Resource utilization for non-operative cervical radiculopathy: Management by surgeons versus non-surgeons.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the estimated resource utilization for non-operative treatment of cervical radiculopathy if managed by surgeons versus non-surgeons.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A Cervical Spine Research Society-sponsored survey was administered at a national spine surgery conference to surgeons and non-surgeons, as classified above. The survey asked questions regarding resource utilization and perceived costs for the "average patient" with cervical radiculopathy managed non-operatively. Resource utilization and perceived costs were compared between surgeon and non-surgeon participants, and between private practice and academic and/or hybrid groups that combine academic and private practices.

RESULTS

In total, 101 of the 125 conference attendees participated in the survey (return rate 80.8%, of which 60% were surgeons). Surgeon and non-surgeon estimates for duration of non-operative care did not differ (3.3 versus 4.2 months, p=0.071). Estimates also did not differ for estimated number of physical therapy visits (10.5 versus 10.5, p=0.983), cervical injections (1.4 versus 1.7, p=0.272), chiropractic visits (3.1 versus 3.7, p=0.583), or perceived days off from work (14.9 versus 16.3, p=0.816). The only difference identified was that surgeon estimates of the number of physician visits while providing non-operative care were lower than non-surgeon estimates (3.2 versus 4.0, p=0.018). In terms of estimated costs, surgeon and non-surgeon were mostly similar (only difference being that surgeon estimates for the total cost of physician visits per patient were lower than non-surgeon estimates ($382 versus $579, p=0.007). Surgeon estimates for the percent of their patients that go on to receive surgery within 6 months were higher than non-surgeon estimates (28.6% versus 18.8%, p=0.018). Similarly, surgeon estimates for the percent of their patients to go on to receive surgery within 2 years were higher than non-surgeon estimates (37.8% versus 24.8%, p=0.013). Academic/hybrid and private practice group resource utilization estimates and costs were also compared, and no significant differences were found in any comparisons. Additionally, no significant differences were found in these groups for duration of non-operative care, or the estimates of the percent of patients who go on to receive surgery within 6 months or two years.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that patients with cervical radiculopathy managed by surgeons and those by non-surgeons have overall similar resource utilization during a non-operative trial. This suggests that relatively similar care is provided regardless of whom initiates the non-operative trial (surgeon or non-surgeon). Although surgeons thought their patients more likely to undergo surgery following a non-operative trial, this may be a bias due to patient referral-specifically, surgeons may be more likely than non-surgeons to manage patients with more severe or longer-standing radiculopathy.