The association of regional intensity of neurosurgical care with spinal fusion surgery in the USA
- First Online:
- 203 Downloads
There is wide regional variability in the volume of procedures performed for similar surgical patients throughout the USA. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of spinal fusion operations with several socioeconomic factors.
We performed a retrospective cohort study involving patients who underwent any neurosurgical procedure from 2005 to 2010 and were registered in National Inpatient Sample (NIS). A sub-cohort of patients undergoing spinal operations was also created. Regression techniques were used to investigate the association of the average intensity of neurosurgical care (defined as the average number of neurosurgical procedures per capita) with the average rate of fusions.
In the study period, there were 707,951 patients undergoing spinal procedures, who were registered in NIS. There were significant disparities in the fusion rate among different states (ANOVA, P < 0.0001), which ranged from 0.41 in Maine, where non-fusion surgeries were very predominant, to 0.62 in Virginia, where fusion was the main treatment modality used. In a multivariate analysis, the intensity of neurosurgical care was associated with an increased fusion rate. A similar effect was observed for coverage by private insurance, higher income, urban hospitals, large hospital size, African American patients, and patients with less comorbidities. Hospital location in the northeast was associated with a lower rate in comparison to the midwest, and south. Coverage by Medicaid was associated with lower fusion rate.
We observed significant disparities in the integration of fusion operations in spine surgery practices in the USA. Increased intensity of neurosurgical care was associated with a higher fusion rate.
KeywordsSpinal fusion Trends Intensity of care Diffusion of technology NIS
- 3.Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, Bronner KK, Fisher ES (2006) United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2707–2714Google Scholar
- 17.Skinner J, Staiger D (2007) Technology Adoption from Hybrid Corn to Beta-Blockers. In: Berndt ER, Hulten CR (eds) Hard-to-Measure Goods and Services: essays in honor of Zvi Griliches, National Bureau of Economic Research. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 18.Angevine PD, Arons RR, McCormick PC (2003) National and regional rates and variation of cervical discectomy with and without anterior fusion, 1990–1999. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:931–939Google Scholar
- 21.Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, Grobler LJ, Weinstein JN, Brick GW, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1997) Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine 22:1123–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Wang MC, Laud PW, Macias M, Nattinger AB (2011) Utility of a combined current procedural terminology and International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, Clinical Modification code algorithm in classifying cervical spine surgery for degenerative changes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1843–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Faciszewski T, Jensen R, Berg RL (2003) Procedural coding of spinal surgeries (CPT-4 versus ICD-9-CM) and decisions regarding standards: a multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:502–507Google Scholar