Surgeon input can increase the value of registry data: early experience from the American Spine Registry

Author:

Glassman Steven D.1,Carreon Leah Y.1,Asher Anthony L.2,De Ayushmita3,Mullen Kyle3,Porter Kimberly R.3,Shaffrey Christopher I.4,Knightly John J.5,Foley Kevin T.6,Albert Todd J.7,Brodke Darrel S.8,Polly David W.9,Bydon Mohamad10

Affiliation:

1. Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, Kentucky;

2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates and Neurological Institute, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, North Carolina;

3. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, Illinois;

4. Department of Neurological Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina;

5. Department of Neurosurgery, Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, Morristown, New Jersey;

6. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Semmes-Murphey Neurologic & Spine Institute, Memphis, Tennessee;

7. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York;

8. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah;

9. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

10. Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Clear diagnostic delineation is necessary for the development of a strong evidence base in lumbar spinal surgery. Experience with existing national databases suggests that International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) coding is insufficient to support that need. The purpose of this study was to assess agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS Data collection for the American Spine Registry (ASR) includes an option to denote the surgeon’s specific diagnostic indication for each procedure. For cases treated between January 2020 and March 2022, surgeon-delineated diagnosis was compared with the ICD-10 diagnosis generated by standard ASR electronic medical record data extraction. For decompression-only cases, the primary analysis focused on the etiology of neural compression as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the related ICD-10 codes extracted from the ASR database. For lumbar fusion cases, the primary analysis compared structural pathology, which may have required fusion, as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the extracted ICD-10 codes. This allowed for identification of agreement between surgeon delineation and extracted ICD-10 codes. RESULTS In 5926 decompression-only cases, agreement between the surgeon and ASR ICD-10 codes was 89% for spinal stenosis and 78% for lumbar disc herniation and/or radiculopathy. Both the surgeon and database indicated no structural pathology (i.e., none) suggesting the need for fusion in 88% of cases. In 5663 lumbar fusion cases, agreement was 76% for spondylolisthesis but poor for other diagnostic indications. CONCLUSIONS Agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes was best for patients who underwent decompression only. In the fusion cases, agreement with ICD-10 codes was best in the spondylolisthesis group (76%). In cases other than spondylolisthesis, agreement was poor due to multiple diagnoses or lack of an ICD-10 code that reflected the pathology. This study suggested that standard ICD-10 codes may be inadequate to clearly define the indications for decompression or fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative disease.

Publisher

Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)

Subject

General Medicine

Reference22 articles.

1. Fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review of Oswestry Disability Index and MOS Short Form-36 outcomes;Carreon LY,2008

2. Radiographic and clinical outcomes of anterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies;Ajiboye RM,2018

3. Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis;Chang W,2017

4. Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis;Machado GC,2015

5. Lumbar spine fusion: what is the evidence?;Harris IA,2018

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3