Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Registries in Spine Care in the United States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality Spine Care

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Roder C, Muller U, Aebi M. The rationale for a spine registry. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 1):S52–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Good CR, Auerbach JD, O’Leary PT, Schuler TC. Adult spine deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4(4):159–67.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fairbank J. Spinal disorders, quality-based healthcare and spinal registers. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(5):521–2.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Rihn JA, Berven S, Allen T, et al. Defining value in spine care. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(6 Suppl):4S–14S.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Agrawal BM, Brooks NP, Resnick DK. Wisconsin spine outcome study-pilot: preliminary data. Neurosurg Focus. 2012;33(1):E15.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF, Grob D, Aebi M. SSE Spine Tango – content, workflow, set-up. www.eurospine.org-SpineTango. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):920–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roder C, El-Kerdi A, Grob D, Aebi M. A European spine registry. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(4):303–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. van Hooff ML, Jacobs WC, Willems PC, et al. Evidence and practice in spine registries. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(5):534–44.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fairbank JC. Oswestry disability index. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(2):239–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ohnmeiss DD. The fate of prospective spine studies registered on www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Spine J. 2015;15(3):487–491.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Owoicho Adogwa & John E. O’Toole

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Joseph Cheng

Authors
  1. Owoicho Adogwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John E. O’Toole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    John Ratliff

  2. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Todd J. Albert

  3. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Joseph Cheng

  4. Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, Morristown, NJ, USA

    Jack Knightly

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Adogwa, O., Cheng, J., O’Toole, J.E. (2019). Registries in Spine Care in the United States. In: Ratliff, J., Albert, T., Cheng, J., Knightly, J. (eds) Quality Spine Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97989-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97990-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation