Lumbar stenosis surgery: Spine surgeons not insurance companies should decide when enough is better than too much
Open Access
- 1 January 2017
- journal article
- Published by Scientific Scholar in Surgical Neurology International
- Vol. 8 (1), 247
- https://doi.org/10.4103/sni.sni_300_17
Abstract
Lumbar surgery for spinal stenosis is the most common spine operation being performed in older patients. Nevertheless, every time we want to schedule surgery, we confront the insurance industry. More often than not they demand patients first undergo epidural steroid injections (ESI); clearly they are not aware of ESI's lack of long-term efficacy. Who put these insurance companies in charge anyway? We did. How? Through performing too many unnecessary or overly extensive spinal operations (e.g., interbody fusions and instrumented fusions) without sufficient clinical and/or radiographic indications. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with/without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) are being offered decompressions alone and/or unnecessarily extensive interbody and/or instrumented fusions. Furthermore, a cursory review of the literature largely demonstrates comparable outcomes for decompressions alone vs. decompressions/in situ fusions vs. interbody/instrumented fusions. Too many older patients are being subjected to unnecessary lumbar spine surgery, some with additional interbody/non instrumented or instrumented fusions, without adequate clinical/neurodiagnostic indications. The decision to perform spine surgery for lumbar stenosis/DS, including decompression alone, decompression with non instrumented or instrumented fusion should be in the hands of competent spinal surgeons with their patients' best outcomes in mind. Presently, insurance companies have stepped into the "void" left by spinal surgeons' failing to regulate when, what type, and why spinal surgery is being offered to patients with spinal stenosis. Clearly, spine surgeons need to establish guidelines to maximize patient safety and outcomes for lumbar stenosis surgery. We need to remove insurance companies from their present roles as the "spinal police."This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Is There Variation in Procedural Utilization for Lumbar Spine Disorders Between a Fee-for-Service and Salaried Healthcare System?Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2017
- Utilization of Lumbar Spinal Fusion in New York StateSpine, 2016
- A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal StenosisThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2016
- Commentary on: A randomized controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (Forsth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgström F, Fritzell P,et al. N Eng J Med 2016;374:1414-23)Surgical Neurology International, 2016
- Commentary on: The role of surgery for treatment of low back pain: Insights from the randomized controlled SPORT trialsSurgical Neurology International, 2016
- Variations in Medicare payments for episodes of spine surgeryThe Spine Journal, 2014
- The Death of Spine Surgery, Sequel - 2014Surgical Neurology International, 2014
- Are recommended spine operations either unnecessary or too complex? Evidence from second opinionsSurgical Neurology International, 2013
- The death of spine surgery as we know it today.Surgical Neurology, 2003