Dongdong Wang1, Wangcheng Xie1, Wenxin Cao1, Shisheng He1,2, Guoxin Fan1,2, Hailong Zhang1,3. 1. Orthopedic Department, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 2. Spinal Pain Research Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 3. Orthopedic Department, Putuo People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis (CUA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) techniques for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The annual cost of treatment for lumbar disc herniation is staggering. As the two major approaches of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD): percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) have gained recognition for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and showed similar clinical outcome. ost-utility analysis (CUA) can help clinicians make appropriate decisions about optimal health care for L5-S1 LDH. METHODS: Fifty and 25 patients were included in the PETD and PEID groups of the study. Patients' basic characteristics, health care costs, and clinical outcome of PETD and PEID group were collected and analyzed. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated and validated by EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: The mean total cost of the PETD group was $5275.58 ± 292.98 and the PEID group was $5494.45 ± 749.24. No significant differences were observed in hospitalization expenses, laboratory and radiographic evaluations expenses, surgical expenses, and drug costs. Surgical equipment and materials costs, and anesthesia expense in the PEID group were significantly higher than in the PETD group (P < 0.001). Clinical outcomes, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), also showed no significant differences between the two groups. The cost-effectiveness ratio of PETD and PEID were $6816.05 ± 717.90/QALY and $7073.30 ± 1081.44/QALY, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of PEID over PETD was $21887.00/QALY. CONCLUSION: Observed costs per QALY gained for L5-S1 LDH with PETD or PEID were similar for patients, demonstrating that the two different approaches of PELD are equally cost-effective and valuable interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.
STUDY DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis (CUA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) techniques for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The annual cost of treatment for lumbar disc herniation is staggering. As the two major approaches of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD): percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) have gained recognition for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and showed similar clinical outcome. ost-utility analysis (CUA) can help clinicians make appropriate decisions about optimal health care for L5-S1 LDH. METHODS: Fifty and 25 patients were included in the PETD and PEID groups of the study. Patients' basic characteristics, health care costs, and clinical outcome of PETD and PEID group were collected and analyzed. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated and validated by EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: The mean total cost of the PETD group was $5275.58 ± 292.98 and the PEID group was $5494.45 ± 749.24. No significant differences were observed in hospitalization expenses, laboratory and radiographic evaluations expenses, surgical expenses, and drug costs. Surgical equipment and materials costs, and anesthesia expense in the PEID group were significantly higher than in the PETD group (P < 0.001). Clinical outcomes, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), also showed no significant differences between the two groups. The cost-effectiveness ratio of PETD and PEID were $6816.05 ± 717.90/QALY and $7073.30 ± 1081.44/QALY, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of PEID over PETD was $21887.00/QALY. CONCLUSION: Observed costs per QALY gained for L5-S1 LDH with PETD or PEID were similar for patients, demonstrating that the two different approaches of PELD are equally cost-effective and valuable interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.
Authors: Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Friedrich Tieber; Stefan Hellinger; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho; Max Rogério Freitas Ramos; Zhang Xifeng; André Luiz Calderaro; Thiago Soares Dos Santos; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Marlon Sudário de Lima E Silva; Girish Datar; Jin-Sung Kim; Hyeun Sung Kim; Anthony Yeung Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2021-12
Authors: Jin-Sung Kim; Jun Ho Lee; Junseok Bae; Dong Chan Lee; Sang-Ha Shin; Han Joong Keum; Young Soo Choi; Sang Soo Eun; Seung Ho Shin; Hyun Jin Hong; Ji Yeon Kim; Tae Hyun Kim; Woojung Lim; Junghoon Kim; Sang-Min Park; Hyun-Jin Park; Hong-Jae Lee Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Ivo Abraham; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Albert E Telfeian; Morgan P Lorio; Stefan Hellinger; Martin Knight; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De Carvalho; Max Rogério Freitas Ramos; Álvaro Dowling; Manuel Rodriguez Garcia; Fauziyya Muhammad; Namath Hussain; Vicky Yamamoto; Babak Kateb; Anthony Yeung Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-06-29
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