Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity: comparison of posterior-only versus anteroposterior approach.

Adult spinal deformity Combined anteroposterior approach Complications Cost-effectiveness Posterior-only approach QALY

Journal

The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
ISSN: 1878-1632
Titre abrégé: Spine J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101130732

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2020
Historique:
received: 20 08 2019
revised: 31 03 2020
accepted: 31 03 2020
pubmed: 15 4 2020
medline: 23 6 2021
entrez: 15 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Considerable debate exists regarding the optimal surgical approach for adult spinal deformity (ASD). It remains unclear which approach, posterior-only or combined anterior-posterior (AP), is more cost-effective. Our goal is to determine the 2-year cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for each approach. To compare the 2-year cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for ASD between the posterior-only approach and combined AP approach. Retrospective economic analysis of a prospective, multicenter database PATIENT SAMPLE: From a prospective, multicenter surgical database of ASD, patients undergoing five or more level fusions through a posterior-only or AP approach were identified and compared. QALYs gained were determined using baseline, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative Short Form 6D. Cost was calculated from actual, direct hospital costs including any subsequent readmission or revision. Cost-effectiveness was determined using cost/QALY gained. The AP approach showed significantly higher index cost than the posterior-only approach ($84,329 vs. $64,281). This margin decreased at 2-year follow-up with total costs of $89,824 and $73,904, respectively. QALYs gained at 2 years were similar with 0.21 and 0.17 in the posterior-only and the AP approaches, respectively. The cost/QALY at 2 years after surgery was significantly higher in the AP approach ($525,080) than in the posterior-only approach ($351,086). We assessed 2-year cost-effectiveness for the surgical treatment through posterior-only and AP approaches. The posterior-only approach is less expensive both for the index surgery and at 2-year follow-up. The QALY gained at 2-years was similar between the two approaches. Thus, posterior-only approach was more cost-effective than the AP approach under our study parameters. However, both approaches were not cost-effective at 2-year follow-up.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Considerable debate exists regarding the optimal surgical approach for adult spinal deformity (ASD). It remains unclear which approach, posterior-only or combined anterior-posterior (AP), is more cost-effective. Our goal is to determine the 2-year cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for each approach.
PURPOSE
To compare the 2-year cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for ASD between the posterior-only approach and combined AP approach.
STUDY DESIGN
Retrospective economic analysis of a prospective, multicenter database PATIENT SAMPLE: From a prospective, multicenter surgical database of ASD, patients undergoing five or more level fusions through a posterior-only or AP approach were identified and compared.
METHODS
QALYs gained were determined using baseline, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative Short Form 6D. Cost was calculated from actual, direct hospital costs including any subsequent readmission or revision. Cost-effectiveness was determined using cost/QALY gained.
RESULTS
The AP approach showed significantly higher index cost than the posterior-only approach ($84,329 vs. $64,281). This margin decreased at 2-year follow-up with total costs of $89,824 and $73,904, respectively. QALYs gained at 2 years were similar with 0.21 and 0.17 in the posterior-only and the AP approaches, respectively. The cost/QALY at 2 years after surgery was significantly higher in the AP approach ($525,080) than in the posterior-only approach ($351,086).
CONCLUSIONS
We assessed 2-year cost-effectiveness for the surgical treatment through posterior-only and AP approaches. The posterior-only approach is less expensive both for the index surgery and at 2-year follow-up. The QALY gained at 2-years was similar between the two approaches. Thus, posterior-only approach was more cost-effective than the AP approach under our study parameters. However, both approaches were not cost-effective at 2-year follow-up.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32289489
pii: S1529-9430(20)30136-4
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.03.018
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Multicenter Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1464-1470

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Yoji Ogura (Y)

Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray Street, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40204, USA. Electronic address: yojitotti1223@gmail.com.

Jeffrey L Gum (JL)

Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray Street, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40204, USA.

Richard A Hostin (RA)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Baylor Scoliosis Center, Dallas, TX 75093, USA.

Chessie Robinson (C)

Center for Clinical Effectiveness, Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, TX 75206, USA.

Christopher P Ames (CP)

Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Steven D Glassman (SD)

Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray Street, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40204, USA.

Douglas C Burton (DC)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA.

R Shay Bess (RS)

Denver International Spine Clinic, Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, Denver, CO 80218, USA.

Christopher I Shaffrey (CI)

Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University School of Medicine, 40 Duke Medicine Circle Clinic 1B/1C, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

Justin S Smith (JS)

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA.

Samrat Yeramaneni (S)

Center for Clinical Effectiveness, Baylor Scott & White Health, 8080 N. Central Expressway, Dallas, TX, 75206, USA.

Virginie F Lafage (VF)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY 10021, USA.

Themistocles Protopsaltis (T)

Department of Orthopaedics, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York.

Peter G Passias (PG)

Department of Orthopaedics, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York.

Frank J Schwab (FJ)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY 10021, USA.

Leah Y Carreon (LY)

Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray Street, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40204, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH