Objective: To examine differences in surgical practices between salaried and fee-for-service (FFS) surgeons for two common degenerative spine conditions. Surgeons may offer different treatments for similar conditions on the basis of their compensation mechanism. Methods: The study assessed the practices of 63 spine surgeons across eight Canadian provinces (39 FFS surgeons and 24 salaried) who performed surgery for two lumbar conditions: stable spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. The study included a multicenter, ambispective review of consecutive spine surgery patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network registry between October 2012 and July 2018. The primary outcome was the difference in type of procedures performed between the two groups. Secondary study variables included surgical characteristics, baseline patient factors, and patient-reported outcome. Results: For stable spinal stenosis (n = 2234), salaried surgeons performed statistically fewer uninstrumented fusion (p < 0.05) than FFS surgeons. For degenerative spondylolisthesis (n = 1292), salaried surgeons performed significantly more instrumentation plus interbody fusions (p < 0.05). There were no statistical differences in patient-reported outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: Surgeon compensation was associated with different approaches to stable lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Salaried surgeons chose a more conservative approach to spinal stenosis and a more aggressive approach to degenerative spondylolisthesis, which highlights that remuneration is likely a minor determinant in the differences in practice of spinal surgery in Canada. Further research is needed to further elucidate which variables, other than patient demographics and financial incentives, influence surgical decision-making.
INTRODUCTION:Canada has a universal health care system that is funded by the government. In contrast, the United States utilizes a combined public and private payer system where patients may directly access specialists.METHODS:Surgical lumbar disc herniation patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcome Research Network (CSORN) prospective multicenter registry and were compared with the surgical cohort enrolled in the Spine Patients Outcome Research Trial (SPORT) study.Patient reported outcomes (PROs) and return to work were compared at 3 months and 1 year post-operatively were analyzed.RESULTS:The CSORN cohort consisted of 157 patients and the SPORT cohort was made up of 397 patients that were actively working at the time of surgery. The rate of depression (9.1% vs. 16.5%, p = 0.016) and symptom duration greater than 6 months were higher in the CSORN cohort (23.4% vs. 73.2%, p < 0.0001). 100% of the CSORN cohort had public insurance compared to 1% in the SPORT cohort (p < 0.001) and patients in the CSORN group were more likely to have compensation claims (17.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.0049). CSORN patients had better baseline ODI and SF36/12-PCS scores (ODI: 50.9 ± 19.7 vs. 45.8 ± 14.9, p = 0.0031; SF36/12 PCS: 29.9 ± 7.9 vs. 35.7 ± 7.4, p < 0.001). At 3 months post-operatively the rate of patients that had returned to work was significantly lower in the CSORN cohort (47.8% vs. 72.8%, p < 0.0001), but was not different at 12-months post-operatively (86.7% vs. 91.6%, p = 0.11). Membership in the CSORN cohort and compensation claims were significant independent predictors of not returning to work at 3-months post-operatively on multivariable logistic regression (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.29, p < 0.001; OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.85, p = 0.012).CONCLUSION:Patients undergoing surgical treatment for lumbar disc herniation in Canada (CSORN cohort) had a lower rate of return to work at 3 months but not 1 year post-operatively compared to the United States cohort (SPORT) despite better disability scores prior to surgery.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.