BackgroundCervical laminoplasty (CLP) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (CLF) are well-established surgical procedures used in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). In situations of clinical equipoise, an influential factor in procedural decision making could be the economic effect of the chosen procedure. The object of this study is to compare and analyze the total hospital costs and charges pertaining to patients undergoing CLP or CLF for the treatment of CSM.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of 81 consecutive patients from a single institution; 55 patients were treated with CLP and 26 with CLF. CLP was performed via the double-door allograft technique that does not require implants, whereas laminectomy fusion procedures included metallic instrumentation. We analyzed 10,682 individual costs (HC) and charges (HCh) for all patients, as obtained from hospital accounting data. The Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to estimate the physicians’ fees as such fees are not accounted for via hospital billing records. Total cost (TC) therefore equaled the sum of the hospital cost and the estimated physicians’ fees.ResultsThe mean length of stay was 3.7 days for CLP and 5.9 days for CLF (P < .01). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age, gender, previous surgical history, and medical insurance. The TC mean was $17,734 for CLP and $37,413 for CLF (P < .01). Mean HCh for CLP was 42% of that for CLF, and therefore the mean charge for CLF was 238% of that for CLP (P < .01). Mean HC was $15,426 for CLP and $32,125 for CLF (P < .01); the main contributor was implant cost (mean $2582).ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that, in clinically similar populations, CLP results in reduced length of stay, TC, and hospital charges. In CSM cases requiring posterior decompression, we demonstrate CLP to be a less costly procedure. However, in the presence of neck pain, kyphotic deformity, or gross instability, this procedure may not be sufficient and posterior CLF may be required.
Of the cases reported in the literature, treatments have included CSF shunting, endoscopic coagulation, and craniotomy with plexectomy. CSF shunting was required in the majority but not all. Only those having undergone bilateral choroid plexectomy have been rendered shunt free.
Background and objectivesTransversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks are associated with an improvement in postoperative analgesia following kidney transplant surgery. However, these blocks carry inherent risk and require a degree of expertise to perform successfully. Continuous intravenous lidocaine may be an effective alternative. In this randomized, non-inferiority study, we hypothesized that a continuous lidocaine infusion provides similar postoperative analgesia to a TAP block.MethodsSubjects presenting for kidney transplant surgery were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either an ultrasound-guided unilateral, single-injection TAP block (TAP group) or a continuous infusion of lidocaine (Lido group). The primary outcome of this non-inferiority study was opioid consumption within the first 24 hours following surgery. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, patient satisfaction, opioid-related adverse events, time to regular diet, and persistent opioid use.ResultsOne hundred and twenty subjects, 59 from the TAP group and 61 from the Lido group, completed the study per protocol. Analysis of the primary outcome showed a cumulative geometric mean intravenous morphine equivalent difference between the TAP (14.6±3.2 mg) and Lido (15.9±2.4 mg) groups of 1.27 mg (95% CI −4.25 to 6.79; p<0.001), demonstrating non-inferiority of the continuous lidocaine infusion. No secondary outcomes showed clinically meaningful differences between groups.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that a continuous infusion of lidocaine offers non-inferior postoperative analgesia compared with an ultrasound-guided unilateral, single-injection TAP block in the first 24 hours following kidney transplant surgery.Trial registration numberNCT03843879.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.