• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

退行性颈椎神经根病行前后路手术患者 90 天打包付费报销。

Ninety-Day Bundled Payment Reimbursement for Patients Undergoing Anterior and Posterior Procedures for Degenerative Cervical Radiculopathy.

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.

Medical Sciences 1C, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, California.

出版信息

Neurosurgery. 2019 Nov 1;85(5):E851-E859. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyz123.

DOI:10.1093/neuros/nyz123
PMID:31329954
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are the mainstay surgical treatment options for patients with degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare 90-d bundled payments between ACDF and PCF for DCR in a cohort study.

METHODS

Data were extracted from MarketScan database (2000-2016) using ICD-9, ICD-10, and CPT-4 codes. The bundle payments were calculated as the payments accumulated from the index hospitalization admission to 90 d postsurgery. We also analyzed the index hospitalization (physician, hospital, and total) and the postdischarge payments (hospital readmission, outpatient services, medications, and total). Surgical groups were matched based on baseline characteristics (age, sex, insurance type, and Elixhauser score).

RESULTS

A total of 100 041 patients met the inclusion criteria. 94.9% of patients (n = 95 031). Patients underwent ACDF with 5.1% (n = 5 010) treated via PCF. Overall, median 90-d costs were significantly higher for ACDF than for PCF ($31567 vs $18412; P < .0001). The median total index hospitalization ($27841 vs $15043), physician ($4572 vs $1920), and hospital payments ($14540 vs $7404) were higher for ACDF compared to PCF for both single- and multiple-level cohorts (P < .0001). There was no difference in overall 90-d postdischarge payments. Factors associated with higher 90-d payments for both cohorts included age and comorbidity scores.

CONCLUSION

ACDF is associated with greater bundle payments in patients diagnosed with DCR. No difference was noted for the total postdischarge payments. PCF may be a cost-effective surgical option in appropriately selected patients with unilateral, paracentral, and foraminal soft herniated discs.

摘要

背景

颈椎前路椎间盘切除术融合术(ACDF)或颈椎后路椎间孔切开术(PCF)是治疗退变性颈椎神经根病(DCR)的主要手术治疗选择。

目的

在队列研究中比较 ACDF 和 PCF 治疗 DCR 的 90 天捆绑支付。

方法

使用 ICD-9、ICD-10 和 CPT-4 代码从 MarketScan 数据库(2000-2016 年)中提取数据。该捆绑支付是从索引住院入院到术后 90 天的累计支付。我们还分析了索引住院(医生、医院和总费用)和出院后支付(医院再入院、门诊服务、药物和总费用)。根据基线特征(年龄、性别、保险类型和 Elixhauser 评分)对手术组进行匹配。

结果

共有 100041 名患者符合纳入标准。94.9%(n=95031)的患者接受 ACDF 治疗,5.1%(n=5010)的患者接受 PCF 治疗。总体而言,ACDF 的 90 天费用中位数明显高于 PCF(31567 美元对 18412 美元;P<.0001)。单级和多级队列中,ACDF 的总索引住院费用($27841 美元对$15043 美元)、医生费用($4572 美元对$1920 美元)和医院费用($14540 美元对$7404 美元)均高于 PCF(P<.0001)。两组患者出院后总 90 天支付无差异。与两组患者 90 天支付较高相关的因素包括年龄和合并症评分。

结论

诊断为 DCR 的患者中,ACDF 与更高的捆绑支付相关。对于出院后的总支付,两者没有差异。在适当选择的单侧、旁中央和孔外软性椎间盘突出患者中,PCF 可能是一种具有成本效益的手术选择。

相似文献

1
Ninety-Day Bundled Payment Reimbursement for Patients Undergoing Anterior and Posterior Procedures for Degenerative Cervical Radiculopathy.退行性颈椎神经根病行前后路手术患者 90 天打包付费报销。
Neurosurgery. 2019 Nov 1;85(5):E851-E859. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyz123.
2
Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a cost analysis.单节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术与微创后路颈椎椎间孔切开术治疗神经根型颈椎病的成本分析
Neurosurg Focus. 2014 Nov;37(5):E9. doi: 10.3171/2014.8.FOCUS14373.
3
Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion to Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Cervical Radiculopathy: Utilization, Costs, and Adverse Events 2003 to 2014.2003 年至 2014 年颈椎神经根病前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合术与后路颈椎侧块切除术的比较:利用、成本和不良事件。
Neurosurgery. 2019 Feb 1;84(2):413-420. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy051.
4
Management of unilateral cervical radiculopathy in the military: the cost effectiveness of posterior cervical foraminotomy compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.军事单侧颈神经根病的管理:颈椎后路椎间孔切开术与前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合术的成本效益比较。
Neurosurg Focus. 2010 May;28(5):E17. doi: 10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09305.
5
Reoperation rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy: a propensity-matched analysis.颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术与颈椎后路椎间孔切开术后的再次手术率:一项倾向匹配分析。
Spine J. 2015 Jun 1;15(6):1277-83. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.026. Epub 2015 Feb 23.
6
Cost-Utility Analysis of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With Plating (ACDFP) Versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) for Patients With Single-level Cervical Radiculopathy at 1-Year Follow-up.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术加钢板固定(ACDFP)与后路颈椎椎间孔切开术(PCF)治疗单节段颈椎神经根病患者1年随访的成本效用分析
Clin Spine Surg. 2016 Mar;29(2):E67-72. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000099.
7
Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy with tubes to prevent undesired fusion: a long-term follow-up study.采用管道进行微创后路颈椎椎间孔切开术以防止不必要的融合:一项长期随访研究
J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Oct;29(4):358-364. doi: 10.3171/2018.2.SPINE171003. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
8
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A 1-Year Cost-Utility Analysis.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术与显微内镜下后路颈椎椎间孔切开术治疗单侧神经根型颈椎病的1年成本效用分析
Neurosurgery. 2023 Sep 1;93(3):628-635. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002464. Epub 2023 Mar 30.
9
Rates of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion after initial posterior cervical foraminotomy.初次后路颈椎椎间孔切开术后前路颈椎间盘切除融合术的发生率。
Spine J. 2015 May 1;15(5):971-6. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.05.042. Epub 2013 Jul 17.
10
Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术与后路颈椎椎间孔切开术治疗神经根型颈椎病的比较:一项系统评价
Orthop Surg. 2016 Nov;8(4):425-431. doi: 10.1111/os.12285.

引用本文的文献

1
90-Day Bundled Payment Simulation, Health Care Utilization, and Complications following Craniopharyngioma Resection in Adult Patients.成人颅咽管瘤切除术后90天捆绑支付模拟、医疗保健利用及并发症
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2021 Dec 16;83(5):515-525. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1740395. eCollection 2022 Oct.
2
Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Operative Volume and Residency Training at Two Academic Neurosurgery Centers in New Orleans.新冠疫情对新奥尔良两家学术神经外科中心手术量和住院医师培训的影响。
World Neurosurg. 2021 Jul;151:e68-e77. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.03.122. Epub 2021 Mar 31.
3
Outcomes and value in elective cervical spine surgery: an introductory and practical narrative review.
选择性颈椎手术的结果与价值:一篇介绍性与实用性的叙述性综述
J Spine Surg. 2020 Mar;6(1):89-105. doi: 10.21037/jss.2020.01.11.