1.Comparative Review of the Socioeconomic Burden of Lower Back Pain in the United States and Globally
Diana CHANG ; Austin LUI ; Alisa MATSOYAN ; Michael SAFAEE ; Henry ARYAN ; Christopher AMES
Neurospine 2024;21(2):487-501
Internationally, the United States (U.S.) cites the highest cost burden of low back pain (LBP). The cost continues to rise, faster than the rate of inflation and overall growth of health expenditures. We performed a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed and non– peer-reviewed literature from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for contemporary data on prevalence, cost, and projected future costs. Policymakers in the U.S. have long attempted to address the high-cost burden of LBP through limiting low-value services and early imaging. Despite these efforts, costs (~$40 billion; ~$2,000/patient/yr) continue to rise with increasing rates of unindicated imaging, high rates of surgery, and subsequent revision surgery without proper trial of non-pharmacologic measures and no corresponding reduction in LBP prevalence. Globally, the overall prevalence of LBP continues to rise largely secondary to a growing aging population. Cost containment methods should focus on careful and comprehensive clinical assessment of patients to better understand when more resource-intensive interventions are indicated.
2.Comparative Review of the Socioeconomic Burden of Lower Back Pain in the United States and Globally
Diana CHANG ; Austin LUI ; Alisa MATSOYAN ; Michael SAFAEE ; Henry ARYAN ; Christopher AMES
Neurospine 2024;21(2):487-501
Internationally, the United States (U.S.) cites the highest cost burden of low back pain (LBP). The cost continues to rise, faster than the rate of inflation and overall growth of health expenditures. We performed a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed and non– peer-reviewed literature from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for contemporary data on prevalence, cost, and projected future costs. Policymakers in the U.S. have long attempted to address the high-cost burden of LBP through limiting low-value services and early imaging. Despite these efforts, costs (~$40 billion; ~$2,000/patient/yr) continue to rise with increasing rates of unindicated imaging, high rates of surgery, and subsequent revision surgery without proper trial of non-pharmacologic measures and no corresponding reduction in LBP prevalence. Globally, the overall prevalence of LBP continues to rise largely secondary to a growing aging population. Cost containment methods should focus on careful and comprehensive clinical assessment of patients to better understand when more resource-intensive interventions are indicated.
3.Comparative Review of the Socioeconomic Burden of Lower Back Pain in the United States and Globally
Diana CHANG ; Austin LUI ; Alisa MATSOYAN ; Michael SAFAEE ; Henry ARYAN ; Christopher AMES
Neurospine 2024;21(2):487-501
Internationally, the United States (U.S.) cites the highest cost burden of low back pain (LBP). The cost continues to rise, faster than the rate of inflation and overall growth of health expenditures. We performed a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed and non– peer-reviewed literature from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for contemporary data on prevalence, cost, and projected future costs. Policymakers in the U.S. have long attempted to address the high-cost burden of LBP through limiting low-value services and early imaging. Despite these efforts, costs (~$40 billion; ~$2,000/patient/yr) continue to rise with increasing rates of unindicated imaging, high rates of surgery, and subsequent revision surgery without proper trial of non-pharmacologic measures and no corresponding reduction in LBP prevalence. Globally, the overall prevalence of LBP continues to rise largely secondary to a growing aging population. Cost containment methods should focus on careful and comprehensive clinical assessment of patients to better understand when more resource-intensive interventions are indicated.
4.Comparative Review of the Socioeconomic Burden of Lower Back Pain in the United States and Globally
Diana CHANG ; Austin LUI ; Alisa MATSOYAN ; Michael SAFAEE ; Henry ARYAN ; Christopher AMES
Neurospine 2024;21(2):487-501
Internationally, the United States (U.S.) cites the highest cost burden of low back pain (LBP). The cost continues to rise, faster than the rate of inflation and overall growth of health expenditures. We performed a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed and non– peer-reviewed literature from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for contemporary data on prevalence, cost, and projected future costs. Policymakers in the U.S. have long attempted to address the high-cost burden of LBP through limiting low-value services and early imaging. Despite these efforts, costs (~$40 billion; ~$2,000/patient/yr) continue to rise with increasing rates of unindicated imaging, high rates of surgery, and subsequent revision surgery without proper trial of non-pharmacologic measures and no corresponding reduction in LBP prevalence. Globally, the overall prevalence of LBP continues to rise largely secondary to a growing aging population. Cost containment methods should focus on careful and comprehensive clinical assessment of patients to better understand when more resource-intensive interventions are indicated.
5.Comparative Review of the Socioeconomic Burden of Lower Back Pain in the United States and Globally
Diana CHANG ; Austin LUI ; Alisa MATSOYAN ; Michael SAFAEE ; Henry ARYAN ; Christopher AMES
Neurospine 2024;21(2):487-501
Internationally, the United States (U.S.) cites the highest cost burden of low back pain (LBP). The cost continues to rise, faster than the rate of inflation and overall growth of health expenditures. We performed a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed and non– peer-reviewed literature from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for contemporary data on prevalence, cost, and projected future costs. Policymakers in the U.S. have long attempted to address the high-cost burden of LBP through limiting low-value services and early imaging. Despite these efforts, costs (~$40 billion; ~$2,000/patient/yr) continue to rise with increasing rates of unindicated imaging, high rates of surgery, and subsequent revision surgery without proper trial of non-pharmacologic measures and no corresponding reduction in LBP prevalence. Globally, the overall prevalence of LBP continues to rise largely secondary to a growing aging population. Cost containment methods should focus on careful and comprehensive clinical assessment of patients to better understand when more resource-intensive interventions are indicated.
6.Contribution of Lateral Interbody Fusion in Staged Correction of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis
Seung Won CHOI ; Christopher AMES ; Sigurd BERVEN ; Dean CHOU ; Bobby TAY ; Vedat DEVIREN
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 2018;61(6):716-722
OBJECTIVE: Lateral interbody fusion (LIF) is attractive as a less invasive technique to address anterior spinal pathology in the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Its own uses and benefits in treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis are undefined. To investigate the radiographic and clinical outcomes of LIF, and staged LIF and posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis patients, we analyzed radiographic and clinical outcomes of adult degenerative scoliosis patients who underwent LIF and posterior spinal fusion.METHODS: Forty consecutive adult degenerative scoliosis patients who underwent LIF followed by staged PSF at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Long-standing 36” anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs were taken preoperatively, at inter-stage, 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery were reviewed. Outcomes were assessed through the visual analogue scale (VAS), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).RESULTS: Forty patients with a mean age of 66.3 (range, 49–79) met inclusion criteria. A mean of 3.8 levels (range, 2–5) were fused using LIF, while a mean of 9.0 levels (range, 3–16) were fused during the posterior approach. The mean time between stages was 1.4 days (range, 1–6). The mean follow-up was 19.6 months. Lumbar lordosis was significantly restored from 36.4º preoperatively up to 48.9º (71.4% of total correction) after LIF and 53.9º after PSF. Lumbar coronal Cobb was prominently improved from 38.6º preoperatively to 24.1º (55.8% of total correction) after LIF, 12.6º after PSF respectively. The mean pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch was markedly improved from 22.2º preoperatively to 8.1º (86.5% of total correction) after LIF, 5.9º after PSF. Correction of coronal imbalance and sagittal vertebral axis did not reach significance. The rate of perioperative complication was 37.5%. Five patients underwent revision surgery due to wound infection. No major perioperative medical complications occurred. At last follow-up, there were significant improvements in VAS, SF-36 Physical Component Summary and ODI scores.CONCLUSION: LIF provides significant corrections in the coronal and sagittal plane in the patients with adult degenerative scoliosis. However, LIF combined with staged PSF provides more excellent radiographic and clinical outcomes, with reduced perioperative risk in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis.
Adult
;
Animals
;
Congenital Abnormalities
;
Follow-Up Studies
;
Health Surveys
;
Humans
;
Lordosis
;
Pathology
;
Retrospective Studies
;
Scoliosis
;
Spinal Fusion
;
Spine
;
Wound Infection
7.Is Sacral Extension a Risk Factor for Early Proximal Junctional Kyphosis in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery?
Sebastian DECKER ; Renaud LAFAGE ; Christian KRETTEK ; Robert HART ; Christopher AMES ; Justin S. SMITH ; Douglas BURTON ; Eric KLINEBERG ; Shay BESS ; Frank J. SCHWAB ; Virginie LAFAGE ;
Asian Spine Journal 2020;14(2):212-219
Results:
Propensity matching led to two groups of 89 patients each. The UIV, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical axis, pelvic tilt, age, and body mass index were similar in both groups (p >0.05). The incidence of PJK at postoperative one year was similar for SE (30.3%) and LF (22.5%) groups (p =0.207). The PJK angle was comparable (p =0.963) with a change of −8.2° (SE) and −8.3° (LF) from the preoperative measures (p =0.954). A higher rate of PJK after SE (p =0.026) was found only in the subgroup of patients with UIV levels between T9 and T12.
Conclusions
Instrumentation to the sacrum with or without iliac extension did not increase the overall risk of PJK. However, an increased risk for PJK was found after SE with UIV levels between T9 and T12.