Registries in Spine Care in the United States

  • Owoicho Adogwa
  • Joseph Cheng
  • John E. O’Toole


Spinal disorders are extremely common, debilitating, and costly to patients, payers, and society as a whole (Skovrlj B, Gologorsky Y, Haque R, Fessler RG, Qureshi SA. Complications, outcomes, and need for fusion after minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy and microdiscectomy. Spine J 14:2405–2411, 2014). The increasing frequency of spinal related interventions along with increasing cost has triggered a paradigm shift to the delivery of value-based spine care (Roder C, Muller U, Aebi M. The rationale for a spine registry. Eur Spine J 15:S52–S56, 2006). The goal of this shift is the expected convergence of the interests of patients, payers, politicians, and clinicians. Value in healthcare is expressed as patient-centered outcomes (effectiveness of care) divided by related cost of care. Integral to the value equation is the ability to track patient outcomes longitudinally over time. Health registries, when designed properly, have the potential to provide the necessary statistical power and real-world setting required for true value measurement in both individuals and populations. In this chapter, we provide a summary of spinal registries in the United States.


Value-based spine care Spinal registries Longitudinal spine registers Comparative effectiveness in the spine Transition from fee-for-service model Bundle payments Patient-reported outcomes Healthcare value Cost-effectiveness Implant registry 


  1. 1.
    Skovrlj B, Gologorsky Y, Haque R, Fessler RG, Qureshi SA. Complications, outcomes, and need for fusion after minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy and microdiscectomy. Spine J. 2014;14(10):2405–11.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roder C, Muller U, Aebi M. The rationale for a spine registry. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 1):S52–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Good CR, Auerbach JD, O’Leary PT, Schuler TC. Adult spine deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4(4):159–67.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li G, Passias P, Kozanek M, et al. Adult scoliosis in patients over sixty-five years of age: outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment at a minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(20):2165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uddin OM, Haque R, Sugrue PA, et al. Cost minimization in treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(6):798–806.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bridwell KH, Glassman S, Horton W, et al. Does treatment (nonoperative and operative) improve the two-year quality of life in patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: a prospective multicenter evidence-based medicine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(20):2171–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fairbank J. Spinal disorders, quality-based healthcare and spinal registers. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(5):521–2.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rihn JA, Berven S, Allen T, et al. Defining value in spine care. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(6 Suppl):4S–14S.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Resnick DK, Tosteson AN, Groman RF, Ghogawala Z. Setting the equation: establishing value in spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agrawal BM, Brooks NP, Resnick DK. Wisconsin spine outcome study-pilot: preliminary data. Neurosurg Focus. 2012;33(1):E15.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang V, Schwalb JM, Nerenz DR, et al. The Michigan spine surgery improvement collaborative: a statewide collaborative quality initiative. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(6):E7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Asher AL, Norvell D, Sherry N, Devin CJ. Role of prospective registries in defining the value and effectiveness of spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S117–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niederlander CS, Kriza C, Kolominsky-Rabas P. Quality criteria for medical device registries: best practice approaches for improving patient safety – a systematic review of international experiences. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017;14(1):49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paxton EW, Kiley ML, Love R, Barber TC, Funahashi TT, Inacio MC. Kaiser Permanente implant registries benefit patient safety, quality improvement, cost-effectiveness. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(6):246–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF, Grob D, Aebi M. SSE Spine Tango – content, workflow, set-up. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):920–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roder C, El-Kerdi A, Grob D, Aebi M. A European spine registry. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(4):303–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Hooff ML, Jacobs WC, Willems PC, et al. Evidence and practice in spine registries. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(5):534–44.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng JS, Lee MJ, Massicotte E, et al. Clinical guidelines and payer policies on fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(21 Suppl):S144–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fairbank JC. Oswestry disability index. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(2):239–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, Shaffrey CI, et al. Health-related quality of life scores underestimate the impact of major complications in lumbar degenerative scoliosis surgery. Spine Deform. 2018;6(1):67–71.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Asher AL, Kerezoudis P, Mummaneni PV, et al. Defining the minimum clinically important difference for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: insights from the quality outcomes database. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;44(1):E2.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adogwa O, Owens R, Karikari I, et al. Revision lumbar surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, adjacent-segment disease, or same-level recurrent stenosis. Part 2. A cost-effectiveness analysis: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(2):147–53.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Adogwa O, Parker SL, Davis BJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(2):138–43.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ohnmeiss DD. The fate of prospective spine studies registered on Spine J. 2015;15(3):487–491.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Asher AL, Speroff T, Dittus RS, et al. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): a collaborative North American outcomes registry to advance value-based spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S106–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lamu AN, Gamst-Klaussen T, Olsen JA. Preference weighting of health state values: what difference does it make, and why? Value Health. 2017;20(3):451–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Owoicho Adogwa
    • 1
  • Joseph Cheng
    • 2
  • John E. O’Toole
    • 1
  1. 1.Rush University Medical CenterChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Cincinnati College of MedicineCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations