• Rohin Singh, Cameron Zamanian, George Bcharah, Henry Stonnington, Derek D George, Archis R Bhandarkar, Shane Shahrestani, Nolan Brown, Mickey E Abraham, Antonios Mammis, Mohamad Bydon, and David Gonda.
• Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA. Electronic address: singrohin@gmail.com.
• World Neurosurg. 2024 May 1; 185: e1230e1243e1230-e1243.

BackgroundFor patients with medically refractory epilepsy, newer minimally invasive techniques such as laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) have been developed in recent years. This study aims to characterize trends in the utilization of surgical resection versus LITT to treat medically refractory epilepsy, characterize complications, and understand the cost of this innovative technique to the public.MethodsThe National Inpatient Sample database was queried from 2016 to 2019 for all patients admitted with a diagnosis of medically refractory epilepsy. Patient demographics, hospital length of stay, complications, and costs were tabulated for all patients who underwent LITT or surgical resection within these cohorts.ResultsA total of 6019 patients were included, 223 underwent LITT procedures, while 5796 underwent resection. Significant predictors of increased patient charges for both cohorts included diabetes (odds ratio: 1.7, confidence interval [CI]: 1.44-2.19), infection (odds ratio: 5.12, CI 2.73-9.58), and hemorrhage (odds ratio: 2.95, CI 2.04-4.12). Procedures performed at nonteaching hospitals had 1.54 greater odds (CI 1.02-2.33) of resulting in a complication compared to teaching hospitals. Insurance status did significantly differ (P = 0.001) between those receiving LITT (23.3% Medicare; 25.6% Medicaid; 44.4% private insurance; 6.7 Other) and those undergoing resection (35.3% Medicare; 22.5% Medicaid; 34.7% private Insurance; 7.5% other). When adjusting for patient demographics, LITT patients had shorter length of stay (2.3 vs. 8.9 days, P < 0.001), lower complication rate (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.385), and lower mean hospital ($139,412.79 vs. $233,120.99, P < 0.001) and patient ($55,394.34 vs. $37,756.66, P < 0.001) costs.ConclusionsThe present study highlights LITT's advantages through its association with lower costs and shorter length of stay. The present study also highlights the associated predictors of LITT versus resection, such as that most LITT cases happen at academic centers for patients with private insurance. As the adoption of LITT continues, more data will become available to further understand these issues.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

32 keywords...

hide…