Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive midline lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Mladen Djurasovic ◽  
Jeffrey L. Gum ◽  
Charles H. Crawford ◽  
Kirk Owens ◽  
Morgan Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Direct Costs ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

OBJECTIVEThe midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF.METHODSFrom a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D.RESULTSOf 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551).CONCLUSIONSCompared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.

scholarly journals Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0245963
Author(s):  
Inge J. M. H. Caelers ◽  
Suzanne L. de Kunder ◽  
Kim Rijkers ◽  
Wouter L. W. van Hemert ◽  
Rob A. de Bie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Introduction The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. Methods Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Results Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low. Conclusions This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results. Trial registration Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

scholarly journals Impact of Early Intervertebral Osseous Union After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion on Health-Related Quality of Life

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822095381
Author(s):  
Hiroki Ushirozako ◽  
Tomohiko Hasegawa ◽  
Shigeto Ebata ◽  
Tetsuro Ohba ◽  
Hiroki Oba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Delayed Union ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Loosening ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Osseous Union ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Nonunion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is associated with poor improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We aimed to investigate the influence of early osseous union after PLIF on HRQOL. Methods: We reviewed 138 patients with 1-level PLIF (mean age 67 years, follow-up period ≥1 year). Postoperative lumbar computed tomography was performed to assess screw loosening and intervertebral union. HRQOL was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire. Results: Thirty-nine patients (28%) showed complete union at 6 months postoperatively (early union group). Twenty-eight patients (20%) showed complete union at 6 to 12 months postoperatively (delayed union group), while 71 patients demonstrated noncomplete union. Effective improvement of lumbar spine dysfunction and psychological disorders was achieved in 19 (63.3%) and 17 (50.0%) patients in the early union group, in 9 (42.9%) and 14 (53.8%) patients in the delayed union group, and in 22 (34.9%) and 19 (29.2%) patients in the nonunion group, respectively ( P = .036 and P = .036, respectively). The nonunion group had a significantly higher proportion of cases with screw loosening at 6 and 12 months postoperatively than the complete union group ( P = .033 and P = .022). Conclusions: Lumbar spine dysfunction and psychological disorders improved in cases with early complete union compared to those with nonunion. Screw loosening occurred in cases with nonunion predominantly from 6 months postoperatively. Therefore, the achievement of early complete union might be helpful for better HRQOL and lower incidence of postoperative complications.

Cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Owoicho Adogwa ◽  
Scott L. Parker ◽  
Brandon J. Davis ◽  
Oran Aaronson ◽  
Clinton Devin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Pain Disability ◽  
The Mean

Object Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis-associated back and leg pain is associated with improvement in pain, disability, and quality of life. However, given the rising health care costs associated with spinal fusion procedures and varying results of recent cost-utility studies, the cost-effectiveness of TLIF remains unclear. The authors set out to assess the comprehensive costs of TLIF at their institution and to determine its cost-effectiveness in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods Forty-five patients undergoing TLIF for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis–associated back and leg pain after 6–12 months of conservative therapy were included. The authors assessed the 2-year back pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, leg pain VAS score, Oswestry Disability Index, and total back-related medical resource utilization, missed work, and health-state values (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs], calculated from EQ-5D with US valuation). Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts (direct cost), and patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). The mean total 2-year cost per QALY gained after TLIF was assessed. Results Compared with preoperative health states reported after at least 6 months of medical management, a significant improvement in back pain VAS score, leg pain VAS score, and Oswestry Disability Index was observed 2 years after TLIF, with a mean 2-year gain of 0.86 QALYs. The mean ± SD total 2-year cost of TLIF was $36,836 ± $11,800 (surgery cost, $21,311 ± $2800; outpatient resource utilization cost, $3940 ± $2720; indirect cost, $11,584 ± $11,363). Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was associated with a mean 2-year cost per QALY gained of $42,854. Conclusions Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion improved pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis–associated back and leg pain. The total cost per QALY gained for TLIF was $42,854 when evaluated 2 years after surgery with Medicare fees, suggesting that TLIF is a cost-effective treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

scholarly journals Robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective matched-control analysis for clinical and quality-of-life outcomes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiuyuan Chen ◽  
Qingxin Song ◽  
Kun Wang ◽  
Zhi Chen ◽  
Yingchao Han ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Control Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Quality Of Life Outcomes

Aim: To compare the screw accuracy and clinical outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RA MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF in the treatment of one-level lumbar degenerative disease. Materials & methods: From May 2018 to December 2019, a consecutive series of patients undergoing robot-assisted minimally invasive one-level lumbar fusion procedures were retrospectively compared with matched controls who underwent one-level open TLIF procedures for clinical and quality-of-life outcomes. Results: A total of 52 patients underwent RA MIS-TLIF procedures (robot-assisted [RA] group) and 52 matched controls received freehand open TLIF procedures (open [OP] group). The RA group had more grade A screws with 96.2% one-time success rate of screw placement (p < 0.05). Besides, the RA group experienced less intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay, while the OP group had shorter operative duration and cumulative radiation time (p < 0.001). What is more, the average VAS score for low back pain and ODI score in the RA group were lower than that in the OP group 1 month after operation (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The use of real-time, image-guided robot system may further expand the advantages of MIS-TLIF technique in terms of accuracy and safety.

scholarly journals Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Based on Long-Term Analysis of 304 Consecutive Patients

Spine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. E191-E198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mick J. Perez-Cruet ◽  
Namath S. Hussain ◽  
G. Zachary White ◽  
Evan M. Begun ◽  
Robert A. Collins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Quality Of Life Outcomes ◽  
Term Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document