United States’ Trends and Regional Variations in Lumbar Spine Surgery: 1992–2003

Study Design. Repeated cross-sectional analysis using national Medicare data from the Dartmouth Atlas Project. Objective. To describe recent trends and geographic variation in population-based rates of lumbar fusion spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. Lumbar fusion rates have increased dramatically during the 1980s and even more so in the 1990s. The most rapid increase appeared to follow the approval of a new surgical implant device. Methods. Medicare claims and enrollment data were used to calculate age, sex, and race-adjusted rates of lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and lumbar fusion for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries over age 65 in each of the 306 US Hospital Referral Regions between 1992 and 2003. Results. Lumbar fusion rates have increased steadily since 1992 (0.3 per 1000 enrollees in 1992 to 1.1 per 1000 enrollees in 2003). Regional rates of lumbar discectomy, laminectomy, and fusion in 1992–1993 were highly correlated to rates of discectomy, laminectomy (R2 = 0.44), and fusion (R2 = 0.28) in 2002–2003. There was a nearly 8-fold variation in regional rates of lumbar discectomy and laminectomy in 2002 and 2003. In the case of lumbar fusion, there was nearly a 20-fold range in rates among Medicare enrollees in 2002 and 2003. This represents the largest coefficient of variation seen with any surgical procedure. Medicare spending for inpatient back surgery more than doubled over the decade. Spending for lumbar fusion increased more than 500%, from $75 million to $482 million. In 1992, lumbar fusion represented 14% of total spending for back surgery; by 2003, lumbar fusion accounted for 47% of spending. Conclusions. The rate of specific procedures within a region or “surgical signature” is remarkably stable over time. However, there has been a marked increase in rates of fusion, and a coincident shift and increase in cost. Rates of back surgery were not correlated with the per-capita supply of orthopedic and neurosurgeons.

[1]  P. Sandercock,et al.  Cochrane Review on the Role of Surgery in Cervical Spondylotic Radiculomyelopathy , 2002, Spine.

[2]  L M Bouter,et al.  Lumbar Supports for Prevention and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review Within the Framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group , 2001, Spine.

[3]  C. Sledge.  The Dartmouth Atlas of Musculoskeletal Health Care , 2001 .

[4]  J. Gibson,et al.  The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. , 1999, Spine.

[5]  R. Deyo,et al.  An International Comparison of Back Surgery Rates , 1994, Spine.

[6]  Russell S. Kirby,et al.  The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care , 1998 .

[7]  James N Weinstein,et al.  Trends and geographic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine. , 2004, Health affairs.

[8]  G. Waddell,et al.  Rehabilitation Following First-Time Lumbar Disc Surgery: A Systematic Review Within the Framework of the Cochrane Collaboration , 2003, Spine.

[9]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Variation in Surgical Decision Making for Degenerative Spinal Disorders. Part I: Lumbar Spine , 2005, Spine.

[10]  W. Catalona,et al.  Patient preferences for outcomes associated with surgical management of prostate cancer. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[11]  R. Deyo,et al.  United States Trends in Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Conditions , 2005, Spine.

[12]  James G Wright,et al.  Determining the Need for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: The Role of Clinical Severity and Patients’ Preferences , 2001, Medical care.