Literature DB >> 25321869

Cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease.

Jared D Ament1, Zhuo Yang1, Pierce Nunley2, Marcus B Stone2, Kee D Kim1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) was developed to treat cervical spondylosis, while preserving motion. While anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been the standard of care for 2-level disease, a randomized clinical trial (RCT) suggested similar outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of this intervention has never been elucidated.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of CTDR compared with ACDF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were derived from an RCT that followed up 330 patients over 24 months. The original RCT consisted of multi-institutional data including private and academic institutions. Using linear regression for the current study, health states were constructed based on the stratification of the Neck Disability Index and a visual analog scale. Data from the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaires were transformed into utilities values using the SF-6D mapping algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting Diagnosis-Related Group codes from institutional billing data and then applying 2012 Medicare reimbursement rates. The costs of complications and return-to-work data were also calculated. A Markov model was built to evaluate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. The model adopted a third-party payer perspective and applied a 3% annual discount rate. Patients included in the original RCT had to be diagnosed as having radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy at 2 contiguous levels from C3-C7 that was unresponsive to conservative treatment for at least 6 weeks or demonstrated progressive symptoms. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF.
RESULTS: A strong correlation (R2 = 0.6864; P < .001) was found by projecting a visual analog scale onto the Neck Disability Index. Cervical total disc replacement had an average of 1.58 QALYs after 24 months compared with 1.50 QALYs for ACDF recipients. Cervical total disc replacement was associated with $2139 greater average cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF was $24,594 per QALY at 2 years. Despite varying input parameters in the sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio value stays below the threshold of $50,000 per QALY in most scenarios (range, -$58,194 to $147,862 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with traditional ACDF is lower than the commonly accepted threshold of $50,000 per QALY. This remains true with varying input parameters in a robust sensitivity analysis, reaffirming the stability of the model and the sustainability of this intervention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25321869     DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.716

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  15 in total

1.  The Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion-a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study.

Authors:  Jarle Sundseth; Oddrun Anita Fredriksli; Frode Kolstad; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Are Hugo Pripp; Hege Andresen; Erling Myrseth; Kay Müller; Øystein P Nygaard; John-Anker Zwart
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Editorial on "Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial" by Sasso et al.

Authors:  Heeren S Makanji; Kenneth Nwosu; Christopher M Bono
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-12

3.  A Prospective Study of Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Stenosis: Early Cost-effective Assessment from the Total Posterior Spine System (TOPS™) IDE Study.

Authors:  Jared D Ament; Amir Vokshoor; Yaser Badr; Todd Lanman; Kee D Kim; J Patrick Johnson
Journal:  J Health Econ Outcomes Res       Date:  2022-03-25

4.  What is a better value for your time? Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Austen David Katz; Junho Song; Daniel Bowles; Terence Ng; Eric Neufeld; Sayyida Hasan; Dean Perfetti; Nipun Sodhi; David Essig; Jeff Silber; Sohrab Virk
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2022-09-14

5.  Current Concepts of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.

Authors:  David Turkov; Alan Job; Cesar Iturriaga; Rohit B Verma
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

6.  Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2019-02-19

Review 7.  Treatment of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration.

Authors:  Jingguo Xin; Yongjie Wang; Zhi Zheng; Shuo Wang; Shibo Na; Shaokun Zhang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up.

Authors:  Jared D Ament; Zhuo Yang; Pierce Nunley; Marcus B Stone; Darrin Lee; Kee D Kim
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.654

9.  Long-term Evaluation of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial with Seven-Year Follow-up.

Authors:  Kris Radcliff; Reginald J Davis; Michael S Hisey; Pierce D Nunley; Gregory A Hoffman; Robert J Jackson; Hyun W Bae; Todd Albert; Dom Coric
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-11-28

10.  Patterns of healthcare resource utilization prior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion in patients with radiculopathy.

Authors:  Sohrab Virk; Frank M Phillips; Safdar Khan
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-08-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.