar decompressive procedures. The cost-effectiveness of multilevel hemilaminectomy for radiculopathy remains unclear. Purpose: To assess the comprehensive medical and societal costs of multilevel hemilaminectomy at our institution and determine its cost-effectiveness in the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis. Study design: Prospective single cohort study. Patient sample: Fifty-four consecutive patients undergoing multilevel hemilaminectomy for lumbar stenosis–associated radiculopathy after at least 6 months of failed conservative therapy were included. Outcome measures: Self-reported measures were assessed using an outcomes questionnaire that incorporated total back-related medical resource utilization, missed work, and improvement in leg pain (visual analog scale for leg pain [VAS-LP]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), quality of life (Short Form-12 [SF-12]), and health state values (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs], calculated from EuroQuol 5D [EQ-5D] with US valuation). Methods: Over a 2-year period, total back-related medical resource utilization, missed work, and improvement in leg pain (VAS-LP), disability (ODI), quality of life (SF-12), and health state values (QALYs, calculated from EQ-5D with US valuation) were assessed. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts (direct cost), and patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Mean total 2-year cost per QALY gained after multilevel hemilaminectomy was assessed. Results: Compared with preoperative health states reported after at least 6 months of medical management, a significant improvement in VAS-LP, ODI, and SF-12 (physical and mental components) was observed 2 years after multilevel hemilaminectomy, with a mean 2-year gain of 0.72 QALYs. Mean±standard deviation total 2-year cost of multilevel hemilaminectomy was $24,264±10,319 (surgery cost, $10,220±80.57; outpatient resource utilization cost, $3,592±3,243; and indirect cost, $10,452±9,364). Multilevel hemilaminectomy was associated with a mean 2-year cost per QALY gained of $33,700. Conclusions: Multilevel hemilaminectomy improved pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with lumbar stenosis–associated radiculopathy. Total cost per QALY gained for multilevel hemilaminectomy was $33,700 when evaluated 2 years after surgery with Medicare fees, suggesting that multilevel hemilaminectomy is a cost-effective treatment of lumbar radiculopathy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]