Demographic Trends in Paddle Lead Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement: Private Insurance and Medicare Beneficiaries

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Objective: Although spinal cord stimulators (SCS) continue to gain acceptance as a viable nonpharmacologic option for the treatment of chronic back pain, recent trends are not well established. The aim of this study was to evaluate recent overall demographic and regional trends in paddle lead SCS placement and to determine if differences in trends exist between private-payer and Medicare beneficiaries.
Methods: A retrospective review of Medicare and private-payer insurance records from 2007–2014 was performed to identify patients who underwent a primary paddle lead SCS placement via a laminectomy (CPT-63655). Each study cohort was queried to determine the annual rate of SCS placements and demographic characteristics. Yearly SCS implanta�tion rates within the study cohorts were adjusted per 100,000 beneficiaries. A chi-square analysis was used to compare changes in annual rates.
Results: A total of 31,352 Medicare and 2,935 private-payer patients were identified from 2007 to 2014. Paddle lead SCS placements ranged from 5.9 to 17.5 (p<0.001), 1.9 to 5.9 (p<0.001), and 5.2 to 14.5 (p<0.001) placements per 100,000 Medicare, private-payer, and overall beneficiaries respectively from 2007 to 2014. SCS placements peaked in 2013 with 19.6, 7.1, and 16.8 placements per 100,000 Medicare, private-payer, and overall patients.
Conclusion: There was an overall increase in the annual rate of SCS placements from 2007 to 2014. Paddle lead SCS placements peaked in 2013 for Medicare, private-payer, and over�all beneficiaries. The highest incidence of implantation was in the Southern region of the United States and among females. Yearly adjusted rates of SCSs were higher among Medi�care patients at all time points.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Mafi JN, "Worsening trends in the management and treatment of back pain" 173 : 1573-1581, 2013

2 McCarthy M, "US declares opioid epidemic a"national emergency"" 358 : j3881-, 2017

3 Schmidt GL, "The use of spinal cord stimulation/neuromodulation in the management of chronic pain" 27 : e401-e407, 2019

4 Fanciullo GJ, "The state of implantable pain therapies in the United States : a nationwide survey of academic teaching programs" 44 : 110-, 2000

5 Fanciullo GJ, "The state of implantable pain therapies in the United States : a nationwide survey of academic teaching programs" 88 : 1311-1316, 1999

6 Gharibo C, "State of the field survey : spinal cord stimulator use by academic pain medicine practices" 15 : 188-195, 2014

7 Buser Z, "Spine degenerative conditions and their treatments : national trends in the United States of America" 8 : 57-67, 2018

8 North RB, "Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain : a randomized, controlled trial" 56 : 98-106, 2005

9 Kumar K, "Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain : a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome" 132 : 179-188, 2007

10 Geurts JW, "Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome type I : a prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up" 16 : 523-529, 2013

11 Hussaini SMQ, "Specialty-based variations in spinal cord stimulation success rates for treatment of chronic pain" 20 : 340-347, 2017

12 LaPar DJ, "Primary payer status affects mortality for major surgical operations" 252 : 544-550, 2010

13 Babu R, "Outcomes of percutaneous and paddle lead implantation for spinal cord stimulation : a comparative analysis of complications, reoperation rates, and health-care costs" 16 : 418-426, 2013

14 Flack CK, "National trends in the performance of robot-assisted sacral colpopexy" 29 : 777-783, 2015

15 Rowland D, "Medicare, medicaid, and the elderly poor" 18 : 61-85, 1996

16 Turner M, "Insurance status, not race, is associated with use of minimally invasive surgical approach for rectal cancer" 265 : 774-781, 2017

17 Vakkala M, "Incidence and predictive factors of spinal cord stimulation treatment after lumbar spine surgery" 10 : 2405-2411, 2017

18 Gologorsky Y, "Improving discharge data fidelity for use in large administrative databases" 36 : E2-, 2014

19 Elsamadicy AA, "Impact of insurance provider on overall costs in failed back surgery syndrome : a cost study of 122, 827 patients" 20 : 354-360, 2017

20 Shealy CN, "Electrical inhibition of pain : experimental evaluation" 46 : 299-305, 1967

21 Heyward J, "Coverage of nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain among US public and private insurers" 1 : e183044-, 2018

22 Manchikanti L, "Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain" 12 : E35-E70, 2009

23 Lad SP, "A socioeconomic survey of spinal cord stimulation(SCS)surgery" 13 : 265-268, 2010