widely disrupting personal and professional life, including that of radiology trainees. Reducing the rate at which COVID-19 cases are diagnosed, so-called "flattening the curve," is a goal both for the public to alleviate strain on the healthcare system, and for healthcare providers to stabilize our workforce. As residents and fellows at multiple institutions throughout the country working in both diagnostic and interventional radiology, the authors of this report provide an overview of major problems that our colleagues and training programs currently face and offer some potential solutions (Figure). We hope this report may serve as a starting point for radiology training programs to proactively assess the impact of the current pandemic on their resident and fellow trainees.

Object Cost-effectiveness research in spine surgery has been a prominent focus over the last decade. However, there has yet to be a standardized method developed for calculation of costs in such studies. This lack of a standardized costing methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an intervention for a specific diagnosis. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review all cost-effectiveness studies published on spine surgery and compare and contrast various costing methodologies used. Methods The authors performed a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature related to spine surgery. All cost-effectiveness analyses pertaining to spine surgery were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis registry database of the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy, and the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed to determine the study subject, methodology, and results. Data were collected from each study, including costs, interventions, cost calculation method, perspective of cost calculation, and definitions of direct and indirect costs if available. Results Thirty-seven cost-effectiveness studies on spine surgery were included in the present study. Twenty-seven (73%) of the studies involved the lumbar spine and the remaining 10 (27%) involved the cervical spine. Of the 37 studies, 13 (35%) used Medicare reimbursements, 12 (32%) used a case-costing database, 3 (8%) used cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs), 2 (5%) used a combination of Medicare reimbursements and CCRs, 3 (8%) used the United Kingdom National Health Service reimbursement system, 2 (5%) used a Dutch reimbursement system, 1 (3%) used the United Kingdom Department of Health data, and 1 (3%) used the Tricare Military Reimbursement system. Nineteen (51%) studies completed their cost analysis from the societal perspective, 11 (30%) from the hospital perspective, and 7 (19%) from the payer perspective. Of those studies with a societal perspective, 14 (38%) reported actual indirect costs. Conclusions Changes in cost have a direct impact on the value equation for concluding whether an intervention is cost-effective. It is essential to develop a standardized, accurate means of calculating costs. Comparability and transparency are essential, such that studies can be compared properly and policy makers can be appropriately informed when making decisions for our health care system based on the results of these studies.

OBJECT Infections following spine surgery negatively affect patient quality of life (QOL) and impose a significant financial burden on the health care system. Postoperative wound infections occur at higher rates following dorsal cervical procedures than ventral procedures. Quantifying the health outcomes and costs associated with infections following dorsal cervical procedures may help to guide treatment strategies to minimize the deleterious consequences of these infections. Therefore, the goals of this study were to determine the cost and QOL outcomes affecting patients who developed deep wound infections following subaxial dorsal cervical spine fusions. METHODS The authors identified 22 (4.0%) of 551 patients undergoing dorsal cervical fusions who developed deep wound infections requiring surgical debridement. These patients were individually matched with control patients who did not develop infections. Health outcomes were assessed using the EQ-5D, Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and visual analog scale (VAS). QOL outcome measures were collected preoperatively and after 6 and 12 months. Health resource utilization was recorded from patient electronic medical records over an average follow-up of 18 months. Direct costs were estimated using Medicare national payment amounts, and indirect costs were based on patients' missed workdays and income. RESULTS No significant differences in preoperative QOL scores were found between the 2 cohorts. At 6 months postsurgery, the noninfection cohort had significant pre- to postoperative improvement in EQ-5D (p = 0.02), whereas the infection cohort did not (p = 0.2). The noninfection cohort also had a significantly higher 6-month postoperative EQ-5D scores than the infection cohort (p = 0.04). At 1 year postsurgery, there was no significant difference in EQ-5D scores between the groups. Health care–associated costs for the infection cohort were significantly higher ($16,970 vs $7658; p < 0.0001). Indirect costs for the infection cohort and the noninfection cohort were $6495 and $2756, respectively (p = 0.03). Adjusted for inflation, the total costs for the infection cohort were $21,778 compared with $9159 for the noninfection cohort, reflecting an average cost of $12,619 associated with developing a postoperative deep wound infection (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Dorsal cervical infections temporarily decrease patient QOL postoperatively, but with no long-term impact; they do, however, dramatically increase the cost of care. Knowledge of the financial burden of wound infections following dorsal cervical fusion may stimulate the development and use of improved prophylactic and therapeutic techniques to manage this serious complication.

No abstract

No abstract

Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements (through minimum clinically important differences) were seen in both cohorts. Although both cohorts showed improved health outcomes, ACDFP was not cost-effective relative to the threshold of $100,000/QALY gained at 1-year postoperatively, whereas PCF was. The durability of these results must be analyzed with long-term cost-utility analysis studies.

Subaxial cervical unilateral translaminar screw placement is a potentially safe and effective technique to use in conjunction with preoperative CT scanning for all vertebral levels. The same is true for bilateral placement at C7 but not at C3-C6. A prospective study to evaluate the long-term outcomes of translaminar fixation at all vertebral levels is currently underway.

No abstract