Sarikonda Advith, Self D Mitchell, Quraishi Danyal, Sami Ashmal, Isch Emily L, Glener Steven, Heller Joshua, Prasad Srinivas, Sharan Ashwini, Jallo Jack, Vaccaro Alexander R, Harrop James, Sivaganesan Ahilan
Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
World Neurosurg. 2025 May;197:123898. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2025.123898. Epub 2025 Mar 14.
There is clinical equipoise regarding the ideal upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) for elective posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF). Instrumentation may be performed at the axial C2 level, or at the subaxial C3/C4 vertebrae. To our knowledge, a true "value" (outcomes per dollar spent) comparison axial versus subaxial UIV for PCDF has never been performed.
We retrospectively identified 275 long-segment (≥3-levels fused) PCDFs with available Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores at baseline and at 3 months postoperatively. C2 UIV (n = 67) was compared to C3/C4 UIV (n = 208). Time-driven activity-based costing was applied to identify the true intraoperative costs for each case. The Operative Value Index (OVI) was defined as the percent improvement in NDI score from baseline, per $1000 spent intraoperatively. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to compare intraoperative costs and OVI between C2 and C3/C4 UIV.
The average total cost of a C2 construct was $13,751 ($5247), compared with $10,778 ($2237) for C3/C4 (P < 0.001). Forty percent of C2 cases and 32% of C3/C4 cases, respectively, achieved clinically significant improvement in NDI. On multivariable regression analysis, C2 UIV was associated with significantly higher total cost (beta-coefficient: $1814 ± 553, P = 0.001), supply cost (beta-coefficient: $1185 ± $482, P = 0.015) and personnel cost (beta-coefficient: $275 ± $116, P = 0.019). However, there was no significant difference in OVI (P = 0.155) between C2 and C3/C4 UIV.
Although the C2 UIV construct incurred significantly higher intraoperative costs compared with C3/C4 UIV, there was no significant difference in "value" between axial and subaxial UIV.
对于选择性后路颈椎减压融合术(PCDF),理想的上固定椎(UIV)在临床上存在权衡。内固定可在C2轴位水平或C3/C4下位颈椎进行。据我们所知,从未对PCDF中轴位与下位颈椎UIV进行过真正的“价值”(每花费一美元的结果)比较。
我们回顾性确定了275例长节段(≥3个节段融合)PCDF病例,这些病例在基线和术后3个月时有可用的颈部残疾指数(NDI)评分。将C2 UIV(n = 67)与C3/C4 UIV(n = 208)进行比较。采用时间驱动作业成本法确定每个病例的实际术中成本。手术价值指数(OVI)定义为术中每花费1000美元,NDI评分相对于基线的改善百分比。进行多变量回归分析以比较C2和C3/C4 UIV之间的术中成本和OVI。
C2固定结构的平均总成本为13751美元(5247美元),而C3/C4为10778美元(2237美元)(P < 0.001)。分别有40%的C2病例和32%的C3/C4病例在NDI上取得了临床上的显著改善。在多变量回归分析中,C2 UIV与显著更高的总成本(β系数:1814±553美元,P = 0.001)、耗材成本(β系数:1185±482美元,P = 0.015)和人员成本(β系数:275±116美元,P = 0.019)相关。然而,C2和C3/C4 UIV之间的OVI没有显著差异(P = 0.155)。
虽然与C3/C4 UIV相比,C2 UIV结构的术中成本显著更高,但轴位和下位颈椎UIV之间的“价值”没有显著差异。