Comparative Analysis of Inpatient and Outpatient Interspinous Process Device Placement for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Abstract

Purpose To compare reoperations, health care utilization, and costs in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients undergoing interspinous process (ISP) device placement in an inpatient versus outpatient setting.

Methods The MarketScan database (2007–2009) was queried for adults with LSS undergoing ISP device placement as a primary procedure. Reoperations, health care utilization, and costs in patients with at least 18 months of follow-up were analyzed. Chi-square and Student t tests were used to assess the differences in characteristics and outcomes between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient setting.

Results A total of 411 patients who underwent ISP device placement were identified; the mean age was 72 years, 51% were female, and most patients were insured by Medicare (73.7%). The average postoperative follow-up was 24.9 months. A subset of 182 patients (44.3%) had inpatient procedures; 229 (55.7%) underwent outpatient ISP device placements. The overall reoperation rate was 20.4%. ISP reoperation rates between inpatient and outpatient cohorts were comparable (23.1% versus 18.3%; p = 0.24). Inpatients accrued significantly higher index procedural costs compared with outpatients ($17,432 versus $8854; p = 0.0001), however, the outpatient cohort utilized more postoperative outpatient services (143 versus 112; p = 0.09) and higher outpatient service costs ($25,376 versus $15,481; p = 0.01). Consequently, cumulative overall cost was similar among the two cohorts ($51,059 versus $51,778; p = 0.94).

Conclusions Long-term reoperation rates following ISP device placement are comparable in the inpatient and outpatient setting. Upfront cost savings may be achieved with outpatient ISP device placement, but this benefit is lost by 18 months following initial surgery.

Keywords

lumbar spinal stenosis - interspinous process device - decompressive surgery - reoperation - health care utilization

• References

• 1 Miller LE, Block JE. Interspinous spacer implant in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Pain Res Treat 2012; 2012: 823509
• 2 Kaulhausen T, Siewe J, Eysel P , et al. The role of the inter-/supraspinous ligament complex in stand-alone interspinous process devices: a biomechanical and anatomic study. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2012; 73 (2) 65-72
• 3 Burnett MG, Stein SC, Bartels RH. Cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: nonsurgical care, laminectomy, and X-STOP. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13 (1) 39-46
• 4 Epstein NE. A review of interspinous fusion devices: high complication, reoperation rates, and costs with poor outcomes. Surg Neurol Int 2012; 3: 7
• 5 Kim DH, Tantorski M, Shaw J , et al. Occult spinous process fractures associated with interspinous process spacers. Spine 2011; 36 (16) E1080-E1085
• 6 Kuchta J, Sobottke R, Eysel P, Simons P. Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (6) 823-829
• 7 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (5) 373-383
• 8 Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45 (6) 613-619
• 9 United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiovrvw.htm —item5. Accessed October 26, 2012
• 10 Grant RB. Outpatient surgery: helping to contain health care costs. Mon Labor Rev 1992; 115 (11) 33-36
• 11 Avalere Health analysis of American Hospital Association Annual Survey data, 2010, for community hospitals. Available at: http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/chartbook/2013/chapter3.pdf US Census Bureau: National and State Population Estimates; July 1, 2010
• 12 Bookwalter III JW, Busch MD, Nicely D. Ambulatory surgery is safe and effective in radicular disc disease. Spine 1994; 19 (5) 526-530
• 13 Tomaras CR, Blacklock JB, Parker WD, Harper RL. Outpatient surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy. J Neurosurg 1997; 87 (1) 41-43
• 14 Erickson M, Fites BS, Thieken MT, McGee AW. Outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Am J Orthop 2007; 36 (8) 429-432
• 15 Liu JT, Briner RP, Friedman JA. Comparison of inpatient vs. outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective case series. BMC Surg 2009; 9: 3
• 16 Sobottke R, Röllinghoff M, Siewe J , et al. Clinical outcomes and quality of life 1 year after open microsurgical decompression or implantation of an interspinous stand-alone spacer. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2010; 53 (4) 179-183
• 17 Verhoof OJ, Bron JL, Wapstra FH, van Royen BJ. High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (2) 188-192
• 18 Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH. Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28 (6) E8
• 19 Jansson KA, Németh G, Granath F, Blomqvist P. Spinal stenosis re-operation rate in Sweden is 11% at 10 years—a national analysis of 9,664 operations. Eur Spine J 2005; 14 (7) 659-663
• 20 Oertel MF, Ryang YM, Korinth MC, Gilsbach JM, Rohde V. Long-term results of microsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. Neurosurgery 2006; 59 (6) 1264-1269; discussion 1269–1270
• 21 Skidmore G, Ackerman SJ, Bergin C , et al. Cost-effectiveness of the X-STOP® interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2011; 36 (5) E345-E356