Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Minimally Invasive Spinal Deformity Surgery pp 59–65Cite as

Costs of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1826 Accesses

Abstract

It is well known that the US healthcare system devotes significant resources to the evaluation and treatment of patients with spinal disorders. Back pain continues to be one of the leading causes of disability in the USA and has been reported to be the most common reason for seeking evaluation by a physician, second only to the common cold [1–4]. It is estimated that over 33 million US adults suffered from spine-related disorders in 2005 [4]. In addition, it has been shown that the average expenditure for medical care by US adults with spinal disorders is 73 % higher than adults without back and neck problems [4]. This corresponded to a national total expenditure of over 89 billion dollars in 2005 on spine-related care [4].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Carey TS, Evans AT, Hadler NM, Lieberman G, Kalsbeek WD, Jackman AM, et al. Acute severe low back pain. A population-based study of prevalence and care-seeking. Spine. 1996;21:339–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cypress BK. Characteristics of physician visits for back symptoms: a national perspective. Am J Public Health. 1983;73:389–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Deyo RA, Cherkin D, Conrad D, Volinn E. Cost, controversy, crisis: low back pain and the health of the public. Annu Rev Public Health. 1991;12:141–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Comstock BA, Hollingworth W, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA. 2008;299:656–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lipson SJ. Spinal-fusion surgery – advances and concerns. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:643–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deyo RA, Mirza SK. Trends and variations in the use of spine surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;443: 139–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010;303:1259–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:2119–26.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Patil PG, Turner DA, Pietrobon R. National trends in surgical procedures for degenerative cervical spine disease: 1990–2000. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:753–8; discussion 753–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wang MC, Kreuter W, Wolfla CE, Maiman DJ, Deyo RA. Trends and variations in cervical spine surgery in the United States: Medicare beneficiaries, 1992 to 2005. Spine. 2009;34:955–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE, Rice-Wyllie L, Wellington R, Smith MM, et al. Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:S129–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith JS, Ogden AT, Shafizadeh S, Fessler RG. Clinical outcomes after microendoscopic discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23:30–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18 Suppl:S1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wang MY, Anderson DG, Poelstra KA, Ludwig SC. Minimally invasive posterior fixation. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:197–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gold MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Drummond MF. Drummond MFMfteeohcp: methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Franke J, Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Mahlfeld K, Grasshoff H, Allam Y, et al. Comparison of a minimally invasive procedure versus standard microscopic discotomy: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2009;18:992–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brock M, Kunkel P, Papavero L. Lumbar microdiscectomy: subperiosteal versus transmuscular approach and influence on the early postoperative analgesic consumption. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2008;17:518–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Harrington JF, French P. Open versus minimally invasive lumbar microdiscectomy: comparison of operative times, length of hospital stay, narcotic use and complications. Minim Invasive Neurosurg MIN. 2008;51:30–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2009;302:149–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Tan W, et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2011;69: 135–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van den Akker ME, Arts MP, van den Hout WB, Brand R, Koes BW, Peul WC. Tubular diskectomy versus conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk related sciatica: cost utility analysis alongside a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2011;69:829–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA. An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12:694–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg. 2012;78:178–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang MY, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt MJ. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25:324–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Charosky S, Guigui P, Blamoutier A, Roussouly P, Chopin D. Complications and risk factors of primary adult scoliosis surgery: a multicenter study of 306 patients. Spine. 2012;37:693–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR, Kim JH, Kim SS, Choi WK, et al. Complications in posterior fusion and instrumentation for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine. 2007;32:2232–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schwab FJ, Hawkinson N, Lafage V, Smith JS, Hart R, Mundis G, et al. Risk factors for major peri-operative complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: a multi-center review of 953 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:2603–10.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Lerner J, Engelhart L, Knight T, Wang MY. Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:771–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg MIN. 2011;54:33–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR. Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc. 2006;6:435–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lucio JC, Vanconia RB, Deluzio KJ, Lehmen JA, Rodgers JA, Rodgers W. Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2012;5:65–74.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cahill KS, Chi JH, Day A, Claus EB. Prevalence, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion procedures. JAMA. 2009;302:58–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Kevin S. Cahill M.D. Ph.D. M.P.H.

Authors
  1. Kevin S. Cahill M.D. Ph.D. M.P.H.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin S. Cahill M.D. Ph.D. M.P.H. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

    Michael Y. Wang

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Yi Lu

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    D. Greg Anderson

  4. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

    Praveen V. Mummaneni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cahill, K.S. (2014). Costs of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. In: Wang, M., Lu, Y., Anderson, D., Mummaneni, P. (eds) Minimally Invasive Spinal Deformity Surgery. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1407-0_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1407-0_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-1406-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-1407-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation