• Family of patient who died after orthopedic surgery wins $35M verdict against hospital
  • Orthopedic surgeon wins $20M verdict against Johnson & Johnson
  • Minnesota orthopedic group hit with $111M negligence verdict
  • Orthopedic patient's death highlights potential dangers of prior authorization
  • Spine surgeon's video hits 1 million views on TikTok
  • Spine surgeon killed in Oklahoma hospital shooting
  • Spine surgeon owes $17M to paralyzed patient
  • Providence to pay $22.7M to settle unnecessary spine surgery allegations
  • Spine surgeon gets jail time for abusing patient during hospital visit
  • 'They're on really thin ice': Why 1 insurer has drawn spine surgeons' ire
  • Connecticut hospital to appeal $12.5M verdict to family of patient who died after orthopedic surgery
  • Orthopedic surgeon must face suit in patient's death
  • Spine surgeon 1 of 9 physician billionaires on Forbes' 2022 list
  • 23 spine device companies to watch in 2022
  • 4 spine technologies that promised more than they delivered
  • Orthopedic surgeon salary vs. average household income in each state
  • Orthopedic surgeon's health system exit steeped in controversy
  • Terminated orthopedic surgeon contracts with another New York hospital
  • Orthopedic surgeon convicted of battery at hospital
  • Billionaire spine surgeon buys $23.9M mansion
  • UArizona neurosurgery chair dies after motorcycle collision
  • Texas spine surgeon sued by State Farm over 'unnecessary' procedures
  • The spine tech surgeons say will explode in the next 5 years
  • Could Medtronic's spine business be the next medtech spinoff?
  • Ex-NFL player gets 5 years in prison for $2.9M healthcare fraud scheme
  • 41 'rising stars' in orthopedics
  • Orthopedic surgeon indicted in $10M telemedicine fraud scheme
  • Neurosurgeon's startup hits $1.2B valuation
  • Orthopedic surgeon fined for operating on wrong knee
  • Lawsuits build against Aetna's spine surgery coverage
  • Good news, bad news for orthopedic surgeons: 6 observations
  • Former spine surgeon owes $13M to 2 women over unnecessary procedures
  • Walmart's latest partnership pushes retailer into spine care
  • Texas spine surgeon's $11M verdict being appealed
  • 10 power players in orthopedics
  • Rothman Orthopaedics to become national brand, but no 'aspirations to go beyond US'
  • Sports medicine physician fired amid misconduct allegations involving patients
  • Orthopedic surgeon allegedly exaggerated patient visits to defraud insurers
  • Top orthopedic hospital in every state: US News
  • Orthopedic surgeon asking for misconduct charges to be dropped
  • 7 areas of exciting spine technology development and acquisition in value-based care

    7 areas of exciting spine technology development and acquisition in value-based care

    Laura Dyrda -  

    Dennis Crandall, MD, medical director of Phoenix-based Sonoran Spine, has experience at the cutting-edge of spine surgery and practice development.

    In addition to his responsibilities with Sonoran, Dr. Crandall is the chairman of the Sonoran Spine Research and Education Foundation, co-chair of the public relations committee for the Scoliosis Research Society and a clinical professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix. He also serves as head of spine education at Phoenix-based Mayo Clinic-Arizona Orthopedic Surgery Residency Program.

    Here, Dr. Crandall discusses his thoughts on seven key areas of spinal innovation development and where he sees the best opportunities for future technology advancement in the value-based care environment.

    Note: responses have been lightly edited for clarity and length.

    Question: What technology and techniques are most exciting for you in the future?

    Dr. Dennis Crandall: Here are my thoughts on seven key areas.

    1. Biologics: New bone graft options with real basic science and clinical data supporting their use; Pain control alternatives that minimize opiate use; Osteoporotic bone strengthening through injectable products and pharmaceuticals; Bone graft delivery technologies for the interbody space; Alternatives to BMP with similar efficacy in achieving arthrodesis.

    2. Biomechanics: "Smart" implants that measure load forces; Bone-friendly surface technologies for cage design; Bone graft-friendly expandable interbody implants; Computer modeling of interspace and implant stresses; Computer modeling of adjacent segment degeneration factors and potential solutions.

    3. Biomaterials: Dissolvable spinal implants; Surface technology for interbody cages.

    4. Diagnosis: Low-cost MRI scanners and technology; Lower cost radiographic imaging with 3D capability.

    5. Surgical performance: Robots are on the rise and will continue to command attention because of their potential uses; Power tools that decrease the work surgeons do or make the work go faster; Efficient case and tray design for decreasing hospital sterile processing; Improved intraoperative neuro-monitoring techniques that are more consistent and reliable.

    6. Deformity: MIS techniques; Addressing the big problem of proximal junctional kyphosis through computer modeling, implant design, construct design and biomaterials testing.

    7. MIS: Non-fusion technologies for spondylolisthesis.

    Despite continued and increasing pricing pressures placed on new (and existing) spine technology from the payers every year, creative diagnostic and surgical technologies continue to advance. That is a little surprising.

    Q: How do you evaluate new technologies and techniques?

    DC: In the current era of cost-conscious healthcare delivery in spine, I look for technology that will make a difference in the actual outcomes for my patients. The insurance companies and other large data collectors are tracking every outcome and complication my patients have and comparing that to how much the care I provided cost to achieve that outcome.

    As a result, I look for things that make my surgeries faster, get my patients up and functional quicker, achieve reliable fusions, are associated with fewer complications and make a difference in patient-reported outcomes. New technology must help to solve a clinical problem in a way that is at least as effective as what is used now, without introducing new complications. Depending on how well it performs in these areas, payers/hospitals/surgeons will assess the appropriateness of the price, and the price must not outpace the benefits. In my area, only truly disruptive technology commands a price premium across the market.

    Q: Is your practice moving toward value-based care? How does new technology fit in, whether you're taking cases to a hospital or outpatient surgery center?

    DC: In Phoenix, we are very heavily managed care, with close scrutiny by both payers and hospitals. ASCs with surgeon investors are under incentive to limit technology to value-based options. Hospitals are holding meetings to provide surgeons with cost and profitability feedback in order to apply not-so-subtle pressure for cost containment. Gain share arrangements that incentivize surgeons to partner with hospitals to lower costs are common. Bundled payment plans are becoming more popular. Unless surgeons move toward not accepting insurance or Medicare, they are being forced into participating in value-based care.


    To participate in future Q&As with Becker's Spine Review, contact Laura Dyrda at ldyrda@beckershealthcare.com.


    Copyright © 2022 Becker's Healthcare. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy. Linking and Reprinting Policy.

    Featured Learning Opportunities

    Featured Webinars

    Featured Podcast

    Featured Whitepapers