The Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Level Cervical Disc Replacement vs Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Markov Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. S115
Author(s):  
Jun Kim ◽  
Samuel C. Overley ◽  
Steven J. McAnany ◽  
Robert Brochin
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel C. Overley ◽  
Steven J. McAnany ◽  
Robert L. Brochin ◽  
Jun S. Kim ◽  
Robert K. Merrill ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. McAnany ◽  
Robert K. Merrill ◽  
Samuel C. Overley ◽  
Jun S. Kim ◽  
Robert L. Brochin ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 546-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheeraz A. Qureshi ◽  
Steven McAnany ◽  
Vadim Goz ◽  
Steven M. Koehler ◽  
Andrew C. Hecht

Object In recent years, there has been increased interest in the use of cervical disc replacement (CDR) as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). While ACDF is a proven intervention for patients with myelopathy or radiculopathy, it does have inherent limitations. Cervical disc replacement was designed to preserve motion, avoid the limitations of fusion, and theoretically allow for a quicker return to activity. A number of recently published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials have demonstrated positive clinical results for CDR, but no studies have revealed which of the 2 treatment strategies is more cost-effective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CDR and ACDF by using the power of decision analysis. Additionally, the authors aimed to identify the most critical factors affecting procedural cost and effectiveness and to define thresholds for durability and function to focus and guide future research. Methods The authors created a surgical decision model for the treatment of single-level cervical disc disease with associated radiculopathy. The literature was reviewed to identify possible outcomes and their likelihood following CDR and ACDF. Health state utility factors were determined from the literature and assigned to each possible outcome, and procedural effectiveness was expressed in units of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Using ICD-9 procedure codes and data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the authors calculated the median cost of hospitalization by multiplying hospital charges by the hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratio. Gross physician costs were determined from the mean Medicare reimbursement for each current procedural terminology (CPT) code. Uncertainty as regards both cost and effectiveness numbers was assessed using sensitivity analysis. Results In the reference case, the model assumed a 20-year duration for the CDR prosthesis. Cervical disc replacement led to higher average QALYs gained at a lower cost to society if both strategies survived for 20 years ($3042/QALY for CDR vs $8760/QALY for ACDF). Sensitivity analysis revealed that CDR needed to survive at least 9.75 years to be considered a more cost-effective strategy than ACDF. Cervical disc replacement becomes an acceptable societal strategy as the prosthesis survival time approaches 11 years and the $50,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold is crossed. Sensitivity analysis also indicated that CDR must provide a utility state of at least 0.796 to be cost-effective. Conclusions Both CDR and ACDF were shown to be cost-effective procedures in the reference case. Results of the sensitivity analysis indicated that CDR must remain functional for at least 14 years to establish greater cost-effectiveness than ACDF. Since the current literature has yet to demonstrate with certainty the actual durability and long-term functionality of CDR, future long-term studies are required to validate the present analysis.


Spine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (23) ◽  
pp. 1924-1933 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. McAnany ◽  
Samuel Overley ◽  
Evan O. Baird ◽  
Samuel K. Cho ◽  
Andrew C. Hecht ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. E6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niketh Bhashyam ◽  
Rafael De la Garza Ramos ◽  
Jonathan Nakhla ◽  
Rani Nasser ◽  
Ajit Jada ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to compare 30-day readmission and reoperation rates after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus those after cervical disc replacement (CDR). METHODS The authors used the 2013–2014 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Included were adult patients who underwent first-time single-level ACDF or CDR for cervical spondylosis or disc herniation. Primary outcome measures were readmission and/or reoperation within 30 days of the original surgery. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the independent effect of the procedure (ACDF or CDR) on outcome, and results are presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS A total of 6077 patients met the inclusion criteria; 5590 (92.0%) patients underwent single-level ACDF, and 487 (8.0%) patients underwent CDR. The readmission rates were 2.6% for ACDF and 0.4% for CDR (p = 0.003). When stratified according to age groups, only patients between the ages of 41 and 60 years who underwent ACDF had a significantly higher readmission rate than those who underwent CDR (2.5% vs 0.7%, respectively; p = 0.028). After controlling for patient age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, hypertension, steroid use, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, patients who underwent CDR were significantly less likely to undergo readmission within 30 days than patients who underwent ACDF (OR 0.23 [95% CI 0.06–0.95]; p = 0.041). Patients with a history of COPD (OR 1.97 [95% CI 1.08–3.57]; p = 0.026) or hypertension (OR 1.62 [95% CI 1.10–2.38]; p = 0.013) and those at ASA Class IV (OR 14.6 [95% CI 1.69–125.75]; p = 0.015) were significantly more likely to require readmission within 30 days. The reoperation rates were 1.2% for ACDF and 0.4% for CDR (p = 0.086), and multivariate analysis revealed that CDR was not associated with lower odds of reoperation (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.14–2.55]; p = 0.492). However, increasing age was associated with a higher risk (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.00–1.05]; p = 0.031) of reoperation; a 2% increase in risk per year of age was found. CONCLUSIONS Patients who underwent single-level ACDF had a higher readmission rate than those who underwent single-level CDR in this study. When stratified according to age, this effect was seen only in the 41- to 60-year age group. No significant difference in the 30-day single-level ACDF and single-level CDR reoperation rates was found. Although patients in the ACDF group were older and sicker, other unmeasured covariates might have accounted for the increased rate of readmission in this group, and further investigation is encouraged.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document