Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40153716›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2025

Is Civilian Hospital Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Disorders Associated With Greater Odds of Fusion Procedures?

Mark C Lawlor, Madison N Cirillo, Kaitlyn E Holly, Patawut Bovonratwet, Brendan M Striano, Christian Coles, Tracey P Koehlmoos, Andrew J Schoenfeld

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mark C LawlorDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9900-4623
Madison N CirilloHenry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Kaitlyn E HollyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Patawut BovonratwetDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Brendan M StrianoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8665-3269
Christian ColesDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Tracey P KoehlmoosDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1377-8615
Andrew J SchoenfeldDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnological advancements in spine surgical care are disproportionately slanted toward fusion-based procedures, which may influence surgeons to prefer these over other less expensive techniques. These issues may be particularly magnified within the context of integrated care delivery systems such as the Military Health System, where patients can be treated at centers with different philosophies regarding care or manner of provider reimbursement (direct care Department of Defense facilities versus the private sector) within the same network. Understanding how these factors may influence the preferential use of lumbar fusion could better inform healthcare expenditures and the cost-efficiency of spine surgical care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Compared with direct care models (Department of Defense facilities), does the private sector (civilian hospitals) have higher odds of performing interbody fusion versus other procedures for the surgical treatment of lumbar spine conditions? (2) For spinal conditions such as disc herniation, radiculopathy, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis, are there higher odds of interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion in the private sector?

methodsWe used TRICARE healthcare claims to retrospectively compare surgical care delivery between direct and private sector care (October 2015 to September 2023). The population covered by TRICARE has previously been shown to be representative of the US demographic ages 18 to 64 years, while the unique tiered nature of the system serves as a model of care delivery that is translatable to civilian integrated hospital networks. Direct care represents a proxy for those academic medical centers with salaried reimbursement; private sector care is representative of community facilities employing fee-for-service models. We included patients 18 years and older surgically treated for a disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, lumbar radiculopathy, and/or spondylolisthesis. There were minimal missing data for the factors of interest. The mean ± SD age of the cohort as a whole was 53 ± 15 years, with 82% (50,747 of 61,735) of the population male and 79% (48,966 of 61,735) White. Lumbar spinal stenosis (42% [25,942 of 61,735]) was the most common surgical indication, followed by disc herniation (30% [18,708 of 61,735]). Overall, and within each lumbar spine disorder (disc herniation, spinal stenosis, radiculopathy, and spondylolisthesis), initial bivariate comparisons were made between type of surgery (decompression, posterolateral fusion, and interbody fusion) and the environment of care using multinomial logistic regression. Adjustments were then made for patient mix using multivariable multinomial logistic regression.

resultsAfter adjusting for confounders such as age, race, gender, medical comorbidities, sponsor rank, and census region, compared with the direct care environment, lumbar surgical procedures in the private sector had higher odds of using interbody fusion (OR 1.19 [95% CI 1.13 to 1.26]; p < 0.001). For disc herniation, posterolateral fusions (OR 3.78 [95% CI 2.60 to 5.50]; p < 0.001) were performed to a greater degree in the private sector, as was also the case for radiculopathy (OR 2.62 [95% CI 1.76 to 3.89]; p < 0.001). For spinal stenosis, posterolateral fusions (OR 2.84 [2.45 to 3.29]; p < 0.001) and interbody fusions (OR 1.71 [1.56 to 1.88]; p < 0.001) were performed to a greater extent in the private sector.

conclusionWe found greater use of fusion-based procedures for lumbar spinal disorders, irrespective of the clinical condition, in the private sector. An increased reliance on community facilities and ambulatory care centers may disproportionately influence the use of spinal fusion. Changes in payment models and establishing centers of excellence could potentially mitigate these issues. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Hospitals, PrivateLumbar VertebraeSpinal DiseasesSpinal FusionAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40153716
PMCPMC12453319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.