Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in U.S. Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Increasing costs put the value of spine surgery under scrutiny. In health economics, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are used to compare the value of competing procedures. However, inconsistent methodology prevents standardization and implementation of recommendations. The goal of this study is to perform a systematic review of all U.S. CEAs in spine surgery reported to date, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and define metrics essential for high-quality CEAs. METHODS: We followed AMSTAR systematic review methods, identifying all U.S. spine surgery CEAs reported to March 2019 with a structured, reproducible search of PubMed, Embase, and the Tufts CEA Registry. RESULTS: We identified 40 CEA studies. Twelve (30%) used outcome data from a randomized controlled trial. To calculate costs, 22 (55%) used allowed charges but costing methods were often unclear or imprecise. Studies applying discounting had mean follow-up of 5.92 years compared with 3.00 years for studies without. Eleven of 15 (73%) cervical studies compared cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, finding cervical disc arthroplasty to be cost-effective (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life year) for 1-level and 2-level procedures. Eleven of 25 lumbar studies (44%) compared operative with nonoperative interventions for intervertebral disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Lumbar studies comparing surgical with nonoperative intervention found surgery at least cost-effective for intervertebral disc herniation and lumbar stenosis, but cost-effective only for lumbar spondylolisthesis at 4 years follow-up. Most studies (70%) lacked appropriate sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Costing methodology remains obscure and inconsistent and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results incomparable. The language of costing methodology must be standardized and sensitivity analyses of outcome and cost inputs mandatory for publication.

Comparative effectiveness of all levels miniplate fixation versus a modified hybrid fixation in cervical expansive open-door laminoplasty.

In this study, we first reported of a modified hybrid fixation method in expansive open-door laminoplasty (EOLP) in order to reduce medical costs. The purpose of the present study is to compare the surgical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the modified fixation with all levels miniplate fixation in EOLP for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Data of 67 patients who underwent EOLP from July 2015 to June 2016 were retrospectively analyzed, with 33 in the modified group and 34 in the all miniplate group based on their surgical approaches. Laminae were kept open with alternate levels miniplate and anchor fixation in the modified group, while with all levels miniplate fixation in the all miniplate group. Medical costs and clinical results including Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and occurrences of complications were investigated and compared between the 2 groups. After evaluation on X-ray, CT, and MRI, radiographic data reflecting cervical alignments, spinal canal enlargement and spinal cord decompression were collected and compared within each group and between the 2 groups.After a follow-up period of about 18 months, no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complication rates, VAS scores, neurological recovery rates and postoperative hospital stays were observed between the 2 groups. However, EOLP with the modified fixation costed less. When comparing the 2 groups, cervical curvature index (CCIs) which reflected cervical alignments and anteroposterior diameters (APDs) reflecting spinal canal enlargement at all the follow-ups had no significant differences. Postoperative open angles which reflected spinal cord decompression of C4 and C6 were significantly smaller in the modified group. However, that difference was no longer detected at the final follow-up. Within each group, APDs increased significantly after surgery. However, no significant differences in CCIs and open angles at different follow-ups were observed in each group.Compared with all miniplate fixation, the modified hybrid fixation in EOLP showed almost the same clinical and radiographic results. However, the modified hybrid fixation method could reduce costs.

Bundled payment reimbursement for anterior and posterior approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an analysis of private payer and Medicare databases.

OBJECTIVE Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a progressive spinal condition that often requires surgery. Studies have shown the clinical equivalency of anterior versus posterior approaches for CSM surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine the amount and type of resources used for anterior and posterior surgical treatment of CSM by using large national databases of clinical and financial information from patients. METHODS This study consists of 2 large cohorts of patients who underwent either an anterior or posterior approach for treatment of CSM. These patients were selected from the Medicare 5% National Sample Administrative Database (SAF5) and the Humana orthopedic database (HORTHO), which is a database of patients with private payer health insurance. The outcome measures were the cost of a 90-day episode of care, as well as a breakdown of the cost components for each surgical procedure between 2005 and 2014. RESULTS A total of 16,444 patients were included in this analysis. In HORTHO, there were 10,332 and 1556 patients treated with an anterior or posterior approach for CSM, respectively. In SAF5, there were 3851 and 705 patients who were treated by an anterior or posterior approach for CSM, respectively. The mean ± SD reimbursements for anterior and posterior approaches in the HORTHO database were $20,863 ± $2014 and $23,813 ± $4258, respectively (p = 0.048). The mean ± SD reimbursements for anterior and posterior approaches in the SAF5 database were $18,219 ± $1053 and $25,598 ± $1686, respectively (p < 0.0001). There were also significantly higher reimbursements for a rehabilitation/skilled nursing facility and hospital/inpatient care for patients who underwent a posterior approach in both the private payer and Medicare databases. In all cohorts in this study, the hospital-related reimbursement was more than double the surgeon-related reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS This study provides resource utilization information for a 90-day episode of care for both anterior and posterior approaches for CSM surgery. There is a statistically significant higher resource utilization for patients undergoing the posterior approach for CSM, which is consistent with the literature. Understanding the reimbursement patterns for anterior versus posterior approaches for CSM will help providers design a bundled payment for patients requiring surgery for CSM, and this study suggests that a subset of patients who require the posterior approach for treatment also require greater resources. The data also suggest that hospital-related reimbursement is the major driver of payments.

Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Laminoplasty and laminectomy with fusion are two common procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Controversy remains regarding the superior surgical treatment. PURPOSE: To compare short-term follow-up of laminoplasty to laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review comparing all patients undergoing surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy by a single surgeon. PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion by a single surgeon over a 5-year period (2007-2011). OUTCOME MEASURES: Cervical alignment and range of motion on pre- and post-operative radiographs and clinical outcome measures including Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), short form-12 mental (SF-12M) and physical (SF-12P) composite scores and visual analog pain scores for neck (VAS-N) and arm (VAS-A). METHODS: Patients undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion by a single surgeon were reviewed. Cohorts of 41 laminoplasty patients and 31 laminectomy with fusion patients were selected based on strict criteria. The cohorts were well matched based on pre-operative clinical scores, radiographic measurements, and demographics. The average follow-up was 19.2 months for laminoplasty and 18.2 months for laminectomy with fusion. Evaluated outcomes included Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI), short form-12 (SF-12), visual analog pain scores (VAS), cervical sagittal alignment, cervical range of motion, length of stay, cost and complications. RESULTS: The improvement in JOA, SF-12 and VAS scores was similar in the two cohorts after surgery. There was no significant change in cervical sagittal alignment in either cohort. Range-of-motion decreased in both cohorts, but to a greater degree after laminectomy with fusion. C5 nerve root palsy and infection were the most common complications in both cohorts. Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a higher rate of C5 nerve root palsy and overall complications. The average hospital length of stay and cost were significantly less with laminoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that laminoplasty may be superior to laminectomy with fusion in preserving cervical range of motion, reducing hospital stay and minimizing cost. However, the significance of these differences remains unclear, as laminoplasty clinical outcome scores were generally comparable to laminectomy with fusion.

Surgical outcomes of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an analysis of a national, administrative, longitudinal database.

OBJECTIVE The authors performed a population-based analysis of national trends, costs, and outcomes associated with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) in the United States. They assessed postoperative complications, resource utilization, and predictors of costs, in this surgically treated CSM population. METHODS MarketScan data (2006-2010) were used to retrospectively analyze the complications and costs of different spine surgeries for CSM. The authors determined outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior fusion, combined anterior/posterior fusion, and laminoplasty procedures. RESULTS The authors identified 35,962 CSM patients, comprising 5154 elderly (age ≥ 65 years) patients (mean 72.2 years, 54.9% male) and 30,808 nonelderly patients (mean 51.1 years, 49.3% male). They found an overall complication rate of 15.6% after ACDF, 29.2% after posterior fusion, 41.1% after combined anterior and posterior fusion, and 22.4% after laminoplasty. Following ACDF and posterior fusion, a significantly higher risk of complication was seen in the elderly compared with the nonelderly (reference group). The fusion level and comorbidity-adjusted ORs with 95% CIs for these groups were 1.54 (1.40-1.68) and 1.25 (1.06-1.46), respectively. In contrast, the elderly population had lower 30-day readmission rates in all 4 surgical cohorts (ACDF, 2.6%; posterior fusion, 5.3%; anterior/posterior fusion, 3.4%; and laminoplasty, 3.6%). The fusion level and comorbidity-adjusted odds ratios for 30-day readmissions for ACDF, posterior fusion, combined anterior and posterior fusion, and laminoplasty were 0.54 (0.44-0.68), 0.32 (0.24-0.44), 0.17 (0.08-0.38), and 0.39 (0.18-0.85), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The authors' analysis of the MarketScan database suggests a higher complication rate in the surgical treatment of CSM than previous national estimates. They found that elderly age (≥ 65 years) significantly increased complication risk following ACDF and posterior fusion. Elderly patients were less likely to experience a readmission within 30 days of surgery. Postoperative complication occurrence, and 30-day readmission were significant drivers of total cost within 90 days of the index surgical procedure.