4.4 Article

Inpatient costs and blood transfusion rates of sarcopenic patients following thoracolumbar spine surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 676-680

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2017.5.SPINE17171

关键词

sarcopenia; frailty; thoracolumbar spine surgery; inpatient costs; lumbar; thoracic

资金

  1. Orthofix
  2. DePuy
  3. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
  4. Stryker
  5. Globus Medical
  6. SpineArt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE Sarcopenia, the muscle atrophy associated with aging and disease progression, accounts for nearly $18.5 billion in health care expenditures annually. Given the high prevalence of sarcopenia in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, the goal of this study was to assess the impact of sarcopenia on inpatient costs following thoracolumbar spine surgery. METHODS Patients older than 55 years undergoing thoracolumbar spine surgery from 2003 to 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Sarcopenia was measured using total psoas area at the L-4 vertebra on perioperative CT scans. Hospital billing data were used to compare inpatient costs, transfusion rate, and rate of advanced imaging utilization. RESULTS Of the 50 patients assessed, 16 were sarcopenic. Mean total hospital costs were 1.75-fold greater for sarcopenic patients compared with nonsarcopenic patients ($53,128 vs $30,292, p = 0.04). Sarcopenic patients were 2.1 times as likely to require a blood transfusion (43.8% vs 20.6%, p = 0.04). Sarcopenic patients had a 2.6-fold greater usage of advanced imaging (68.8% vs 26.5%, p = 0.002) with associated higher diagnostic imaging costs ($2452 vs $801, p = 0.01). Sarcopenic patients also had greater pharmacy, laboratory, respiratory care, and emergency department costs. CONCLUSIONS This study is the first to show that sarcopenia is associated with higher postoperative costs and rates of blood transfusion following thoracolumbar spine surgery. Measuring the psoas area may represent a strategy for predicting perioperative costs in spine surgery patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据