RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical relevance, usefulness, and financial implications of intraoperative radiograph interpretation by radiologists in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Due to rising health care costs, spine surgery is under scrutiny to maximize value-based care. Formal radiographic analysis remains a potential source of unnecessary health care costs, especially for intraoperative radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on all adult elective spine surgeries at a single institution between July 2020 and July 2021. Demographic and radiographic data were collected, including intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs. Financial data were obtained through the institution's price estimator. Radiographic characteristics included time from radiographic imaging to completion of radiologist interpretation report, completion of radiologist interpretation report before the conclusion of surgical procedure, clinical relevance, and clinical usefulness. Reports were considered clinically relevant if the spinal level of the procedure was described and clinically useful if completed before the conclusion of the procedure and deemed clinically relevant. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-one intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs from 360 patients revealed a median delay of 128 minutes between imaging and completion of the interpretive report. Only 38.9% of reports were completed before the conclusion of surgery. There were 79.4% deemed clinically relevant and only 33.5% were clinically useful. Localization reports were completed more frequently before the conclusion of surgery (67.2% vs. 34.4%) but with lower clinical relevance (90.1% vs. 98.5%) and clinical usefulness (60.3% vs. 33.6%) than post-instrumentation reports. Each patient was charged $32 to $34 for the interpretation fee, cumulating a minimum total cost of $15,392. CONCLUSIONS: Formal radiographic interpretation of intraoperative spine radiographs was of low clinical utility for spine surgeons. Institutions should consider optimizing radiology workflows to improve timeliness and clinical relevance or evaluate the necessity of reflexive consultation to radiology for intraoperative imaging interpretation to ensure that value-based care is maximized during spine surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Assuntos
Radiologistas , Coluna Vertebral , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Feminino , Radiologistas/economia , Adulto , Coluna Vertebral/cirurgia , Coluna Vertebral/diagnóstico por imagem , Idoso , Radiografia/métodos , Radiografia/economia , Custos de Cuidados de SaúdeRESUMO
DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: Characterize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States. SUMMARY: Physician rating websites significantly influence the selection of doctors by other patients. Negative experiences are impacted by various factors, both clinical and nonclinical, geography, and practice structure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and categorize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States, with a focus on surgical versus nonsurgical reviewers. METHODS: Spine surgeons were selected from available online professional society membership directories. A search for reviews was performed on Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.com for the past 10 years. Free response reviews were coded by complaint, and qualitative analysis was performed. χ 2 and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and multiple comparisons were adjusted with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. A binary logistic regression model was performed for the top three most mentioned nonclinical and clinical complaint labels. A P -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 16,695 online reviews were evaluated, including 1690 one-star reviews (10.1%). Among one-star reviews, 64.7% were written by nonsurgical patients and 35.3% by surgical patients. Nonclinical and clinical comments constituted 54.9% and 45.1% of reviews, respectively. Surgeons in the South had more "bedside manner" comments (43.3%, P <0.0001), while Northeast surgeons had more "poor surgical outcome" remarks compared with all other geographic regions (14.4%, P <0.001). Practicing in the South and Northeast were independent predictors of having complaints about "bedside manner" and "poor surgical outcome," respectively. CONCLUSION: Most one-star reviews of spine surgeons were attributed to nonsurgical patients, who tended to be unsatisfied with nonclinical factors, especially "bedside manner." However, there was substantial geographic variation. These results suggest that spine surgeons could benefit from focusing on nonclinical factors (bedside manner), especially among nonoperative patients, and that regional nuances should be considered in delivering spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level- 5.
Assuntos
Cirurgiões , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Coluna Vertebral/cirurgia , Internet , Estados UnidosRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: Quantify and compare the effectiveness of cervical orthoses in restricting intervertebral kinematics during multiplanar motions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies evaluating the efficacy of cervical orthoses measured global head motion and did not evaluate individual cervical motion segment mobility. Prior studies focused only on the flexion/extension motion. METHODS: Twenty adults without neck pain participated. Vertebral motion from the occiput through T1 was imaged using dynamic biplane radiography. Intervertebral motion was measured using an automated registration process with validated accuracy better than 1 degree. Participants performed independent trials of maximal flexion/extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending in a randomized order of unbraced, soft collar (foam), hard collar (Aspen), and cervical thoracic orthosis (CTO) (Aspen) conditions. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to identify differences in the range of motion (ROM) among brace conditions for each motion. RESULTS: Compared with no collar, the soft collar reduced flexion/extension ROM from occiput/C1 through C4/C5, and reduced axial rotation ROM at C1/C2 and from C3/C4 through C5/C6. The soft collar did not reduce motion at any motion segment during lateral bending. Compared with the soft collar, the hard collar reduced intervertebral motion at every motion segment during all motions, except for occiput/C1 during axial rotation and C1/C2 during lateral bending. The CTO reduced motion compared with the hard collar only at C6/C7 during flexion/extension and lateral bending. CONCLUSIONS: The soft collar was ineffective as a restraint to intervertebral motion during lateral bending, but it did reduce intervertebral motion during flexion/extension and axial rotation. The hard collar reduced intervertebral motion compared with the soft collar across all motion directions. The CTO provided a minimal reduction in intervertebral motion compared with the hard collar. The utility in using a CTO rather than a hard collar is questionable, given the cost and little or no additional motion restriction.