Key result
Sacroiliac joint fusion utilization increased by 1176.2% from 2007 to 2021 (P<.001), predominantly due to the adoption of minimally invasive techniques by spine surgeons and nonsurgeons.
Why the study?
Despite innovations in minimally invasive techniques for sacroiliac joint fusion, trends in utilization and associated costs remain unclear.
What are the trends in utilization and costs of sacroiliac joint fusion in privately insured patients?
Cohort (n=4,124)
What are the trends in utilization and costs of sacroiliac joint fusion in privately insured patients?
There has been a massive increase in the utilization of sacroiliac joint fusion among privately insured patients, driven largely by the adoption of minimally invasive techniques by both spine surgeons and nonsurgeons.
Rising SI joint fusion utilization warrants cost and appropriateness scrutiny; leaves open whether expanded access improves long-term outcomes.
Study Design Retrospective Cohort Study. Objective Despite innovations in minimally invasive (MI) techniques for sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF), trends in utilization and associated costs remain unclear. In this study, we assessed these trends and costs in a database of privately insured patients. Methods Records of open and MI SIJFs were queried from the 2007-2021 MarketScan Databases with CPT codes. Net payments made by insurance carriers were identified, as were out-of-pocket payments made by patients for each encounter. Regression was used to model utilization, payments, and costs. Results 4124 SIJFs were identified, 1626 (39.4%) of which were MI SIJF. SIJF utilization increased by 1176.2% throughout the study period ( P < .001). However, open SIJF utilization peaked in 2012. Open SIJF utilization was not significantly associated with time ( P = .18). By contrast, the peak utilization for MI procedures occurred in 2021. Spine surgeons’ volume of MI SIJF increased by 258% over the study period ( P < .001), while nonsurgeon volume of MI SIJF increased by 990.9% ( P < .001). Conclusion Privately insured patients have increasingly utilized SIJF over the past several years. This is predominantly due to the adoption of MI techniques by spine surgeons and nonsurgeons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johnstone et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Sacroiliac joint fusion (n=4,124). Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. Open sacroiliac joint fusion was evaluated on Utilization of sacroiliac joint fusion (p=<.001). Sacroiliac joint fusion utilization increased by 1176.2% from 2007 to 2021 (P<.001), predominantly due to the adoption of minimally invasive techniques by spine surgeons and nonsurgeons.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: