Mitsuru Yagi1, Nobuyuki Fujita2, Eijiro Okada2, Osahiko Tsuji2, Narihito Nagoshi2, Takashi Tsuji3, Masaya Nakamura2, Morio Matsumoto2, Kota Watanabe4. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Japan; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, National Hospital Organization Murayama Medical Center, Japan; Keio Spine Research Group (KSRG), Japan. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Japan; Keio Spine Research Group (KSRG), Japan. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Fujita Health University, Japan; Keio Spine Research Group (KSRG), Japan. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Japan; Keio Spine Research Group (KSRG), Japan. Electronic address: watakota@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analysis of surgery for degenerative lumber spondylolisthesis (DS) is essential for healthcare providers and patients to select appropriate treatment. The purpose of this study was to review the cost-utility of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for DS. METHODS: A retrospective review of 99 consecutive patients who were treated for Meyerding grade 1 DS at two representative spine centers was performed. Patients with significant spinal instability were treated by decompression with fusion (F group, 40 patients); all others were treated by decompression surgery alone (D group, 59 patients). All patients were followed for three years. Demographic and radiographic data, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the direct cost for surgery were analyzed, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined using cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups in baseline demographics (D vs. F: age 68 ± 9 vs. 66 ± 7 years; 37% vs. 40% female) or HRQoL (ODI: D, 41 ± 16 vs. F, 46 ± 13%). The F group had a higher initial-surgery cost ($18,992 ± 2932) but lower reoperation frequency (7%) than the D group ($7660 ± 2182 and 12%, respectively). The three-year total direct cost was higher for F than for D ($19,222 ± 3332 vs. $9668 ± 6,168, p = .01). ICER was higher for F at one year ($136,408 ± 187,911 vs. $237,844 ± 212,049, p < .01), but was comparable for F and D at three years (D, $41,923 ± 44,503 vs. F, $51,313 ± 32,849, p = .17). CONCLUSION: At the three-year follow-up, the two methods had comparable cost-utility. Both methods were cost-effective (defined as an ICER within three times the per-capita gross domestic product).
BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analysis of surgery for degenerative lumber spondylolisthesis (DS) is essential for healthcare providers and patients to select appropriate treatment. The purpose of this study was to review the cost-utility of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for DS. METHODS: A retrospective review of 99 consecutive patients who were treated for Meyerding grade 1 DS at two representative spine centers was performed. Patients with significant spinal instability were treated by decompression with fusion (F group, 40 patients); all others were treated by decompression surgery alone (D group, 59 patients). All patients were followed for three years. Demographic and radiographic data, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the direct cost for surgery were analyzed, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined using cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups in baseline demographics (D vs. F: age 68 ± 9 vs. 66 ± 7 years; 37% vs. 40% female) or HRQoL (ODI: D, 41 ± 16 vs. F, 46 ± 13%). The F group had a higher initial-surgery cost ($18,992 ± 2932) but lower reoperation frequency (7%) than the D group ($7660 ± 2182 and 12%, respectively). The three-year total direct cost was higher for F than for D ($19,222 ± 3332 vs. $9668 ± 6,168, p = .01). ICER was higher for F at one year ($136,408 ± 187,911 vs. $237,844 ± 212,049, p < .01), but was comparable for F and D at three years (D, $41,923 ± 44,503 vs. F, $51,313 ± 32,849, p = .17). CONCLUSION: At the three-year follow-up, the two methods had comparable cost-utility. Both methods were cost-effective (defined as an ICER within three times the per-capita gross domestic product).