DOCSLIB.ORG

Lumbar Laminectomy Code Review Clarification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lumbar Laminectomy Code Review Clarification n Socioeconomics & Politics | Coding Q&A Lumbar Laminectomy Code Review Clarification Several questions have been raised side of a recurrent disc level if stenosis Additional Notes regarding the coding information in- is present. As presented, the coding ac- The use of posterior fusion codes cluded in the "Lumbar Laminectomy curately describes the work performed. that encompass disc work (eg, Code Review" article published in the The revision discectomy code is a uni- 22630 and 22633) already take into July/August 2014 SpineLine (pp 29-31). lateral code. It does not represent an account the removal of lamina, NASS’ Coding Committee would like to additional laminectomy done on the facets and ligamentum flavum. offer the following clarifications. contralateral side. The interbody fusion codes also As presented, 63042 (R L4-5) is the were written assuming bilateral appropriate code to be reported for the interbody placement which requires Reporting Additional Work on recurrent disc herniation and 63047–51 bilateral decompression. In cases Contralateral Side of Recurrent Disc is the appropriate code to report the de- that require decompression plus Herniation compression performed at the separate fusion (L4-5 spondylolisthesis with The first item concerns the following interspace (L3-4). central and lateral recess stenosis), scenario appearing on pages 30-31: The confusion comes in reporting the only the fusion codes can be used. 3. Posterior lumbar two level laminectomy on the contralateral side of The wording above from the original Interspace laminectomy (L3-4, the recurrent disc herniation at L L4-5. article is incomplete and has led to ques- L4-5) with removal of recurrent As presented, 63048 is appropriate to tions. From the AMA CPT guidelines, disc herniation at right L4-5 represent the work done; however, this decompression when performed IS with bilateral foraminotomies, will likely be edited out as inclusive in separately reportable with the inter- no microscope used; 63042 at the same level. There is no easy body fusion codes, 22630 and 22633. solution for reporting the additional History: Central stenosis L3-4 and The point made in the original article is work done on the contralateral side of L4-5 with recurrent HNP R L4-5 that a certain amount of laminectomy the recurrent disc herniation. and prior microdiscectomy R L4-5 is required for the approach in order Other options for reporting may interspace to perform the interbody fusion. How- include 63042 with a 22 modifier ap- ever, when decompression of the nerve ICD-9/10; 724.02/ M48.06 pended if the performing surgeon feels roots requires more laminectomy than Spinal Stenosis, lumbar region the additional laminectomy Left L4-5 necessary for the performance of the in- without neurogenic Claudica- represents significantly—at least 20%- terbody fusion, this is separately report- tion; L3-4 & L4-5 25%—more work than performed for able. It is up to the performing surgeon ICD-9.10; 722.1/M51.16 the recurrent disc herniation alone. In to document in the operative report the Lumbar disc without myelopathy; both options presented above, payment areas of necessary decompression over sciatica due to displacement of will likely be delayed as the reporting is and above the laminectomy required intervertebral disc; R L4-5 likely to trigger a review. for interbody placement. Remember NASS supports the accurate report- Suggested coding: that 22630 and 22633 are valued for a ing of work performed during proce- bilateral procedure. If a unilateral TLIF 63042 Laminotomy (hemilami- dures. However, we acknowledge that is performed, any additional facet/ nectomy), with decompression of at times accurately reporting what has hemilaminectomy work performed on nerve roots(s); including partial been done will result in delays in pay- the opposite side is already included in facetectomy, foraminotomy and/ ment due to code edits in place. It is up the work value of the code. or excision of herniated disc, re- to the performing physician to decide Due to Correct Coding Initiative exploration, single interspace; whether the additional work is inciden- (CCI)* edits, this coding often will be LUMBAR R L4-5 tal to the greater procedure or if there edited out and may need to be appealed 63047 Laminectomy, facetectomy has been significant, additional work to for manual review. When there is medi- and foraminotomy (unilateral or justify reporting additional procedures. cal necessity for decompression of nerve bilateral) with decompression of roots requiring separate laminectomy spinal cord, cauda equina and/ Reporting Additional Laminectomy or more laminectomy than would be or nerve root(s); single LUMBAR Over and Above that Required for necessary for the interbody fusion alone, segment L3-4 Interbody Fusion this is reportable according to the AMA 63048 left hemilaminectomy lumbar An Additional Notes paragraph on pos- CPT manual. L4-5 terior fusion codes on page 31 included *CCI, the Correct Coding Initiative, the following: is a private contractor to CMS and is a In the above scenario, confusion is separate entity from the American Medi- created by what to do with the opposite cal Association. 44 SpineLine | September · October 2014 www.spineline-digital.org.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modified Plate-Only Open-Door Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion for the Treatment of Cervical Stenotic Myelopathy
    n Feature Article Modified Plate-only Open-door Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion for the Treatment of Cervical Stenotic Myelopathy LILI YANG, MD; YIFEI GU, MD; JUEQIAN SHI, MD; RUI GAO, MD; YANG LIU, MD; JUN LI, MD; WEN YUAN, MD, PHD abstract Full article available online at Healio.com/Orthopedics. Search: 20121217-23 The purpose of this study was to compare modified plate-only laminoplasty and lami- nectomy and fusion to confirm which of the 2 surgical modalities could achieve a better decompression outcome and whether a significant difference was found in postopera- tive complications. Clinical data were retrospectively reviewed for 141 patients with cervical stenotic myelopathy who underwent plate-only laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion between November 2007 and June 2010. The extent of decompression was assessed by measuring the cross-sectional area of the dural sac and the distance of spinal cord drift at the 3 most narrowed levels on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical outcomes and complications were also recorded and compared. Significant en- largement of the dural sac area and spinal cord drift was achieved and well maintained in both groups, but the extent of decompression was greater in patients who underwent Figure: T2-weighted magnetic resonance image laminectomy and fusion; however, a greater decompression did not seem to produce a showing the extent of decompression assessed by better clinical outcome. No significant difference was observed in Japanese Orthopaedic measuring the cross-sectional area of the dural sac Association and Nurick scores between the 2 groups. Patients who underwent plate-only (arrow). laminoplasty showed a better improvement in Neck Dysfunction Index and visual ana- log scale scores.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Spine Coding Basics
    2019 Spine Coding Basics Presenter: Kerri Larson, CPC Directory of Coding and Audit Services 2019 Spine Surgery 01 Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy 02 Spine Procedures 03 Case Study 04 Diagnosis 05 Q & A Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy Term Definition Arthrodesis Fusion, or permanent joining, of a joint, or point of union of two musculoskeletal structures, such as two bones Surgical procedure that replaces missing bone with material from the patient's own body, or from an artificial, synthetic, or Bone grafting natural substitute Corpectomy Surgical excision of the main body of a vertebra, one of the interlocking bones of the back. Cerebrospinal The protective body fluid present in the dura, the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord fluid or CSF Decompression A procedure to remove pressure on a structure. Diskectomy, Surgical removal of all or a part of an intervertebral disc. discectomy Dura Outermost of the three layers that surround the brain and spinal cord. Electrode array Device that contains multiple plates or electrodes. Electronic pulse A device that produces low voltage electrical pulses, with a regular or intermittent waveform, that creates a mild tingling or generator or massaging sensation that stimulates the nerve pathways neurostimulator Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy Term Definition The space that surrounds the dura, which is the outermost layer of membrane that surrounds the spinal canal. The epidural space houses the Epidural space spinal nerve roots, blood and lymphatic vessels, and fatty tissues . Present inside the skull but outside the dura mater, which is the thick, outermost membrane covering the brain or within the spine but outside Extradural the dural sac enclosing the spinal cord, nerve roots and spinal fluid.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Cervical Spine Alignment Following Laminoplasty and Laminectomy
    Spinal Cord (1999) 37, 20± 24 ã 1999 International Medical Society of Paraplegia All rights reserved 1362 ± 4393/99 $12.00 http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/sc Analysis of the cervical spine alignment following laminoplasty and laminectomy Shunji Matsunaga1, Takashi Sakou1 and Kenji Nakanisi2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kagoshima University; 2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kagoshima University, Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, Japan Very little detailed biomechanical examination of the alignment of the cervical spine following laminoplasty has been reported. We performed a comparative study regarding the buckling- type alignment that follows laminoplasty and laminectomy to know the mechanical changes in the alignment of the cervical spine. Lateral images of plain roentgenograms of the cervical spine were put into a computer and examined using a program we developed for analysis of the buckling-type alignment. Sixty-four patients who underwent laminoplasty and 37 patients who underwent laminectomy were reviewed retrospectively. The subjects comprised patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and those with ossi®cation of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). The postoperative observation period was 6 years and 7 months on average after laminectomy, and 5 years and 6 months on average following laminoplasty. Development of the buckling-type alignment was found in 33% of patients following laminectomy and only 6% after laminoplasty. Development of buckling-type alignment following laminoplasty appeared markedly less than following laminectomy in both CSM and OPLL patients. These results favor laminoplasty over laminectomy from the aspect of mechanics. Keywords: laminoplasty; laminectomy; buckling; kyphosis; swan-neck deformity Introduction In 1930, Eiselberg1 reported a case of postoperative of postoperative abnormal alignment from the aspect kyphosis of the spine following laminectomy from the of the presence or absence of buckling-type alignment.
    [Show full text]
  • Lumbar Laminectomy
    Patient Education Lumbar Laminectomy Description The spine consists of five separate divisions: cervical (seven vertebrae), thoracic (12 vertebrae), lumbar (five vertebrae), the sacrum, and the coccyx. Each vertebra, interlocks with the segment above and below it through the superior and inferior articular processes. Between each vertebra is an intervertebral disc that provides cushioning for the spine. The lamina and pedicle, along with the vertebral body, provide the borders that create the spinal canal, which the spinal cord runs through to transmit nerve signals. There are several different scenarios or conditions that may produce symptoms that would lead your physician to further Medical Illustration © 2016 Nucleus Medical Art, Inc. investigate, and possibly recommend this surgery. Stenosis causing Radicular Pain Spinal stenosis is the narrowing of the articular spaces within the spine; this may impinge on the nerves or the spinal cord. This is a degenerative process and may eventually lead to further changes on the spine over time. Radicular symptoms are pain, numbness, weakness, tingling, etc., that radiate along a specific nerve root (or dermatome) to other parts of the body outside of the spine. Surgical correction of this problem may include a minimally invasive decompression (shaving bone away to create more space around the nerve), often referred to as laminectomy (removing part or all of the lamina in order to provide more space and relieve impingement). In some cases, movement of one vertebrae slipping against another (spondylolisthesis), may require a vertebral fusion. This may be performed open vs. minimally invasive. Disc Herniation Herniation of the intervertebral disc may be due to an acute traumatic incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Advances in Joint Replacement and Rapid Recovery
    Modern Advances in Joint Replacement and Rapid Recovery UCSF Osher Mini-Med School Lecture Series Jeffrey Barry, M.D. Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery Division of Adult Reconstruction University of California, San Francisco Disclosures . No relevant disclosures to this talk About Me . Bay Area Native . UCSF - U Can Stay Forever Outline . Burden of Disease and Epidemiology . The Basics of Hip and Knee Replacement . What’s improving over the last decade - Longevity - Pain Management - Hospital Stay - Thromboembolism prophylaxis - Risk Reduction Question What is the most common inpatient surgery performed in the US? 1. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty 2. Total hip replacement 3. Lumbar Laminectomy 4. Appendectomy 5. Total knee replacement Burden of Disease . Arthritis = most common cause of disability in the US . 22.7% of adults have doctor-diagnosed arthritis - 43.2% of patients with arthritis report activity limitations due to disease . By 2030: - 3.5 million TKA (673%) - 570,000 THA (174%) . Curve updated 2014 – just as predicted! Causes of Increased Utilization . Aging Population . Patients receiving arthroplasty at a younger age - Improvements in technology - Obesity Why Replace a Joint? Arthritis arthro – joint itis – inflammation What is Arthritis – Disease of Cartilage . Cartilage Degeneration - Pain - Limp - Swelling - Loss of range of motion - Eventual deformity Arthritis Affects on Your Life • Quality of Life • Independence • Movement, Walking, Exercise • Self-image • Self-esteem • Family Life • Sleep • Everything and Everybody Causes of Arthritis . Osteoarthritis - “wear and tear” . Inflammatory arthritis . Trauma, old fractures . Infection . Osteonecrosis - “lack of oxygen to the bone” . Childhood/ developmental disease Diagnosis . Clinical Symptoms + Radiographic . Radiographs – Standing or Weight bearing! . MRI is RARELY needed!!! - Expensive - Brings in other issues - Unnecessary treatment - Unnecessary explanations Knee Arthritis .
    [Show full text]
  • Lumbar Laminectomy Or Laminotomy
    Patient Instructions: Lumbar Laminectomy or Laminotomy Surgical Technique A lumbar laminectomy or laminotomy is a surgical approach performed from the back of the lumbar spine. It is usually done through an incision in the middle of the back. Using minimally invasive techniques a small window of bone is drilled in the lamina to allow the surgeon to unpinch the underlying nerves (laminotomy), or in more severe cases the bone is removed completely on both sides to allow nerves on both sides of the spinal canal to be decompressed (laminectomy). It is done using an operating microscope and microsurgical technique. It is used to treat spinal stenosis or lateral recess stenosis and alleviate the pain and/or numbness that occurs in a patients lower back or legs. It can many times be performed on an outpatient basis without the need for an overnight stay in a hospital. Before Surgery • Seven days prior to surgery, please do not take any anti-inflammatory NSAID medications (Celebrex, Ibuprofen, Aleve, Naprosyn, Advil, etc.) as this could prolong your bleeding time during surgery. • Do not eat or drink anything after midnight the day before surgery. This means nothing to drink the morning of surgery except you may take your normal medication with a sip of water if needed. This includes your blood pressure medicine, which in general should be taken. Consult your surgeon or primary care doctor regarding insulin if you take it. • Please do not be late to check in on the day of surgery or it may be cancelled. • Please bring your preoperative folder with you to the surgery and have it when you check in.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Follow-Up Review of Patients Who Underwent Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis: a Prospective Study
    Long-term follow-up review of patients who underwent laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a prospective study Manucher J. Javid, M.D., and Eldad J. Hadar, M.D. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin Object. Decompressive laminectomy for stenosis is the most common operation performed on the lumbar spine in older patients. This prospective study was designed to evaluate long-term results in patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Methods. Between January 1984 and January 1995, 170 patients underwent surgery for lumbar stenosis (86 patients), lumbar stenosis and herniated disc (61 patients), or lateral recess stenosis (23 patients). The male/female ratio for each group was 43:43, 39:22, and 14:9, respectively. The average age for all groups was 61.4 years. For patients with lumbar stenosis, the success rate was 88.1% at 6 weeks and 86.7% at 6 months. For patients with lumbar stenosis and herniated disc, the success rate was 80% at 6 weeks and 77.6% at 6 months, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. For patients with lateral recess stenosis, the success rate was 58.7% at 6 weeks and 63.6% at 6 months; however, the sample was not large enough to be statistically significant. One year after surgery a questionnaire was sent to all patients; 163 (95.9%) responded. The success rate in patients with stenosis had declined to 69.6%, which was significant (p = 0.012); the rate for patients with stenosis and herniated disc was 77.2%; and that for lateral recess stenosis was 65.2%.
    [Show full text]
  • Indications for Fusion Following Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Neurosurg Focus 3 (2): Article 2, 1997 Indications for fusion following decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis Mark W. Fox, M.D., and Burton M. Onofrio, M.D. Neurosurgery Associates, Limited, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Department of Neurosurgery, The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a common condition affecting middle-aged and elderly people. Significant controversy exists concerning the appropriate indications for fusion following decompressive surgery. The purpose of this report is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who were and were not treated with fusion following decompressive laminectomy for spinal stenosis and to identify whether fusion was beneficial. The authors conclude that patients in whom concomitant fusion procedures were performed fared better than patients who were treated by means of decompression alone when evidence of radiological instability existed preoperatively. Key Words * lumbar spinal stenosis * laminectomy * fusion * indication The decision to perform fusion following decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has been studied by many authors.[14,16,30,52,69] Unfortunately, no clear consensus has been reached to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from a concomitant lumbar fusion. Patient satisfaction following lumbar decompression alone ranges from 59 to 96%, with early surgical failures resulting from inadequate decompression and preoperative lumbar instability.[2,4,8,12,21,22,26,29,31,34,65] Late recurrence of back or leg problems may also result from acquired spinal instability. The goal of this study was to analyze clinical outcomes in patients treated with and without fusion following lumbar decompression to determine which patients benefited most. The ability to identify predictive factors for successful surgery with fusion would improve overall clinical results and decrease both early and late failures caused by persistent or acquired spinal instability.
    [Show full text]
  • Vertebral Augmentation Involving Vertebroplasty Or Kyphoplasty for Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: a Systematic Review
    Health Quality Ontario The provincial advisor on the quality of health care in Ontario ONTARIO HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SERIES Vertebral Augmentation Involving Vertebroplasty or Kyphoplasty for Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review KEY MESSAGES Cancer can start in one part of the body and spread to other regions, often involving the spine, causing significant pain and reducing a patient’s ability to walk or carry out everyday activities such as bathing, dressing, and eating. When cancer spreads to or occurs in a bone of the spine (a vertebral bone), the cancer can weaken and break this bone. These fractures, if left untreated, can negatively affect the quality of life of terminally ill patients and their families. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are two types of procedures called vertebral augmentation. During vertebral augmentation, the physician injects bone cement into the broken vertebral bone to stabilize the spine and control pain. Kyphoplasty is a modified form of vertebroplasty in which a small balloon is first inserted into the vertebral bone to create a space to inject the cement; it also attempts to lift the fracture to restore it to a more normal position. Medical therapy and bed rest are not very effective in cancer patients with painful vertebral fractures, and surgery is not usually an option for patients with advanced disease and who are in poor health. Vertebral augmentation is a minimally invasive treatment option, performed on an outpatient basis without general anesthesia, for managing painful vertebral fractures that limit mobility and self-care. We reviewed the evidence to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in cancer patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Scan Versus Computed Tomography for Bone Density Assessment
    Open Access Original Article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.13261 Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) Scan Versus Computed Tomography for Bone Density Assessment Malak Alawi 1 , Azra Begum 1 , Mohammed Harraz 2 , Hani Alawi 3 , Shahd Bamagos 4 , Abdulmalek Yaghmour 1 , Lubna Hafiz 5 1. Radiodiagnosis, King Abdul Aziz Hospital, Makkah, SAU 2. Radiodiagnosis, Mansoura University Hospital, Mansoura, EGY 3. Family Medicine, Primary Health Center Clinic, Makkah, SAU 4. Radiodiagnosis, Umm Al Qura University, Makkah, SAU 5. Family Medicine, Al Zaher Primary Health Care Center, Makkah, SAU Corresponding author: Azra Begum, [email protected] Abstract Rationale and objective Osteoporosis, a common non-pathological disease of bones, has been the cause of many disastrous consequences, in terms of physical, psychological, social, and economic loss. Therefore, it is crucial to diagnose it early for timely prevention and treatment of osteoporotic fractures. Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) is currently routinely used for determining bone mineral density. However, it has its limitations. Nowadays, CT technology has advanced so rapidly that the Hounsfield units (HU) values can be used in opportunistic screening for osteoporosis in patients during routine CT abdomen for other causes. Hence, there would be no need for additional study with DEXA and also reduce radiation exposure. The aim of our research is to determine whether there is a correlation between the bone mineral density and the T- score measured by DEXA and the HU values measured from the diagnostic CT images of L1-4 vertebrae. Also, to determine reference CT values that would help in screening the patients with osteoporosis. Materials and methods We conducted a retrospective study of 78 female patients who underwent CT lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis in our hospital between the years 2016-2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Laminectomy for Cervical Myelopathy
    Spinal Cord (2003) 41, 317–327 & 2003 International Spinal Cord Society All rights reserved 1362-4393/03 $25.00 www.nature.com/sc Review Laminectomy for cervical myelopathy NE Epstein*,1,2,3,4 1The Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA; 2The North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Manhasset, NY, USA; 3New Hyde Park, NY, USA; 4Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA Study design: Cervical laminectomy with or without fusion, or laminoplasty, successfully address congenital or acquired stenosis, multilevel spondylosis, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), and ossification of the yellow ligament (OYL). To optimize surgical results, however, these procedures should be applied to carefully selected patients. Objectives: To determine the clinical, neurodiagnostic, appropriate posterior cervical approaches to be employed in patients presenting with MR- and CT-documented multilevel cervical disease. To limit perioperative morbidity, dorsal decompressions with or without fusions should be performed utilizing awake intubation and positioning and continuous intraoperative somatosensory- evoked potential monitoring. Setting: United States of America. Methods: The clinical, neurodiagnostic, and varied dorsal decompressive techniques employed to address pathology are reviewed. Techniques, including laminectomy, laminoforaminotomy, and laminoplasty are described. Where preoperative dynamic X-rays document instability, simultaneous fusions employing wiring or lateral mass plate/screw or rod/screw techniques may be employed. Nevertheless, careful patient selection remains one of the most critical factors to operative success as older individuals with prohibitive comorbidities or fixed long-term neurological deficits should not undergo these procedures. Results: Short- and long-term outcomes following dorsal decompressions with or without fusions vary. Those with myelopathy over 65 years of age often do well in the short-term, but demonstrate greater long-term deterioration.
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Learning–Based Preoperative Predictive Analytics for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS Neurosurg Focus 46 (5):E5, 2019 Machine learning–based preoperative predictive analytics for lumbar spinal stenosis Alessandro Siccoli, BMed,1 Marlies P. de Wispelaere, PDEng,2 Marc L. Schröder, MD, PhD,1 and Victor E. Staartjes, BMed1,3,4 1Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam; 2Department of Clinical Informatics, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam; 3Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Neurosurgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and 4Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Centre, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Switzerland OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) demonstrate considerable heterogeneity. Individualized prediction tools can provide valuable insights for shared decision-making. The authors aim to evaluate the feasibility of predicting short- and long-term PROMs, reoperations, and perioperative parameters by machine learning (ML) methods. METHODS Data were derived from a prospective registry. All patients had undergone single- or multilevel mini-open facet-sparing decompression for LSS. The prediction models were trained using various ML-based algorithms to predict the endpoints of interest. Models were selected by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The endpoints were dichotomized by minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and included 6-week and 12-month numeric rating scales for back pain (NRS-BP) and leg pain (NRS-LP) severity and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as prolonged surgery (> 45 minutes), extended length of hospital stay (> 28 hours), and reoperations. RESULTS A total of 635 patients were included. The average age was 62 ± 10 years, and 333 patients (52%) were male. At 6 weeks, MCID was seen in 63%, 76%, and 61% of patients for ODI, NRS-LP, and NRS-BP, respectively.
    [Show full text]