胸椎椎间盘突出症的开放式方法与内窥镜方法:相同的短期疗效与显著不同的费用。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
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":"胸椎椎间盘突出症的开放式方法与内窥镜方法:相同的短期疗效与显著不同的费用。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景和目的:开放式胸椎间盘切除术通常需要大量的骨切除和融合,而内窥镜胸椎间盘切除术提供了一种创伤较小的替代方法。因此,我们试图比较单层开放式胸椎间盘切除术与内窥镜胸椎间盘切除术在以下方面的差异:(1) 围手术期结果;(2) 神经功能恢复;(3) 总成本:从 2018 年到 2023 年,利用前瞻性收集的接受一级胸椎间盘切除术患者的数据,开展了一项单中心、回顾性、队列研究。主要暴露变量为开胸与内窥镜。主要结果是围手术期结果和神经功能恢复。次要结果是总护理成本。多变量回归分析控制了年龄、体重指数、性别、症状发作、椎间盘特征、手术时间和住院时间:在接受胸椎椎间盘切除术的 29 位患者中,17 位是开胸手术,12 位是内窥镜手术。两组患者的术前人口统计学、症状和放射学检查结果相当。围手术期,开放手术的平均住院时间明显较长(4.9 ± 1.5 天 vs 0.0 ± 0.0 天,P < .001),手术时间中位数(IQR)较长(342.8 [68.4] 分钟 vs 141.5 [36] 分钟,P < .001),失血量较多(350 [390] mL vs 6.5 [20] mL,P < .001)。16例(94%)开放手术患者需要融合,0例内窥镜手术患者需要融合(P < .001)。两组患者术后阿片类药物使用量(P = .119)、再入院率(P = .665)、再次手术率(P = .553)和神经功能改善率(P > .999)相似。在财务方面,开放手术的中位成本是内窥镜手术的7倍(59 792美元 [16 118美元] vs 8128美元 [1848美元];P < .001),多变量分析显示,住院时间(β = 2261美元/晚,P < .001)、开放手术(β = 24 106美元,P < .001)和椎弓根螺钉数量(β = 1829美元/枚,P = .002)是其主要原因。在敏感性分析中,开放手术与内窥镜手术的成本效益不相上下,内窥镜翻修率比开放手术翻修率高出86%,才能使两种手术方法的成本达到平衡:结论:与开放式方法相比,内镜下胸椎间盘切除术可缩短住院时间、缩短手术时间、减少失血量和降低总成本,同时具有相似的神经功能结果。这些发现可能有助于患者和外科医生寻求内窥镜方法,将其作为一种发病率较低、成本较低的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open Versus Endoscopic Approach for Thoracic Disk Herniations: Equivalent Short-Term Outcomes With Significantly Different Costs.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信