Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis

SAS Journal

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 29-35

  Rampersaud, Y Raja ^a,b   Gray, Randolph ^b   Lewis, Steven J ^a,b   Massicotte, Eric M ^a,b   Fehlings, Michael G ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cost utility analysis; Economic; Lumbar fusion; Minimally invasive; Open

Indexed keywords

HEMOGLOBIN;

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; BODY MASS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMORBIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEMOGLOBIN BLOOD LEVEL; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; IMAGING; INCIDENTAL DUROTOMY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY; LENGTH OF STAY; LUMBAR SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENINX DISORDER; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; NURSING; OPERATING ROOM; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHARMACY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE INFECTION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SEX; SHORT FORM 36; SHORT FORM 6D; SPINE FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; URINARY TRACT INFECTION;

EID: 79955980014     PISSN: 19359810     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.esas.2011.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Oppenheimer J.H., DeCastro I., McDonnell D.E. Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus 2009, 27:E9.
2. Holly L.T., Schwender J.D., Rouben D.P., Foley K.T. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006, 20:E6.
3. Schwender J.D., Holly L.T., Rouben D.P., Foley K.T. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005, 18(Suppl):S1-S6.
4. Khoo L.T., Palmer S., Laich D.T., Fessler R.G. Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 2002, 51(Suppl). S166-1.
5. Tsutsumimoto T., Shimogata M., Ohta H., Misawa H. Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34:1923-1928.
6. Peng C.W., Yue W.M., Poh S.Y., Yeo W., Tan S.B. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34:1385-1389.
7. Kasis A.G., Marshman L.A., Krishna M., Bhatia C.K. Significantly improved outcomes with a less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion incorporating total facetectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34:572-577.
8. Dhall S.S., Wang M.Y., Mummaneni P.V. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2008, 9:560-565.
9. Starkweather A.R., Witek-Janusek L., Nockels R.P., Peterson J., Mathews H.L. The multiple benefits of minimally invasive spinal surgery: results comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar fusion. J Neurosci Nurs 2008, 40:32-39.
10. Scheufler K.M., Dohmen H., Vougioukas V.I. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 2007, 60(Suppl 2):203-213.
11. Park Y., Ha J.W. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32:537-543.
12. Kim D.Y., Lee S.H., Chung S.K., Lee H.Y. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30:123-129.
13. Glassman S.D., Carreon L.Y., Djurasovic M., Dimar J.R., Johnson J.R., Puno R.M., Campbell M.J. Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 2009, 9:13-21.
14. Mirza S.K., Deyo R.A. Systematic review of randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to nonoperative care for treatment of chronic back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32:816-823.
15. Irwin Z.N., Hilibrand A., Gustavel M., McLain R., Shaffer W., Myers M., Glaser J., Hart R.A. Variation in surgical decision making for degenerative spinal disorders. Part I: lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30:2208-2213.
16. Weinstein J.N., Lurie J.D., Tosteson T.D., Hanscom B., Tosteson A.N., Blood E.A., Birkmeyer N.J., Hilibrand A.S., Herkowitz H., Cammisa F.P., Albert T.J., Emery S.E., Lenke L.G., Abdu W.A., Longley M., Errico T.J., Hu S.S. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:2257-2270.
17. Jacobs W.C., Vreeling A., De Kleuver M. Fusion for low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 2006, 15:391-402.
18. Martin C.R., Gruszczynski A.T., Braunsfurth H.A., Fallatah S.M., O'Neil J., Wai E.K. The surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32:1791-1798.
19. Joseph V., Rampersaud Y.R. Heterotopic bone formation with the use of rhBMP2 in posterior minimal access interbody fusion: a CT analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32:2885-2890.
20. Cahill K.S., Chi J.H., Day A., Claus E.B. Prevalence, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion procedures. JAMA 2009, 302:58-66.
21. Carreon L.Y., Glassman S.D., Djurasovic M., Dimar J.R., Johnson J.R., Puno R.M., Campbell M.J. Are preoperative health-related quality of life scores predictive of clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34:725-730.
22. Tosteson A.N., Lurie J.D., Tosteson T.D., Skinner J.S., Herkowitz H., Albert T., Boden S.D., Bridwell K., Longley M., Andersson G.B., Blood E.A., Grove M.R., Weinstein J.N. Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med 2008, 149:845-853. SPORT Investigators.
23. Jansson K.A., Nemeth G., Granath F., Jonsson B., Blomqvist P. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009, 91:210-216.
24. Walters S.J., Brazier J.E. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values?. The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:4.
25. McDonough C.M., Grove M.R., Tosteson T.D., Lurie J.D., Hilibrand A.S., Tosteson A.N. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:1321-1332.
26. Primer on cost-effectiveness analysis. Effective Clinical Practice September/October 2000, American College of Physicians Internal Medicine Doctors for Adults Web site, Accessed January 31, 2010. http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/journals_publications/ecp/sepoct00/primer.htm.
27. Wynia M. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States. JAMA 2006, 295:2722. author reply, 2722-3.
28. Detsky A.S., Laupacis A. Relevance of cost-effectiveness analysis to clinicians and policy makers. JAMA 2007, 298:221-224.
29. Soegaard R., Christensen F.B. Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno 2005. Eur Spine J 2006, 15:1165-1173.
30. Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society's health values?. BMJ 2004, 329:1233-1236.
31. Robinson R. Cost-utility analysis. BMJ 1993, 307:859-862.
32. Joore M., Brunenberg D., Nelemans P., Wouters E., Kuijpers P., Honig A., Willems D., de Leeuw P., Severens J., Boonen A. The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health 2010, 13:222-229.
33. Sach T.H., Barton G.R., Jenkinson C., Doherty M., Avery A.J., Muir K.R. Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter?. Med Care 2009, 47:889-894.
34. Søgaard R., Christensen F.B., Videbaek T.S., Bünger C., Christiansen T. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Value Health 2009, 12:606-612.
35. Grieve R., Grishchenko M., Cairns J. SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur J Health Econ 2009, 10:15-23.
36. Kontodimopoulos N., Pappa E., Papadopoulos A.A., Tountas Y., Niakas D. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res 2009, 18:87-97.
37. Petrou S., Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 2005, 14:1169-1189.
38. Walters S.J., Brazier J.E. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:1523-1532.
39. Brazier J., Roberts J., Tsuchiya A., Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004, 13:873-884.