Literature DB >> 18090078

Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain.

Rikke Soegaard1, Cody E Bünger, Terkel Christiansen, Kristian Høy, Søren P Eiskjaer, Finn B Christensen.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Cost-utility evaluation of a randomized, controlled trial with a 4- to 8-year follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) when comparing circumferential fusion to posterolateral fusion in a long-term, societal perspective. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The cost-effectiveness of circumferential fusion in a long-term perspective is uncertain but nonetheless highly relevant as the ISSLS prize winner 2006 in clinical studies reported the effect of circumferential fusion superior to the effect of posterolateral fusion. A recent trial found no significant difference between posterolateral and circumferential fusion reporting cost-effectiveness from a 2-year viewpoint.
METHODS: A total of 146 patients were randomized to posterolateral or circumferential fusion and followed 4 to 8 years after surgery. The mean age of the cohort was 46 years (range, 20-65 years); 61% were females, 49% were smokers, 30% had primary diagnosis of isthmic spondylolisthesis, 35% had disc degeneration and no previous surgery, and 35% had disc degeneration and previous surgery. Eighty-two percent of patients have had symptoms for more than 2 years and 50% were out of the labor market due to sickness. The EQ-5D instrument was applied for the measurement of health-related quality of life and costs (2004 U.S. dollars) were measured in a full-scale societal perspective. Productivity costs were valued by the Friction Cost method, and both costs and effects were discounted. Arithmetic means and 95% bias-corrected, bootstrapped confidence intervals were reported. Nonparametric statistics were used for tests of statistical significance. Comprehensive sensitivity analysis was conducted and reported using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
RESULTS: The circumferential group demonstrated clinical superiority over the posterolateral fusion group in functional outcome (P < 0.01), fusion rate (P < 0.04), and number of reoperations (P < 0.01) among others. Cost-utility analysis demonstrated circumferential fusion dominant over posterolateral fusion, that is, for each QALY gained performing circumferential fusion, the incremental saving was estimated at U.S. $49,306 (95% confidence interval, $27,183-$2,735,712). Results proved to be strong to various sensitivity analyses; only a differentiated underestimation of patients' need for postoperative household help against the circumferential approach could alter the dominance; however, still the probability of cost-effectiveness was >0.85 given a threshold for willingness to pay of U.S. $50,000 per QALY.
CONCLUSION: Circumferential fusion is dominant over instrumented posterolateral fusion, that is, both being significantly cheaper and significantly better in a long-term, societal perspective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18090078     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181573b2d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  17 in total

Review 1.  Current strategies for the restoration of adequate lordosis during lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Alice Darnis
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-01-18

2.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF).

Authors:  Jeffrey L Gum; Deepak Reddy; Steven Glassman
Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech       Date:  2016-06-08

3.  Addition of TLIF does not improve outcome over standard posterior instrumented fusion. 5-10 years long-term Follow-up: results from a RCT.

Authors:  Kristian Høy; Kamilla Truong; Thomas Andersen; Cody Bünger
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-07       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Value-based care in the management of spinal disorders: a systematic review of cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  Santoshi S Indrakanti; Michael H Weber; Steven K Takemoto; Serena S Hu; David Polly; Sigurd H Berven
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  A Christensen; K Høy; C Bünger; P Helmig; E S Hansen; T Andersen; R Søgaard
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Posterolateral versus circumferential instrumented fusion for monosegmental lumbar degenerative disc disease using an expandable cage.

Authors:  Panagiotis Korovessis; Thomas Repantis; Andreas Baikousis; Panagiotis Iliopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2011-10-21

7.  Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up.

Authors:  José I Maruenda; Carlos Barrios; Felipe Garibo; Borja Maruenda
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Long-term health care utilisation and costs after spinal fusion in elderly patients.

Authors:  Thomas Andersen; Cody Bünger; Rikke Søgaard
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Population-based utilities for upper extremity functions in the setting of tetraplegia.

Authors:  Ashwin N Ram; Catherine M Curtin; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.230

Review 10.  The Swedish Spine Register: development, design and utility.

Authors:  Björn Strömqvist; Peter Fritzell; Olle Hägg; Bo Jönsson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.