Literature DB >> 21959840

Cost-utility analysis of minimally invasive versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy for lumbar stenosis.

Scott L Parker1, Owoicho Adogwa, Brandon J Davis, Erin Fulchiero, Oran Aaronson, Joseph Cheng, Clinton J Devin, Matthew J McGirt.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Two-year cost-utility study comparing minimally invasive (MIS) versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine whether MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a cost-effective advancement in lumbar decompression surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MIS-multilevel hemilaminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis allows for effective treatment of back and leg pain while theoretically minimizing blood loss, tissue injury, and postoperative recovery. No studies have evaluated comprehensive healthcare costs associated with multilevel hemilaminectomy procedures, nor assessed cost-effectiveness of MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy.
METHODS: Fifty-four consecutive patients with lumbar stenosis undergoing multilevel hemilaminectomy through an MIS paramedian tubular approach (n=27) versus midline open approach (n=27) were included. Total back-related medical resource utilization, missed work, and health state values [quality adjusted life years (QALYs), calculated from EuroQuol-5D with US valuation] were assessed after 2-year follow-up. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts (direct cost) and work-day losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Difference in mean total cost per QALY gained for MIS versus open hemilaminectomy was assessed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER: COST(MIS)-COST(OPEN)/QALY(MIS)-QALY(OPEN)).
RESULTS: MIS versus open cohorts were similar at baseline. MIS and open hemilaminectomy were associated with an equivalent cumulative gain of 0.72 QALYs 2 years after surgery. Mean direct medical costs, indirect societal costs, and total 2-year cost ($23,109 vs. $25,420; P=0.21) were similar between MIS and open hemilaminectomy. MIS versus open approach was associated with similar total costs and utility, making it a cost equivalent technology compared with the traditional open approach.
CONCLUSIONS: MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy was associated with similar cost over 2 years while providing equivalent improvement in QALYs. In our experience, MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy is a cost equivalent technology for patients with lumbar stenosis-associated radicular pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 21959840     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318232313d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  10 in total

Review 1.  Economic impact of minimally invasive lumbar surgery.

Authors:  Christoph P Hofstetter; Anna S Hofer; Michael Y Wang
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-03-18

Review 2.  Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar decompressions and fusions.

Authors:  Ankur S Narain; Fady Y Hijji; Jonathan S Markowitz; Krishna T Kudaravalli; Kelly H Yom; Kern Singh
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

3.  Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery.

Authors:  Kelechi Eseonu; Uche Oduoza; Mohamed Monem; Mohamed Tahir
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-07-14

Review 4.  The association between pain scores and disc height change following discectomy surgery in lumbar disc herniation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaolong Chen; Harvinder S Sandhu; Jose Vargas Castillo; Ashish D Diwan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Comparative Cost Analysis of Endoscopic versus Microscopic Endonasal Transsphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Adenomas.

Authors:  Chikezie Ikechukwu Eseonu; Karim ReFaey; Oscar Garcia; Roberto Salvatori; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2017-08-08

6.  Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.

Authors:  Francesco Costa; Oscar L Alves; Carla D Anania; Mehmet Zileli; Maurizio Fornari
Journal:  World Neurosurg X       Date:  2020-03-10

Review 7.  Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Nikhil R Nayak; James H Stephen; Matthew A Piazza; Adetokunbo A Obayemi; Sherman C Stein; Neil R Malhotra
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-07-29

Review 8.  Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge following lumbar decompression surgery: A systematic review.

Authors:  Edward Goacher; Matthew I Sanders; Marcel Ivanov
Journal:  Brain Spine       Date:  2022-04-18

9.  Comparing Utility Scores in Common Spinal Radiculopathies: Results of a Prospective Valuation Study.

Authors:  Nikhil R Nayak; James H Stephen; Kalil G Abdullah; Sherman C Stein; Neil R Malhotra
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-09-01

10.  Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Authors:  Andrew S Chung; Alexander Ballatori; Brandon Ortega; Elliot Min; Blake Formanek; John Liu; Patrick Hsieh; Raymond Hah; Jeffrey C Wang; Zorica Buser
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-09-25
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.