Campbell Liles, Hani Chanbour, Omar Zakieh, Keyan Peterson, Robert J Dambrino, Iyan Younus, Soren Jonzzon, Richard A Berkman, Julian G Lugo-Pico, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens, Scott L Zuckerman, Raymond J Gardocki
{"title":"Open Versus Endoscopic Approach for Thoracic Disk Herniations: Equivalent Short-Term Outcomes With Significantly Different Costs.","authors":"Campbell Liles, Hani Chanbour, Omar Zakieh, Keyan Peterson, Robert J Dambrino, Iyan Younus, Soren Jonzzon, Richard A Berkman, Julian G Lugo-Pico, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens, Scott L Zuckerman, Raymond J Gardocki","doi":"10.1227/ons.0000000000001325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Open thoracic diskectomy often requires significant bone resection and fusion, whereas an endoscopic thoracic diskectomy offers a less invasive alternative. Therefore, we sought to compare one-level open vs endoscopic thoracic diskectomy regarding (1) perioperative outcomes, (2) neurological recovery, and (3) total cost.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center, retrospective, cohort study using prospectively collected data of patients undergoing one-level thoracic diskectomy was undertaken from 2018 to 2023. The primary exposure variable was open vs endoscopic. The primary outcome was perioperative outcomes and neurological recovery. Secondary outcomes were total cost of care. Multivariable regression analysis controlled for age, body mass index, sex, symptom onset, disk characteristics, operative time, and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 29 patients undergoing thoracic diskectomy, 17 were open and 12 were endoscopic. Preoperative demographics, symptoms, and radiographic findings were comparable between the cohorts. Perioperatively, open surgery had significantly higher mean length of stay (4.9 ± 1.5 vs 0.0 ± 0.0 days, P < .001), median (IQR) longer operative time (342.8 [68.4] vs 141.5 [36] minutes, P < .001), and more blood loss (350 [390] vs 6.5 [20] mL; P < .001). 16 (94%) open patients required fusion vs 0 endoscopic (P < .001). Postoperative opioid use (P = .119), readmission (P = .665), reoperation (P = .553), and rate of neurological improvement (P > .999) were similar between the 2 groups. Financially, open surgical median costs were 7x higher than endoscopic ($59 792 [$16 118] vs $8128 [$1848]; P < .001), driven by length of stay (β = $2261/night, P < .001), open surgery (β = $24 106, P < .001), and number of pedicle screws (β = $1829/screw, P = .002) on multivariable analysis. On sensitivity analysis, open surgery was never cost-efficient against endoscopic surgery and excess endoscopic revision rates of 86% above open revision rates were required for break-even costs between the surgical approaches.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Endoscopic thoracic diskectomy was associated with decreased length of stay, operative time, blood loss, and total cost compared with the open approach, with similar neurological outcomes. These findings may help patients and surgeons seek endoscopic approach as a less morbid and less costly alternative.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1227/ons.0000000000001325","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives: Open thoracic diskectomy often requires significant bone resection and fusion, whereas an endoscopic thoracic diskectomy offers a less invasive alternative. Therefore, we sought to compare one-level open vs endoscopic thoracic diskectomy regarding (1) perioperative outcomes, (2) neurological recovery, and (3) total cost.
Methods: A single-center, retrospective, cohort study using prospectively collected data of patients undergoing one-level thoracic diskectomy was undertaken from 2018 to 2023. The primary exposure variable was open vs endoscopic. The primary outcome was perioperative outcomes and neurological recovery. Secondary outcomes were total cost of care. Multivariable regression analysis controlled for age, body mass index, sex, symptom onset, disk characteristics, operative time, and length of stay.
Results: Of 29 patients undergoing thoracic diskectomy, 17 were open and 12 were endoscopic. Preoperative demographics, symptoms, and radiographic findings were comparable between the cohorts. Perioperatively, open surgery had significantly higher mean length of stay (4.9 ± 1.5 vs 0.0 ± 0.0 days, P < .001), median (IQR) longer operative time (342.8 [68.4] vs 141.5 [36] minutes, P < .001), and more blood loss (350 [390] vs 6.5 [20] mL; P < .001). 16 (94%) open patients required fusion vs 0 endoscopic (P < .001). Postoperative opioid use (P = .119), readmission (P = .665), reoperation (P = .553), and rate of neurological improvement (P > .999) were similar between the 2 groups. Financially, open surgical median costs were 7x higher than endoscopic ($59 792 [$16 118] vs $8128 [$1848]; P < .001), driven by length of stay (β = $2261/night, P < .001), open surgery (β = $24 106, P < .001), and number of pedicle screws (β = $1829/screw, P = .002) on multivariable analysis. On sensitivity analysis, open surgery was never cost-efficient against endoscopic surgery and excess endoscopic revision rates of 86% above open revision rates were required for break-even costs between the surgical approaches.
Conclusion: Endoscopic thoracic diskectomy was associated with decreased length of stay, operative time, blood loss, and total cost compared with the open approach, with similar neurological outcomes. These findings may help patients and surgeons seek endoscopic approach as a less morbid and less costly alternative.
期刊介绍：
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
