Abstract, Abstract?

Recently, TSB received a copy of an abstract entitled; "The Impact of Hydrosurgical Instruments and BMP on Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Outcomes." This abstract was submitted for presentation to NASS by Larry Khoo, M.D. A prospective study compared MIS with Conventional Instruments, MIS with Conventional instruments using INFUSE, and MIS TLIF using the SpineJet.

As shown rhBMP improved fusion rates compared to conventional methods, and no statistical difference is seen when rhBMP is compared to the hydrosurgical group.. The rhBMP group exhibited a higher rate of re-operation and post-op radicular pain. The hydrosurgical group had a similar rate of re-op as seen with conventional methods without BMP and significantly fewer incidents of post-op radiculopathy when compared to conventional methods with or without rhBMP. What this all comes down to is that excellent carpentry and disc preparation is tantamount to great results, especially when using rhBMP's. Read Hyun Bae's paper for more information on residual disc material and how it affects BMP's in the disc space.

This is great information from a clinical point of view, but TSB must ask Doug Daniels the proverbial question, "If the product does not have a ICD-9 Code or CPT Code" what good is the product if it adds to the cost of the surgery and you do not get reimbursed? In today's environment, are hospitals in the position to accept an additional $1,400 per case? Once again, arguing that you are reducing OR time is a moot case in point.