Comparison of RVU Reimbursement in Anterior or Posterior Approach for Single- and Multilevel Cervical Spinal Fusion.
Journal
Clinical spine surgery
ISSN: 2380-0194
Titre abrégé: Clin Spine Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101675083
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Oct 2024
31 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
11
12
2023
accepted:
13
08
2024
medline:
31
10
2024
pubmed:
31
10
2024
entrez:
31
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Retrospective database study. This study aims to quantify and compare mean work RVUs (wRVUs), mean operative time (OpTime), and wRVUs/min in single- and multilevel anterior and posterior cervical spine fusions performed between 2011 and 2020. Prior research has demonstrated inconsistencies in technical skill, operative time, and surgical difficulty with reimbursement in various orthopedic subspecialties. Although trends investigating physician effort and reimbursement have been investigated in lumbar spine surgery, less research has examined these relationships with respect to cervical spine procedures. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes reflecting anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF), and the number of levels involved. The cohort was stratified into 10 groups: single-level, 2-level, 3-level, 4-level, 5+ level anterior or posterior cervical fusions. Mean operative times, mean wRVUs, and wRVU/min were calculated and compared by Student t test. A total of 100,997 patients met inclusion criteria in this study, of which 79,141 (78.36%) underwent ACDF, whereas 21,836 (21.62%) underwent PCDF. One- and 2-level fusions were most common in both ACDF and PCDF. In 1-, 3-, 4-, and 5+ level fusion, the anterior approach demonstrated significantly lower mean wRVU (P<0.001). In 1-, 2-, and 3-level fusions, the anterior approach had significantly lower operation times (P<0.001). The anterior approach demonstrated significantly higher wRVU/min in 1- and 2- levels (P<0.001) but lower wRVU/min in 3- and 4-level fusions (P<0.001). Clear discrepancies exist between surgical approach and levels of fusion in cervical spine procedures incongruous with markers of surgical difficulty, physician effort, or expertise required. These specific results suggest that the complexity of multi-level anterior cervical fusions are not effectively accounted for by existing RVU measures.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Retrospective database study.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to quantify and compare mean work RVUs (wRVUs), mean operative time (OpTime), and wRVUs/min in single- and multilevel anterior and posterior cervical spine fusions performed between 2011 and 2020.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
Prior research has demonstrated inconsistencies in technical skill, operative time, and surgical difficulty with reimbursement in various orthopedic subspecialties. Although trends investigating physician effort and reimbursement have been investigated in lumbar spine surgery, less research has examined these relationships with respect to cervical spine procedures.
METHODS
METHODS
The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes reflecting anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF), and the number of levels involved. The cohort was stratified into 10 groups: single-level, 2-level, 3-level, 4-level, 5+ level anterior or posterior cervical fusions. Mean operative times, mean wRVUs, and wRVU/min were calculated and compared by Student t test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 100,997 patients met inclusion criteria in this study, of which 79,141 (78.36%) underwent ACDF, whereas 21,836 (21.62%) underwent PCDF. One- and 2-level fusions were most common in both ACDF and PCDF. In 1-, 3-, 4-, and 5+ level fusion, the anterior approach demonstrated significantly lower mean wRVU (P<0.001). In 1-, 2-, and 3-level fusions, the anterior approach had significantly lower operation times (P<0.001). The anterior approach demonstrated significantly higher wRVU/min in 1- and 2- levels (P<0.001) but lower wRVU/min in 3- and 4-level fusions (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Clear discrepancies exist between surgical approach and levels of fusion in cervical spine procedures incongruous with markers of surgical difficulty, physician effort, or expertise required. These specific results suggest that the complexity of multi-level anterior cervical fusions are not effectively accounted for by existing RVU measures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39480019
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001684
pii: 01933606-990000000-00386
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Hsiao WC, Yntema DB, Braun P, et al. Measurement and analysis of intraservice work. JAMA. 1988;260:2361–2370.
Hsiao WC, Braun P, Yntema D, et al. Estimating physicians’ work for a resource-based relative-value scale. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:835–841.
Seidenwurm DJ, Burleson JH. The medicare conversion factor. Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35:242–243.
Laugesen MJ. The resource-based relative value scale and physician reimbursement policy. Chest. 2014;146:1413–1419.
Patel A, Oladipo V, Kerzner B, et al. A retrospective review of reimbursement in revision total hip arthroplasty: a disparity between case complexity and RVU compensation. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37:S807–S813.
Frank C, Kondrashov D, Meyer SC, et al. Work intensity in sacroiliac joint fusion and lumbar microdiscectomy. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:367–376.
Orr RD, Sodhi N, Dalton SE, et al. What provides a better value for your time? The use of relative value units to compare posterior segmental instrumentation of vertebral segments. Spine J. 2018;18:1727–1732.
Gold LS, Bryan M, Comstock BA, et al. Associations between relative value units and patient-reported back pain and disability. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2017;3:2333721416686019.
Bransford RJ, Alton TB, Patel AR, et al. Upper cervical spine trauma. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22:718–729.
Rossi V, Adamson T. Cervical spine surgery: arthroplasty versus fusion posterior foraminotomy. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2021;32:483–492.
Hauerberg J, Kosteljanetz M, Bøge-Rasmussen T, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy with or without fusion with ray titanium cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:458–464.
Gibson J, Nouri A, Krueger B, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: a clinical review. Yale J Biol Med. 2018;91:43–48.
Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, et al. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:S173–S182.
Xu J, Zhang K, Ma X, et al. Systematic review of cohort studies comparing surgical treatment for multilevel ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: anterior vs posterior approach. Orthopedics. 2011;34:e397–e402.
Yang JS, Chu L, Chen L, et al. Anterior or posterior approach of full-endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical intervertebral disc herniation? A comparative cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:1743–1750.
Fröjd Révész D, Norell A, Charalampidis A, et al. Subaxial spine fractures: a comparison of patient-reported outcomes and complications between anterior and posterior surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021;46:E926–E931.
Oglesby M, Fineberg SJ, Patel AA, et al. Epidemiological trends in cervical spine surgery for degenerative diseases between 2002 and 2009. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:1226–1232.
Neifert SN, Martini ML, Yuk F, et al. Predicting trends in cervical spinal surgery in the United States from 2020 to 2040. World Neurosurg. 2020;141:e175–e181.
Camino-Willhuber G, Choi J, Holc F, et al. Utility of the modified 5-items frailty index to predict complications and mortality after elective cervical, thoracic and lumbar posterior spine fusion surgery: multicentric analysis from ACS-NSQIP database. Global Spine J. 2022;14:21925682221124101.
Turcotte JJ, Holbert SE, Orlov MD, et al. Development and validation of a risk-based algorithm for preoperative type and screen testing in spine surgery. Spine J. 2022;22:1472–1480.
Willoughby JE, Baker JF. Utility of surgical risk calculators in spine surgery in patients aged over 80 years: analysis of spinesage and ACS NSQIP. Global Spine J. 2023;13:2168–2175.
Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K, et al. Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg. 2009;250:363–376.
Cook JA, Collins GS. The rise of big clinical databases. Br J Surg. 2015;102:e93–e101.
Kim L, Mabry C, Klimberg VS. Quality of benchmarks for assessment of care will influence outcome. Ann Surg. 2007;245:672–673.
Liu CY, Zygourakis CC, Yoon S, et al. Trends in utilization and cost of cervical spine surgery using the National Inpatient Sample Database, 2001 to 2013. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42:E906–E913.
Tanenbaum JE, Lubelski D, Rosenbaum BP, et al. Propensity-matched analysis of outcomes and hospital charges for anterior versus posterior cervical fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30:E1262–E1268.
Badhiwala JH, Ellenbogen Y, Khan O, et al. Comparison of the inpatient complications and health care costs of anterior versus posterior cervical decompression and fusion in patients with multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy: a retrospective propensity score–matched analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020;134:e112–e119.
Zhou J, Wang R, Huo X, et al. Incidence of surgical site infection after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45:208–216.
Chiu RG, Siddiqui N, Nunna RS, et al. Association of neurosurgical work relative value units with objective markers of operative complexity. World Neurosurg. 2021;146:e194–e204.
Gan ZS, Wood CM, Hayon S, et al. Correlation of relative value units with surgical complexity and physician workload in urology. Urology. 2020;139:71–77.
Childers CP, Dworsky JQ, Russell MM, et al. Association of work measures and specialty with assigned work relative value units among surgeons. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:915.
Shah DR, Bold RJ, Yang AD, et al. Relative value units poorly correlate with measures of surgical effort and complexity. J Surg Res. 2014;190:465–470.
Uppal S, Rice LW, Spencer RJ. Discrepancies created by surgeon self-reported operative time and the effects on procedural relative value units and reimbursement. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:182–188.
Sodhi N, Patel Y, Berger RJ, et al. Comparison of a posterior versus anterior approach for lumbar interbody fusion surgery based on relative value units. Surg Technol Int. 2019;35:363–368.
McNassor R, Grits D, Said TM, et al. Correlation of relative value units with surgical complexity and physician workload: a contemporary nationwide analysis of orthopaedic procedures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023;31:413–420.
Lopez CD, Boddapati V, Lombardi JM, et al. Recent trends in medicare utilization and reimbursement for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine J. 2020;20:1737–1743.
Lopez CD, Boddapati V, Schweppe EA, et al. Recent trends in medicare utilization and reimbursement for orthopaedic procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103:1383–1391.