PURPOSE: Long-lasting low back pain is an increasing problem, and for some patients surgery is the final option for improvement. Several techniques for spinal fusion are available and the optimal technique remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared to posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) from the societal perspective. METHODS:100 Patients were randomized to TLIF or PLF (51/49) and followed for 2 years. Cost data were acquired from national registers, and outcomes were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index and SF-6D questionnaires. Conventional cost-effectiveness methodology was employed to estimate net benefit and to illustrate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The statistical analysis was based on means and bootstrapped confidence intervals. RESULTS: Results showed no statistically significant difference in either cost or effects although a tendency for the TLIF regimen being more costly on bed days (<euro>2,554) and production loss (<euro>1,915) was observed. The probability that TLIF would be cost-effective did not exceed 30 % for any threshold of willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis was conducted and supported the statistical model for handling of missing data. CONCLUSION:TLIF does not seem to be a relevant alternative to PLF from a socioeconomic, societal point of view.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Long-lasting low back pain is an increasing problem, and for some patients surgery is the final option for improvement. Several techniques for spinal fusion are available and the optimal technique remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared to posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) from the societal perspective. METHODS: 100 Patients were randomized to TLIF or PLF (51/49) and followed for 2 years. Cost data were acquired from national registers, and outcomes were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index and SF-6D questionnaires. Conventional cost-effectiveness methodology was employed to estimate net benefit and to illustrate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The statistical analysis was based on means and bootstrapped confidence intervals. RESULTS: Results showed no statistically significant difference in either cost or effects although a tendency for the TLIF regimen being more costly on bed days (<euro>2,554) and production loss (<euro>1,915) was observed. The probability that TLIF would be cost-effective did not exceed 30 % for any threshold of willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis was conducted and supported the statistical model for handling of missing data. CONCLUSION: TLIF does not seem to be a relevant alternative to PLF from a socioeconomic, societal point of view.
Authors: S C Humphreys; S D Hodges; A G Patwardhan; J C Eck; R B Murphy; L A Covington Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Benjamin K Potter; Brett A Freedman; Eric G Verwiebe; Jordan M Hall; David W Polly; Timothy R Kuklo Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2005-08
Authors: Kristian Høy; Cody Bünger; Bent Niederman; Peter Helmig; Ebbe Stender Hansen; Haisheng Li; Thomas Andersen Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2013-04-13 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Brian J C Freeman; Nicholas A Steele; Tracey H Sach; James Hegarty; Rikke Soegaard Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Lars G Johnsen; Christian Hellum; Oystein P Nygaard; Kjersti Storheim; Jens I Brox; Ivar Rossvoll; Gunnar Leivseth; Margreth Grotle Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Silky Chotai; Scott L Parker; J Alex Sielatycki; Ahilan Sivaganesan; Harrison F Kay; Joseph B Wick; Matthew J McGirt; Clinton J Devin Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Augusto Covaro; Gemma Vilà-Canet; Ana García de Frutos; Maite T Ubierna; Francesco Ciccolo; Enric Caceres Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2017-03-13
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
Authors: Inge J M H Caelers; Suzanne L de Kunder; Kim Rijkers; Wouter L W van Hemert; Rob A de Bie; Silvia M A A Evers; Henk van Santbrink Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240