To Use or Not Use Intraoperative Neuromonitoring: Utilization of Neuromonitoring During Spine Surgeries and Associated Conflicts of Interest, a Cross-Sectional Survey Study
There are no universal guidelines that dictate the indications for the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in spine surgery resulting in its variable use. The choice to use IONM has been both cited in malpractice lawsuits and insurance claims, but no data exist regarding surgeons' rati...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews 2022-03, Vol.6 (3) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews |
container_volume | 6 |
creator | Bible, Jesse E. Goss, Madison |
description | There are no universal guidelines that dictate the indications for the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in spine surgery resulting in its variable use. The choice to use IONM has been both cited in malpractice lawsuits and insurance claims, but no data exist regarding surgeons' rationale for making this choice. The goal of this study was to assess (1) the use of certain IONM modalities during common spine surgeries, (2) surgeons' rationale for use of IONM, and (3) IONM practices and potential conflicts of interest associated with its use.
Respondents were asked to select each IONM modality they used during 20 different surgical scenarios within the spine followed by rating the importance of several reasons when selecting to use IONM. Finally, the occurrence of conflicts of interest, out-of-network billing, and cost were assessed.
Approximately one-half (47%) of respondents who perform anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion/total disk arthroplasty for radiculopathy use IONM, opposed to 76% for myelopathy. The presence of cord compression and/or neurologic symptoms increased IONM use by approximately 30% during trauma cases. Medicolegal was the reason of highest importance when choosing to use IONM (7.4 ± 2.9; mean ± SD), followed by surgeon reassurance (6.2 ± 2.7; P < 0.0001 versus medicolegal) and belief it affects patient outcomes (5.2 ± 3.0; P = 0.004 versus reassurance).
Although there is increasing use of IONM, this has not translated to an absolute requirement for every spine surgery. Surgeons are faced with opposing influences of the medicolegal system and insurance payers. Future guidelines on using IONM should not be absolute, but rather should consider the risks of each procedure, along with how patients and surgeons value these risks, in addition to the costs. The findings of this study should help to serve as a guide to surgeons, payers, and courts as contemporary, common practices for the use of IONM during spinal surgical scenarios. |
doi_str_mv | 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00273 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8893287</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2636147538</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4593-1d7244a712b0c1e312c7616532a4273bf3113c2b295c22731ca958878e1f0c0f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUk1v00AQtRCIVqV_odojBwz7Za_NASlKoBRV7cHNebVej5OFjTfsrlOF38SPZJ2UKnCa0cybNx9vsuyK4PcFZ8WHb7PZfXNtXatsvsgpyTGmgr3IzikXPBdlSV6e-GfZZQjfccLgFOL4dXbGCsoLWojz7PeDQ8sAyHl05-LBvRmiV24LXkWzA3QHo3cbN5jovBlWH9EyGmt-paQbkOv_z6PFeDDN1gyAmtGvwBsISA0dmoXgtFEROjR3Q2-NjmGiSB3BQ4jvkEJz70LIG9ATv7ITww72qIljt3-TveqVDXD5ZC-y5ZfPD_Ov-e399c18dptrXtQsJ52gnCtBaIs1AUaoFiUpC0YVT3dqe0YI07SldaFpChCt6qKqRAWkxxr37CL7dOTdju0GOg3TRazcerNRfi-dMvLfzGDWcuV2sqpqRiuRCN4-EXj3c0ybyY0JGqxVA7gxSFqyknBRsCpByyNUT4t76J_bECwnteWJ2nIhKZEHtVPh1emQz2V_tU0AfgQ8OpvuG37Y8RG8XIOycS0xqUXNSpxTTClm6T3SF2HM2B9Wa7t2</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2636147538</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>To Use or Not Use Intraoperative Neuromonitoring: Utilization of Neuromonitoring During Spine Surgeries and Associated Conflicts of Interest, a Cross-Sectional Survey Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Bible, Jesse E. ; Goss, Madison</creator><creatorcontrib>Bible, Jesse E. ; Goss, Madison</creatorcontrib><description>There are no universal guidelines that dictate the indications for the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in spine surgery resulting in its variable use. The choice to use IONM has been both cited in malpractice lawsuits and insurance claims, but no data exist regarding surgeons' rationale for making this choice. The goal of this study was to assess (1) the use of certain IONM modalities during common spine surgeries, (2) surgeons' rationale for use of IONM, and (3) IONM practices and potential conflicts of interest associated with its use.
Respondents were asked to select each IONM modality they used during 20 different surgical scenarios within the spine followed by rating the importance of several reasons when selecting to use IONM. Finally, the occurrence of conflicts of interest, out-of-network billing, and cost were assessed.
Approximately one-half (47%) of respondents who perform anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion/total disk arthroplasty for radiculopathy use IONM, opposed to 76% for myelopathy. The presence of cord compression and/or neurologic symptoms increased IONM use by approximately 30% during trauma cases. Medicolegal was the reason of highest importance when choosing to use IONM (7.4 ± 2.9; mean ± SD), followed by surgeon reassurance (6.2 ± 2.7; P < 0.0001 versus medicolegal) and belief it affects patient outcomes (5.2 ± 3.0; P = 0.004 versus reassurance).
Although there is increasing use of IONM, this has not translated to an absolute requirement for every spine surgery. Surgeons are faced with opposing influences of the medicolegal system and insurance payers. Future guidelines on using IONM should not be absolute, but rather should consider the risks of each procedure, along with how patients and surgeons value these risks, in addition to the costs. The findings of this study should help to serve as a guide to surgeons, payers, and courts as contemporary, common practices for the use of IONM during spinal surgical scenarios.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2474-7661</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2474-7661</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00273</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35245257</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wolters Kluwer</publisher><subject>Conflict of Interest ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Humans ; Spine - surgery ; Surgeons ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2022-03, Vol.6 (3)</ispartof><rights>Wolters Kluwer</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2022 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4593-1d7244a712b0c1e312c7616532a4273bf3113c2b295c22731ca958878e1f0c0f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4593-1d7244a712b0c1e312c7616532a4273bf3113c2b295c22731ca958878e1f0c0f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8299-9051 ; 0000-0002-2596-6480</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8893287/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8893287/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,27929,27930,53796,53798</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35245257$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bible, Jesse E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goss, Madison</creatorcontrib><title>To Use or Not Use Intraoperative Neuromonitoring: Utilization of Neuromonitoring During Spine Surgeries and Associated Conflicts of Interest, a Cross-Sectional Survey Study</title><title>Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews</title><addtitle>J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev</addtitle><description>There are no universal guidelines that dictate the indications for the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in spine surgery resulting in its variable use. The choice to use IONM has been both cited in malpractice lawsuits and insurance claims, but no data exist regarding surgeons' rationale for making this choice. The goal of this study was to assess (1) the use of certain IONM modalities during common spine surgeries, (2) surgeons' rationale for use of IONM, and (3) IONM practices and potential conflicts of interest associated with its use.
Respondents were asked to select each IONM modality they used during 20 different surgical scenarios within the spine followed by rating the importance of several reasons when selecting to use IONM. Finally, the occurrence of conflicts of interest, out-of-network billing, and cost were assessed.
Approximately one-half (47%) of respondents who perform anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion/total disk arthroplasty for radiculopathy use IONM, opposed to 76% for myelopathy. The presence of cord compression and/or neurologic symptoms increased IONM use by approximately 30% during trauma cases. Medicolegal was the reason of highest importance when choosing to use IONM (7.4 ± 2.9; mean ± SD), followed by surgeon reassurance (6.2 ± 2.7; P < 0.0001 versus medicolegal) and belief it affects patient outcomes (5.2 ± 3.0; P = 0.004 versus reassurance).
Although there is increasing use of IONM, this has not translated to an absolute requirement for every spine surgery. Surgeons are faced with opposing influences of the medicolegal system and insurance payers. Future guidelines on using IONM should not be absolute, but rather should consider the risks of each procedure, along with how patients and surgeons value these risks, in addition to the costs. The findings of this study should help to serve as a guide to surgeons, payers, and courts as contemporary, common practices for the use of IONM during spinal surgical scenarios.</description><subject>Conflict of Interest</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Spine - surgery</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>2474-7661</issn><issn>2474-7661</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUk1v00AQtRCIVqV_odojBwz7Za_NASlKoBRV7cHNebVej5OFjTfsrlOF38SPZJ2UKnCa0cybNx9vsuyK4PcFZ8WHb7PZfXNtXatsvsgpyTGmgr3IzikXPBdlSV6e-GfZZQjfccLgFOL4dXbGCsoLWojz7PeDQ8sAyHl05-LBvRmiV24LXkWzA3QHo3cbN5jovBlWH9EyGmt-paQbkOv_z6PFeDDN1gyAmtGvwBsISA0dmoXgtFEROjR3Q2-NjmGiSB3BQ4jvkEJz70LIG9ATv7ITww72qIljt3-TveqVDXD5ZC-y5ZfPD_Ov-e399c18dptrXtQsJ52gnCtBaIs1AUaoFiUpC0YVT3dqe0YI07SldaFpChCt6qKqRAWkxxr37CL7dOTdju0GOg3TRazcerNRfi-dMvLfzGDWcuV2sqpqRiuRCN4-EXj3c0ybyY0JGqxVA7gxSFqyknBRsCpByyNUT4t76J_bECwnteWJ2nIhKZEHtVPh1emQz2V_tU0AfgQ8OpvuG37Y8RG8XIOycS0xqUXNSpxTTClm6T3SF2HM2B9Wa7t2</recordid><startdate>20220302</startdate><enddate>20220302</enddate><creator>Bible, Jesse E.</creator><creator>Goss, Madison</creator><general>Wolters Kluwer</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8299-9051</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2596-6480</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220302</creationdate><title>To Use or Not Use Intraoperative Neuromonitoring: Utilization of Neuromonitoring During Spine Surgeries and Associated Conflicts of Interest, a Cross-Sectional Survey Study</title><author>Bible, Jesse E. ; Goss, Madison</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4593-1d7244a712b0c1e312c7616532a4273bf3113c2b295c22731ca958878e1f0c0f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Conflict of Interest</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Spine - surgery</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bible, Jesse E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goss, Madison</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bible, Jesse E.</au><au>Goss, Madison</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>To Use or Not Use Intraoperative Neuromonitoring: Utilization of Neuromonitoring During Spine Surgeries and Associated Conflicts of Interest, a Cross-Sectional Survey Study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews</jtitle><addtitle>J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev</addtitle><date>2022-03-02</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>3</issue><issn>2474-7661</issn><eissn>2474-7661</eissn><abstract>There are no universal guidelines that dictate the indications for the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in spine surgery resulting in its variable use. The choice to use IONM has been both cited in malpractice lawsuits and insurance claims, but no data exist regarding surgeons' rationale for making this choice. The goal of this study was to assess (1) the use of certain IONM modalities during common spine surgeries, (2) surgeons' rationale for use of IONM, and (3) IONM practices and potential conflicts of interest associated with its use.
Respondents were asked to select each IONM modality they used during 20 different surgical scenarios within the spine followed by rating the importance of several reasons when selecting to use IONM. Finally, the occurrence of conflicts of interest, out-of-network billing, and cost were assessed.
Approximately one-half (47%) of respondents who perform anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion/total disk arthroplasty for radiculopathy use IONM, opposed to 76% for myelopathy. The presence of cord compression and/or neurologic symptoms increased IONM use by approximately 30% during trauma cases. Medicolegal was the reason of highest importance when choosing to use IONM (7.4 ± 2.9; mean ± SD), followed by surgeon reassurance (6.2 ± 2.7; P < 0.0001 versus medicolegal) and belief it affects patient outcomes (5.2 ± 3.0; P = 0.004 versus reassurance).
Although there is increasing use of IONM, this has not translated to an absolute requirement for every spine surgery. Surgeons are faced with opposing influences of the medicolegal system and insurance payers. Future guidelines on using IONM should not be absolute, but rather should consider the risks of each procedure, along with how patients and surgeons value these risks, in addition to the costs. The findings of this study should help to serve as a guide to surgeons, payers, and courts as contemporary, common practices for the use of IONM during spinal surgical scenarios.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wolters Kluwer</pub><pmid>35245257</pmid><doi>10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00273</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8299-9051</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2596-6480</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2474-7661 |
ispartof | Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2022-03, Vol.6 (3) |
issn | 2474-7661 2474-7661 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8893287 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Conflict of Interest Cross-Sectional Studies Humans Spine - surgery Surgeons Surveys and Questionnaires |
title | To Use or Not Use Intraoperative Neuromonitoring: Utilization of Neuromonitoring During Spine Surgeries and Associated Conflicts of Interest, a Cross-Sectional Survey Study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-11T23%3A35%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=To%20Use%20or%20Not%20Use%20Intraoperative%20Neuromonitoring:%20Utilization%20of%20Neuromonitoring%20During%20Spine%20Surgeries%20and%20Associated%20Conflicts%20of%20Interest,%20a%20Cross-Sectional%20Survey%20Study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20Academy%20of%20Orthopaedic%20Surgeons.%20Global%20research%20&%20reviews&rft.au=Bible,%20Jesse%20E.&rft.date=2022-03-02&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=3&rft.issn=2474-7661&rft.eissn=2474-7661&rft_id=info:doi/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00273&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2636147538%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2636147538&rft_id=info:pmid/35245257&rfr_iscdi=true |