Cost Analysis of Incidental Durotomy in Spine Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the consequences of an incidental durotomy with regard to perioperative complications and total hospital costs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a paucity of data regarding how an incidental durotomy and its associated complications may relate to total hospital costs. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried from 2008 to 2011. Patients who underwent cervical or lumbar decompression and/or fusion procedures were identified, stratified by approach, and separated into cohorts based on a documented intraoperative incidental durotomy. Patient demographics, comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index), length of hospital stay, perioperative outcomes, and costs were assessed. Analysis of covariance and multivariate linear regression were used to assess the adjusted mean costs of hospitalization as a function of durotomy. RESULTS: The incidental durotomy rate in cervical and lumbar spine surgery is 0.4% and 2.9%, respectively. Patients with an incidental durotomy incurred a longer hospitalization and a greater incidence of perioperative complications including hematoma and neurological injury (P < 0.001). Regression analysis demonstrated that a cervical durotomy and its postoperative sequelae contributed an additional adjusted $7638 (95% confidence interval, 6489-8787; P < 0.001) to the total hospital costs. Similarly, lumbar durotomy contributed an additional adjusted $2412 (95% confidence interval, 1920-2902; P < 0.001) to the total hospital costs. The approach-specific procedural groups demonstrated similar discrepancies in the mean total hospital costs as a function of durotomy. CONCLUSION: This analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database demonstrates that incidental durotomies increase hospital resource utilization and costs. In addition, it seems that a cervical durotomy and its associated complications carry a greater financial burden than a lumbar durotomy. Further studies are warranted to investigate the long-term financial implications of incidental durotomies in spine surgery and to reduce the costs associated with this complication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".