European Spine Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 909–915

The association of regional intensity of neurosurgical care with spinal fusion surgery in the USA

Original Article



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.


Spinal fusion Trends Intensity of care Diffusion of technology NIS 

Supplementary material

586_2014_3201_MOESM1_ESM.doc (44 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 43 kb)


  1. 1.
    Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK (2004) Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 350:722–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang MC, Kreuter W, Wolfla CE, Maiman DJ, Deyo RA (2013) Trends and variations in cervical spine surgery in the United States: medicare beneficiaries, 1992–2005. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:955–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI (2005) United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1441–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG (2010) Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 303:1259–1265PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998–2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder EL (2003) The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med 138:288–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder EL (2003) The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med 138:273–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fisher ES, Wennberg JE (2003) Health care quality, geographic variations, and the challenge of supply-sensitive care. Perspect Biol Med 46:69–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodney PP, Holman K, Henke PK, Travis LL, Dimick JB, Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Birkmeyer JD (2013) Regional intensity of vascular care and lower extremity amputation rates. J Vasc Surg 57:1471–1479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Skinner J, Chandra A, Staiger D, Lee J, McClellan M (2005) Mortality after acute myocardial infarction in hospitals that disproportionately treat black patients. Circulation 112:2634–2641PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steiner C, Elixhauser A, Schnaier J (2002) The healthcare cost and utilization project: an overview. Eff Clin Pract 5:143–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charlson ME, Ales KL, Simon R, MacKenzie CR (1987) Why predictive indexes perform less well in validation studies. Is it magic or methods? Arch Intern Med 147:2155–2161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG (1993) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1075–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher ES, McClellan MB, Safran DG (2011) Building the path to accountable care. N Engl J Med 365:2445–2447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berwick DM (2003) Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA 289:1969–1975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 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
  19. 19.
    Dowd GC, Wirth FP (1999) Anterior cervical discectomy: is fusion necessary? J Neurosurg 90:8–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J (1995) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression with and without arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1036–1041PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 22.
    Savolainen S, Rinne J, Hernesniemi J (1998) A prospective randomized study of anterior single-level cervical disc operations with long-term follow-up: surgical fusion is unnecessary. Neurosurgery 43:51–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Haselkorn J, Kent D, Ciol MA, Deyo R (1992) Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA 268:907–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 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
  26. 26.
    Hollenbeck BK, Ye Z, Dunn RL, Montie JE, Birkmeyer JD (2009) Provider treatment intensity and outcomes for patients with early-stage bladder cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:571–580PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of NeurosurgeryDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Dr.LebanonUSA
  2. 2.Department NeurosurgeryCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations