Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: Cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain

Spine

Volumn 32, Issue 22, 2007, Pages 2405-2414

  Soegaard, Rikke ^a   Bünger, Cody E ^a   Christiansen, Terkel ^b   Høy, Kristian ^a   Eiskjaer, Søren P ^a   Christensen, Finn B ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Chronic low back pain; Cost utility evaluation; Health economic evaluation; Lumbar spinal fusion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL ASPECTS OF DISEASE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT; LUMBAR DISK; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SMOKING; SPINE FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYMPTOM;

ADULT; AGED; CHRONIC DISEASE; COHORT STUDIES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN, INTRACTABLE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 37349083501     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181573b2d     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R, et al. Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 2006;31:2875-80.
2. Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Eiskjaer SP, et al. Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients. Spine 2002;27:2674-83.
3. Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Laursen M, et al. Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion: randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine 2002;27:1269-77.
4. Ekman P, Moller H, Hedlund R. The long-term effect of posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a randomized controlled study. Spine J 2005;5:36-44.
5. Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, et al. Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ 2005;330:1233.
6. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, et al. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 1997;22:2807-12.
7. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies. Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 2001;26:2521-32.
8. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 2002;27:1131-41.
9. Moller H, Hedlund R. Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized study: Part 2. Spine 2000;25:1716-21.
10. Moller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized study: Part 1. Spine 2000;25:1711-5.
11. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, et al. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine 1997;22:2813-22.
12. Soegaard R, Christensen FB. Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno 2005. Eur Spine J 2005; [Epub ahead of print Dec 21].
13. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 2004;29:421-34.
14. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000;20:332-42.
15. Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, et al. Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2005;330:1239.
16. Lawlis GF, Cuencas R, Selby D, et al. The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire: an assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior. Spine 1989;14:511-6.
17. EuroQol group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208.
18. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996;5:141-54.
19. Almen lægepraksis i Danmark. Almen praksis i sundhedstjenesten. København: Månedskrift for praktisk lægegerning; 2005.
20. Soegaard R, Christensen FB, Christiansen T, et al. Costs and effects in lumbar spinal fusion: a follow-up study in 136 consecutive patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2006; [Epub ahead of print Jul 27].
21. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, et al. The Friction Cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995;14:171-89.
22. Rice DP, Cooper BS. The economic value of human life. Am J Public Health Nations Health 1967;57:1954-66.
23. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to Bootstrap, 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1993.
24. Lothgren M, Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2000;9:623-30.
25. Kuntz KM, Snider RK, Weinstein JN, et al. Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 2000;25:1132-9.
26. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993;13:89-102.
27. Gaist D, Sorensen HT, Hallas J. The Danish prescription registries. Dan Med Bull 1997;44:445-8.
28. Mosbech J, Jorgensen J, Madsen M, et al. The national patient registry: evaluation of data quality. Ugeskr Laeger 1995;157:3741-5.
29. Olivarius ND, Hollnagel H, Krasnik A, et al. The Danish National Health Service Register: a tool for primary health care research. Dan Med Bull 1998;44:449-53.
30. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Sculpher MJ, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
31. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Garber AM, et al. Productivity costs, time costs and health-related quality of life: a response to the Erasmus Group. Health Econ. 1997;6:505-10.
32. Sculpher MJ, O'Brien BJ. Income effects of reduced health and health effects of reduced income: implications for health-state valuation. Med Decis Making 2000;20:207-15.
33. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.