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

Alicia Ortega, J. Manuel Sarmiento, Chirag Patil, Debraj Mukherjee, Beatrice Ugiliweneza, Miriam A Nuno, Shivanand Lad, Maxwell Boakye

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PurposeTo 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. MethodsThe 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. ResultsA 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). ConclusionsLong-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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)443-450
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Neurological Surgery, Part A: Central European Neurosurgery
Volume76
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Spinal Stenosis
Inpatients
Outpatients
Equipment and Supplies
Reoperation
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Ambulatory Care
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health Care Costs
Cost Savings
Medicare
Databases
Students

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparative Analysis of Inpatient and Outpatient Interspinous Process Device Placement for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. / Ortega, Alicia; Sarmiento, J. Manuel; Patil, Chirag; Mukherjee, Debraj; Ugiliweneza, Beatrice; Nuno, Miriam A; Lad, Shivanand; Boakye, Maxwell.

In: Journal of Neurological Surgery, Part A: Central European Neurosurgery, Vol. 76, No. 6, 01.11.2015, p. 443-450.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ortega, Alicia ; Sarmiento, J. Manuel ; Patil, Chirag ; Mukherjee, Debraj ; Ugiliweneza, Beatrice ; Nuno, Miriam A ; Lad, Shivanand ; Boakye, Maxwell. / Comparative Analysis of Inpatient and Outpatient Interspinous Process Device Placement for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. In: Journal of Neurological Surgery, Part A: Central European Neurosurgery. 2015 ; Vol. 76, No. 6. pp. 443-450.
@article{53cb977f130b454a92cadbb242342a27,
title = "Comparative Analysis of Inpatient and Outpatient Interspinous Process Device Placement for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis",
abstract = "PurposeTo 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. MethodsThe 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. ResultsA 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). ConclusionsLong-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 = "decompressive surgery, health care utilization, interspinous process device, lumbar spinal stenosis, reoperation",
author = "Alicia Ortega and Sarmiento, {J. Manuel} and Chirag Patil and Debraj Mukherjee and Beatrice Ugiliweneza and Nuno, {Miriam A} and Shivanand Lad and Maxwell Boakye",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1055/s-0034-1382785",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "443--450",
journal = "Journal of Neurological Surgery, Part A: Central European Neurosurgery",
issn = "2193-6315",
publisher = "Thieme",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative Analysis of Inpatient and Outpatient Interspinous Process Device Placement for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

AU - Ortega, Alicia

AU - Sarmiento, J. Manuel

AU - Patil, Chirag

AU - Mukherjee, Debraj

AU - Ugiliweneza, Beatrice

AU - Nuno, Miriam A

AU - Lad, Shivanand

AU - Boakye, Maxwell

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - PurposeTo 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. MethodsThe 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. ResultsA 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). ConclusionsLong-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.

AB - PurposeTo 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. MethodsThe 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. ResultsA 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). ConclusionsLong-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.

KW - decompressive surgery

KW - health care utilization

KW - interspinous process device

KW - lumbar spinal stenosis

KW - reoperation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944442162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944442162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0034-1382785

DO - 10.1055/s-0034-1382785

M3 - Article

C2 - 25915499

AN - SCOPUS:84944442162

VL - 76

SP - 443

EP - 450

JO - Journal of Neurological Surgery, Part A: Central European Neurosurgery

JF - Journal of Neurological Surgery, Part A: Central European Neurosurgery

SN - 2193-6315

IS - 6

ER -