Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis

Spine

Volumn 39, Issue 22, 2014, Pages S75-S85

  Harrop, James S ^a   Hilibrand, Alan ^b   Mihalovich, Kathryn E ^c   Dettori, Joseph R ^c   Chapman, Jens ^d  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b ROTHMAN INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c Spectrum Research Inc   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Arthrodesis; Cost; Fusion; ICER; Instrumented fusion; Lumbar spine; QALY; Quality; Spondylolisthesis; Stenosis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HUMAN; LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SPINE FUSION; SPINE SURGERY; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; SPINAL STENOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SPINAL FUSION; SPINAL STENOSIS; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84936802830     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000545     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Tosteson AN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:845-53.
2. Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:2061-8.
3. Burnett MG, Stein SC, Bartels RH. Cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: nonsurgical care, laminectomy, and X-STOP. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:39-46.
4. Udeh BL, Costandi S, Dalton JE, et al. The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients [published online ahead of print January 3, 2014]. Pain Pract 2014. doi: 10.1111/papr.12160.
5. Kim S, Mortaz Hedjri S, Coyte PC, et al. Cost-utility of lumbar decompression with or without fusion for patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J 2012;12:44-54.
6. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:1132-9.
7. Battie MC, Jones CA, Schopflocher DP, et al. Health-related quality of life and comorbidities associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 2012;12:189-95.
8. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, et al. Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:1123-31.
9. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, et al. Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:382-7.
10. Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Kreuter W, et al. Characteristics in Medicare beneficiaries associated with reoperation after lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19:1329-34.
11. Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, et al. Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:1463-70.
12. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, et al. Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:2119-26.
13. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:802-8.
14. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2807-12.
15. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2813-22.
16. Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, et al. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective longterm study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:726-33; discussion 733-4.
17. Gertzbein SD, Hollopeter MR, Hall S. Pseudarthrosis of the lumbar spine. Outcome after circumferential fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:2352-6; discussion 2356-7.
18. Heggeness MH, Esses SI. Classification of pseudarthroses of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991;16(suppl 8):S449-54.
19. Park JH, Roh SW. Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes following stand-alone PLIF surgery using expandable cylindrical threaded cages in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011;153:1409-16; discussion 1416.
20. Vaccaro AR, Lawrence JP, Patel T, et al. The safety and efficacy of OP-1 (rhBMP-7) as a replacement for iliac crest autograft in posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis: a long-term (>4 yr) pivotal study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2850-62.
21. Birkmeyer NJ, Weinstein JN, Tosteson AN, et al. Design of the Spine Patient outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:1361-72.
22. Goel VK, Pope MH. Biomechanics of fusion and stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20(suppl 24):85S-99S.
23. Zucherman J, Hsu K, Picetti G III, et al. Clinical efficacy of spinal instrumentation in lumbar degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1992;17:834-7.
24. Glaser J, Stanley M, Sayre H, et al. A 10-year follow-up evaluation of lumbar spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:1390-5.
25. Bjarke Christensen F, Stender Hansen E, 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:1269-77.
26. Andersen T, Videbaek TS, Hansen ES, et al. The positive effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion is preserved at long-term follow-up: a RCT with 11-13-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2008;17:272-80.
27. Zdeblick TA. A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:983-91.
28. Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in health care: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2008;8:165-78.
29. Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Mullins CD. Health care rationing by proxy: cost-effectiveness analysis and the misuse of the $50,000 threshold in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:175-84.
30. Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT Jr, et al. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care 2008;46:349-56.
31. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, et al. Cost-utility analyses in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1253-9.
32. Rampersaud YR, Tso P, Walker KR, et al. Comparative outcomes and cost-utility following surgical treatment of focal lumbar spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: part 2 - estimated lifetime incremental cost-utility ratios. Spine J 2014;14:244-54.
33. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations revisited. CMAJ 1993;148:927-9.