To Use or Not Use Intraoperative Neuromonitoring: Utilization of Neuromonitoring During Spine Surgeries and Associated Conflicts of Interest, a Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Jesse E. Bible, Madison L. Goss
{"title":"To Use or Not Use Intraoperative Neuromonitoring: Utilization of Neuromonitoring During Spine Surgeries and Associated Conflicts of Interest, a Cross-Sectional Survey Study","authors":"Jesse E. Bible, Madison L. Goss","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: There are no universal guidelines that dictate the indications for the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in spine surgery resulting in its variable use. The choice to use IONM has been both cited in malpractice lawsuits and insurance claims, but no data exist regarding surgeons' rationale for making this choice. The goal of this study was to assess (1) the use of certain IONM modalities during common spine surgeries, (2) surgeons' rationale for use of IONM, and (3) IONM practices and potential conflicts of interest associated with its use. Methods: Respondents were asked to select each IONM modality they used during 20 different surgical scenarios within the spine followed by rating the importance of several reasons when selecting to use IONM. Finally, the occurrence of conflicts of interest, out-of-network billing, and cost were assessed. Results: Approximately one-half (47%) of respondents who perform anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion/total disk arthroplasty for radiculopathy use IONM, opposed to 76% for myelopathy. The presence of cord compression and/or neurologic symptoms increased IONM use by approximately 30% during trauma cases. Medicolegal was the reason of highest importance when choosing to use IONM (7.4 ± 2.9; mean ± SD), followed by surgeon reassurance (6.2 ± 2.7; P < 0.0001 versus medicolegal) and belief it affects patient outcomes (5.2 ± 3.0; P = 0.004 versus reassurance). Conclusions: Although there is increasing use of IONM, this has not translated to an absolute requirement for every spine surgery. Surgeons are faced with opposing influences of the medicolegal system and insurance payers. Future guidelines on using IONM should not be absolute, but rather should consider the risks of each procedure, along with how patients and surgeons value these risks, in addition to the costs. The findings of this study should help to serve as a guide to surgeons, payers, and courts as contemporary, common practices for the use of IONM during spinal surgical scenarios.","PeriodicalId":145112,"journal":{"name":"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: There are no universal guidelines that dictate the indications for the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in spine surgery resulting in its variable use. The choice to use IONM has been both cited in malpractice lawsuits and insurance claims, but no data exist regarding surgeons' rationale for making this choice. The goal of this study was to assess (1) the use of certain IONM modalities during common spine surgeries, (2) surgeons' rationale for use of IONM, and (3) IONM practices and potential conflicts of interest associated with its use. Methods: Respondents were asked to select each IONM modality they used during 20 different surgical scenarios within the spine followed by rating the importance of several reasons when selecting to use IONM. Finally, the occurrence of conflicts of interest, out-of-network billing, and cost were assessed. Results: Approximately one-half (47%) of respondents who perform anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion/total disk arthroplasty for radiculopathy use IONM, opposed to 76% for myelopathy. The presence of cord compression and/or neurologic symptoms increased IONM use by approximately 30% during trauma cases. Medicolegal was the reason of highest importance when choosing to use IONM (7.4 ± 2.9; mean ± SD), followed by surgeon reassurance (6.2 ± 2.7; P < 0.0001 versus medicolegal) and belief it affects patient outcomes (5.2 ± 3.0; P = 0.004 versus reassurance). Conclusions: Although there is increasing use of IONM, this has not translated to an absolute requirement for every spine surgery. Surgeons are faced with opposing influences of the medicolegal system and insurance payers. Future guidelines on using IONM should not be absolute, but rather should consider the risks of each procedure, along with how patients and surgeons value these risks, in addition to the costs. The findings of this study should help to serve as a guide to surgeons, payers, and courts as contemporary, common practices for the use of IONM during spinal surgical scenarios.
术中使用或不使用神经监测:脊柱手术中神经监测的使用和相关的利益冲突,一项横断面调查研究
在脊柱外科手术中使用术中神经监测(IONM)的适应症没有统一的指南,导致其使用的多样性。使用IONM的选择在医疗事故诉讼和保险索赔中都有引用,但没有数据表明外科医生做出这种选择的理由。本研究的目的是评估(1)在普通脊柱手术中使用某些IONM模式,(2)外科医生使用IONM的理由,以及(3)IONM实践和与使用IONM相关的潜在利益冲突。方法:受访者被要求选择他们在20种不同的脊柱手术方案中使用的每种IONM模式,然后对选择使用IONM时几个原因的重要性进行评级。最后,评估了利益冲突、网外计费和成本的发生情况。结果:大约一半(47%)的被调查者在神经根病的颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合/全椎间盘置换术中使用IONM,而脊髓病的这一比例为76%。脊髓受压和/或神经系统症状的出现使创伤病例中IONM的使用增加了约30%。在选择使用IONM时,法医学是最重要的原因(7.4±2.9;平均值±SD),其次是外科医生保证(6.2±2.7;P < 0.0001(与医学法律相比),并相信它会影响患者的预后(5.2±3.0;P = 0.004 vs .安心)。结论:尽管IONM的使用越来越多,但这并不是所有脊柱手术的绝对要求。外科医生面临着医疗法律制度和保险支付者的对立影响。未来使用IONM的指南不应该是绝对的,而应该考虑每个手术的风险,以及患者和外科医生如何评估这些风险,以及成本。本研究的结果应有助于作为外科医生、支付方和法院在脊柱外科手术中使用IONM的当代常见做法的指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信