Cost-effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: an analysis based on a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether routine referral to municipal postoperative rehabilitation is cost-effective in comparison to no referral after surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: One hundred forty-six patients scheduled for primary discectomy due to LDH were included. This secondary analysis, based on data from a previous randomized controlled trial, compared costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between two groups of patients recovering from LDH surgery: one group of patients received a referral for municipal physical rehabilitation (REHAB) and the other group was sent home without a referral to any postoperative rehabilitation (HOME). Primary outcomes were QALYs calculated from the EQ-5D utility score, societal costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The main cost-effectiveness analysis used intention-to-treat data, whereas sensitivity analyses included as-treated data. Questionnaires were collected after 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The main cost-effectiveness analysis showed a small, insignificant incremental QALY of 0.021 and an incremental cost of €211.8 for the REHAB group compared to the HOME group, resulting in an ICER of €10,085. In the as-treated sensitivity analysis, the REHAB group had poorer outcomes and higher costs compared to the HOME group. CONCLUSIONS: Routine referral to municipal physical rehabilitation in patients recovering from LDH surgery was not cost-effective compared to no referral.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03505918 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Insurance type impacts the economic burden and survival of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

OBJECTIVE: Glioblastoma (GBM) carries a high economic burden for patients and caregivers, much of which is associated with initial surgery. The authors investigated the impact of insurance status on the inpatient hospital costs of surgery for patients with GBM. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients with GBM (2010-2015) undergoing their first resection at the University of California, San Francisco, and corresponding inpatient hospital costs. RESULTS: Of 227 patients with GBM (median age 62 years, 37.9% females), 31 (13.7%) had Medicaid, 94 (41.4%) had Medicare, and 102 (44.9%) had private insurance. Medicaid patients had 30% higher overall hospital costs for surgery compared to non-Medicaid patients ($50,285 vs $38,779, p = 0.01). Medicaid patients had higher intensive care unit (ICU; p < 0.01), operating room (p < 0.03), imaging (p < 0.001), room and board (p < 0001), and pharmacy (p < 0.02) costs versus non-Medicaid patients. Medicaid patients had significantly longer overall and ICU lengths of stay (6.9 and 2.6 days) versus Medicare (4.0 and 1.5 days) and privately insured patients (3.9 and 1.8 days, p < 0.01). Medicaid patients had similar comorbidity rates to Medicare patients (67.8% vs 68.1%), and both groups had higher comorbidity rates than privately insured patients (37.3%, p < 0.0001). Only 67.7% of Medicaid patients had primary care providers (PCPs) versus 91.5% of Medicare and 86.3% of privately insured patients (p = 0.009) at the time of presentation. Tumor diameter at diagnosis was largest for Medicaid (4.7 cm) versus Medicare (4.1 cm) and privately insured patients (4.2 cm, p = 0.03). Preoperative (70 vs 90, p = 0.02) and postoperative (80 vs 90, p = 0.03) Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) scores were lowest for Medicaid versus non-Medicaid patients, while in subgroup analysis, postoperative KPS score was lowest for Medicaid patients (80, vs 90 for Medicare and 90 for private insurance; p = 0.03). Medicaid patients had significantly shorter median overall survival (10.7 months vs 12.8 months for Medicare and 15.8 months for private insurance; p = 0.02). Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scores were 0.66 and 1.05 for Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients, respectively (p = 0.036). The incremental cost per QALY was $29,963 lower for the non-Medicaid cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with GBMs and Medicaid have higher surgical costs, longer lengths of stay, poorer survival, and lower QALY scores. This study indicates that these patients lack PCPs, have more comorbidities, and present later in the disease course with larger tumors; these factors may drive the poorer postoperative function and greater consumption of hospital resources that were identified. Given limited resources and rising healthcare costs, factors such as access to PCPs, equitable adjuvant therapy, and early screening/diagnosis of disease need to be improved in order to improve prognosis and reduce hospital costs for patients with GBM.

Estimating a price point for cost-benefit of bone morphogenetic protein in pseudarthrosis prevention for adult spinal deformity surgery.

OBJECTIVEBone morphogenetic protein (BMP) is associated with reduced rates of pseudarthrosis and has the potential to decrease the need for revision surgery. There are limited data evaluating the cost-benefit of BMP for pseudarthrosis-related prevention surgery in adult spinal deformity.METHODSThe authors performed a single-center retrospective review of 200 consecutive patients with adult spinal deformity. Demographic data and costs of BMP, primary surgery, and revision surgery for pseudarthrosis were collected. Patients with less than 12 months of follow-up or with infection, tumor, or neuromuscular disease were excluded.RESULTSOne hundred fifty-one patients (107 [71%] women) with a mean age of 65 years met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of levels fused was 10; BMP was used in 98 cases (65%), and the mean follow-up was 23 months. Fifteen patients (10%) underwent surgical revision for pseudarthrosis; BMP use was associated with an 11% absolute risk reduction in the rate of reoperation (17% vs 6%, p = 0.033), with a number needed to treat of 9.2. There were no significant differences in age, sex, upper instrumented vertebra, or number of levels fused in patients who received BMP. In a multivariate model including age, sex, number of levels fused, and the upper instrumented vertebra, only BMP (OR 0.250, 95% CI 0.078-0.797; p = 0.019) was associated with revision surgery for pseudarthrosis. The mean direct cost of primary surgery was $87,653 ± $19,879, and the mean direct cost of BMP was $10,444 ± $4607. The mean direct cost of revision surgery was $52,153 ± $26,985. The authors independently varied the efficacy of BMP, cost of BMP, and cost of reoperation by ± 50%; only reductions in the cost of BMP resulted in a cost savings per 100 patients. Using these data, the authors estimated a price point of $5663 in order for BMP to be cost-neutral.CONCLUSIONSUse of BMP was associated with a significant reduction in the rates of revision surgery for pseudarthrosis. At its current price, the direct in-hospital costs for BMP exceed the costs associated with revision surgery; however, this likely underestimates the true value of BMP when considering the savings associated with reductions in rehabilitation, therapy, medication, and additional outpatient costs.

The cost of hydrocephalus: a cost-effectiveness model for evaluating surgical techniques.

In BriefThe authors analyzed the costs associated with the three different procedures used to treat hydrocephalus in the pediatric population. They believe this study highlights the importance of patient-specific treatment decisions that are based on etiology and previous intervention. The patient-specific medical characteristics are a driving force in the cost of care.

Cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity surgery in a military healthcare system.

OBJECTIVEAdult spinal deformity surgery is an effective way of treating pain and disability, but little research has been done to evaluate the costs associated with changes in health outcome measures. This study determined the change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the cost per QALY in patients undergoing spinal deformity surgery in the unique environment of a military healthcare system (MHS).METHODSPatients were enrolled between 2011 and 2017. Patients were eligible to participate if they were undergoing a thoracolumbar spinal fusion spanning more than 6 levels to treat an underlying deformity. Patients completed the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) prior to surgery and 6 and 12 months after surgery. The authors used paired t-tests to compare SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores between baseline and postsurgery. To estimate the cost per QALY of complex spine surgery in this population, the authors extended the change in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between baseline and follow-up over 5 years. Data on the cost of surgery were obtained from the MHS and include all facility and physician costs.RESULTSHRQOL and surgical data were available for 49 of 91 eligible patients. Thirty-one patients met additional criteria allowing for cost-effectiveness analysis. Over 12 months, patients demonstrated significant improvement (p < 0.01) in SF-36 PCS scores. A majority of patients met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID; 83.7%) and substantive clinical benefit threshold (SCBT; 83.7%). The average change in QALY was an increase of 0.08. Extended across 5 years, including the 3.5% discounting per year, study participants increased their QALYs by 0.39, resulting in an average cost per QALY of $181,649.20. Nineteen percent of patients met the < $100,000/QALY threshold with half of the patients meeting the < $100,000/QALY mark by 10 years. A sensitivity analysis showed that patients who scored below 60 on their preoperative SF-36 PCS had an average increase in QALYs of 0.10 per year or 0.47 over 5 years.CONCLUSIONSWith a 5-year extended analysis, patients who receive spinal deformity surgery in the MHS increased their QALYs by 0.39, with 19% of patients meeting the $100,000/QALY threshold. The majority of patients met the threshold for MCID and SCBT at 1 year postoperatively. Consideration of preoperative functional status (SF-36 PCS score < 60) may be an important factor in determining which patients benefit the most from spinal deformity surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of preoperative motor mapping with navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation in patients with high-grade glioma.

OBJECTIVE Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is used to identify the motor cortex prior to surgery. Yet, there has, until now, been no published evidence on the economic impact of nTMS. This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of nTMS, evaluating the incremental costs of nTMS motor mapping per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY). By doing so, this study also provides a model allowing for future analysis of general cost-effectiveness of new neuro-oncological treatment options. METHODS The authors used a microsimulation model based on their cohort population sampled for 1000 patients over the time horizon of 2 years. A health care provider perspective was used to assemble direct costs of total treatment. Transition probabilities and health utilities were based on published literature. Effects were stated in QALYs and established for health state subgroups. RESULTS In all scenarios, preoperative mapping was considered cost-effective with a willingness-to-pay threshold < 3*per capita GDP (gross domestic product). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of nTMS versus no nTMS was 45,086 Euros/QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed robust results with a high impact of total treatment costs and utility of progression-free survival. Comparing the incremental costs caused by nTMS implementation only, the ICER decreased to 1967 Euros/QALY. CONCLUSIONS Motor mapping prior to surgery provides a cost-effective tool to improve the clinical outcome and overall survival of high-grade glioma patients in a resource-limited setting. Moreover, the model used in this study can be used in the future to analyze new treatment options in neuro-oncology in terms of their general cost-effectiveness.

Systematic review of health economic studies in cranial neurosurgery.

OBJECTIVE As the cost of health care continues to increase, there is a growing emphasis on evaluating the relative economic value of treatment options to guide resource allocation. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of cranial neurosurgery procedures. METHODS The authors performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, focusing on themes of economic evaluation and cranial neurosurgery following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Included studies were publications of cost-effectiveness analysis or cost-utility analysis between 1995 and 2017 in which health utility outcomes in life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were used. Three independent reviewers conducted the study appraisal, data abstraction, and quality assessment, with differences resolved by consensus discussion. RESULTS In total, 3485 citations were reviewed, with 53 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of those, 34 studies were published in the last 5 years. The most common subspecialty focus was cerebrovascular (32%), followed by neurooncology (26%) and functional neurosurgery (24%). Twenty-eight (53%) studies, using a willingness to pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY or LY, found a specific surgical treatment to be cost-effective. In addition, there were 11 (21%) studies that found a specific surgical option to be economically dominant (both cost saving and having superior outcome), including endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, epilepsy surgery for drug-refractory epilepsy, and endoscopic pituitary tumor resection. CONCLUSIONS There is an increasing number of cost-effectiveness studies in cranial neurosurgery, especially within the last 5 years. Although there are numerous procedures, such as endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, that have been conclusively proven to be cost-effective, there remain promising interventions in current practice that have yet to meet cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Markov modeling for the neurosurgeon: a review of the literature and an introduction to cost-effectiveness research.

OBJECTIVE Markov modeling is a clinical research technique that allows competing medical strategies to be mathematically assessed in order to identify the optimal allocation of health care resources. The authors present a review of the recently published neurosurgical literature that employs Markov modeling and provide a conceptual framework with which to evaluate, critique, and apply the findings generated from health economics research. METHODS The PubMed online database was searched to identify neurosurgical literature published from January 2010 to December 2017 that had utilized Markov modeling for neurosurgical cost-effectiveness studies. Included articles were then assessed with regard to year of publication, subspecialty of neurosurgery, decision analytical techniques utilized, and source information for model inputs. RESULTS A total of 55 articles utilizing Markov models were identified across a broad range of neurosurgical subspecialties. Sixty-five percent of the papers were published within the past 3 years alone. The majority of models derived health transition probabilities, health utilities, and cost information from previously published studies or publicly available information. Only 62% of the studies incorporated indirect costs. Ninety-three percent of the studies performed a 1-way or 2-way sensitivity analysis, and 67% performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. A review of the conceptual framework of Markov modeling and an explanation of the different terminology and methodology are provided. CONCLUSIONS As neurosurgeons continue to innovate and identify novel treatment strategies for patients, Markov modeling will allow for better characterization of the impact of these interventions on a patient and societal level. The aim of this work is to equip the neurosurgical readership with the tools to better understand, critique, and apply findings produced from cost-effectiveness research.

A scoping review on health economics in neurosurgery for acute spine trauma.

OBJECTIVE Acute spine trauma (AST) has a relatively low incidence, but it often results in substantial individual impairments and societal economic burden resulting from the associated disability. Given the key role of neurosurgeons in the decision-making regarding operative management of individuals with AST, the authors performed a systematic search with scoping synthesis of relevant literature to review current knowledge regarding the economic burden of AST. METHODS This systematic review with scoping synthesis included original articles reporting cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-comparison, and economic analyses related to surgical management of AST, whereby AST is defined as trauma to the spine that may result in spinal cord injury with motor, sensory, and/or autonomic impairment. The initial literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CCTR, and PubMed. All original articles captured in the literature search and published from 1946 to September 27, 2017, were included. Search terms used were the following: (cost analysis, cost effectiveness, cost benefit, economic evaluation or economic impact) AND (spine or spinal cord) AND (surgery or surgical). RESULTS The literature search captured 5770 titles, of which 11 original studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. These 11 studies included 4 cost-utility analyses, 5 cost analyses that compared the cost of intervention with a comparator, and 2 studies examining direct costs without a comparator. There are a few potentially cost-saving strategies in the neurosurgical management of individuals with AST, including 1) early surgical spinal cord decompression for acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (or traumatic thoracolumbar fractures, traumatic cervical fractures); 2) surgical treatment of the elderly with type-II odontoid fractures, which is more costly but more effective than the nonoperative approach among individuals with age at AST between 65 and 84 years; 3) surgical treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures, which is implicated in greater direct costs but lower general-practitioner visit costs, private expenditures, and absenteeism costs than nonsurgical management; and 4) removal of pedicle screws 1-2 years after posterior instrumented fusion for individuals with thoracolumbar burst fractures, which is more cost-effective than retaining the pedicle screws. CONCLUSIONS This scoping synthesis underscores a number of potentially cost-saving opportunities for neurosurgeons when managing patients with AST. There are significant knowledge gaps regarding the potential economic impact of therapeutic choices for AST that are commonly used by neurosurgeons.

Nerve transfer versus muscle transfer to restore elbow flexion after pan-brachial plexus injury: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE Pan-brachial plexus injury (PBPI), involving C5-T1, disproportionately affects young males, causing lifelong disability and decreased quality of life. The restoration of elbow flexion remains a surgical priority for these patients. Within the first 6 months of injury, transfer of spinal accessory nerve (SAN) fascicles via a sural nerve graft or intercostal nerve (ICN) fascicles to the musculocutaneous nerve can restore elbow flexion. Beyond 1 year, free-functioning muscle transplantation (FFMT) of the gracilis muscle can be used to restore elbow flexion. The authors present the first cost-effectiveness model to directly compare the different treatment strategies available to a patient with PBPI. This model assesses the quality of life impact, surgical costs, and possible income recovered through restoration of elbow flexion. METHODS A Markov model was constructed to simulate a 25-year-old man with PBPI without signs of recovery 4.5 months after injury. The management options available to the patient were SAN transfer, ICN transfer, delayed FFMT, or no treatment. Probabilities of surgical success rates, quality of life measurements, and disability were derived from the published literature. Cost-effectiveness was defined using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) defined by the ratio between costs of a treatment strategy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A strategy was considered cost-effective if it yielded an ICER less than a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to address parameter uncertainty. RESULTS The base case model demonstrated a lifetime QALYs of 22.45 in the SAN group, 22.0 in the ICN group, 22.3 in the FFMT group, and 21.3 in the no-treatment group. The lifetime costs of income lost through disability and interventional/rehabilitation costs were $683,400 in the SAN group, $727,400 in the ICN group, $704,900 in the FFMT group, and $783,700 in the no-treatment group. Each of the interventional modalities was able to dramatically improve quality of life and decrease lifelong costs. A Monte Carlo PSA demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY gained, SAN transfer dominated in 88.5% of iterations, FFMT dominated in 7.5% of iterations, ICN dominated in 3.5% of iterations, and no treatment dominated in 0.5% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS This model demonstrates that nerve transfer surgery and muscle transplantation are cost-effective strategies in the management of PBPI. These reconstructive neurosurgical modalities can improve quality of life and lifelong earnings through decreasing disability.

Pipeline embolization device versus coiling for the treatment of large and giant unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE Rupture of large or giant intracranial aneurysms leads to significant morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Both coiling and the Pipeline embolization device (PED) have been shown to be safe and clinically effective for the treatment of unruptured large and giant intracranial aneurysms; however, the relative cost-to-outcome ratio is unknown. The authors present the first cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the economic impact of the PED compared with coiling or no treatment for the endovascular management of large or giant intracranial aneurysms. METHODS A Markov model was constructed to simulate a 60-year-old woman with a large or giant intracranial aneurysm considering a PED, endovascular coiling, or no treatment in terms of neurological outcome, angiographic outcome, retreatment rates, procedural and rehabilitation costs, and rupture rates. Transition probabilities were derived from prior literature reporting outcomes and costs of PED, coiling, and no treatment for the management of aneurysms. Cost-effectiveness was defined, with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) defined as difference in costs divided by the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The ICERs < $50,000/QALY gained were considered cost-effective. To study parameter uncertainty, 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS The base-case model demonstrated lifetime QALYs of 12.72 for patients in the PED cohort, 12.89 for the endovascular coiling cohort, and 9.7 for patients in the no-treatment cohort. Lifetime rehabilitation and treatment costs were $59,837.52 for PED; $79,025.42 for endovascular coiling; and $193,531.29 in the no-treatment cohort. Patients who did not undergo elective treatment were subject to increased rates of aneurysm rupture and high treatment and rehabilitation costs. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the model was most sensitive to assumptions about the costs and mortality risks for PED and coiling. Probabilistic sampling demonstrated that PED was the cost-effective strategy in 58.4% of iterations, coiling was the cost-effective strategy in 41.4% of iterations, and the no-treatment option was the cost-effective strategy in only 0.2% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS The authors' cost-effective model demonstrated that elective endovascular techniques such as PED and endovascular coiling are cost-effective strategies for improving health outcomes and lifetime quality of life measures in patients with large or giant unruptured intracranial aneurysm.

Analyzing cost-effectiveness of ulnar and median nerve transfers to regain forearm flexion.

OBJECTIVE Peripheral nerve transfers to regain elbow flexion via the ulnar nerve (Oberlin nerve transfer) and median nerves are surgical options that benefit patients. Prior studies have assessed the comparative effectiveness of ulnar and median nerve transfers for upper trunk brachial plexus injury, yet no study has examined the cost-effectiveness of this surgery to improve quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The authors present a cost-effectiveness model of the Oberlin nerve transfer and median nerve transfer to restore elbow flexion in the adult population with upper brachial plexus injury. METHODS Using a Markov model, the authors simulated ulnar and median nerve transfers and conservative measures in terms of neurological recovery and improvements in quality of life (QOL) for patients with upper brachial plexus injury. Transition probabilities were collected from previous studies that assessed the surgical efficacy of ulnar and median nerve transfers, complication rates associated with comparable surgical interventions, and the natural history of conservative measures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as cost in dollars per QALY, were calculated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $50,000/QALY were considered cost-effective. One-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses were used to assess parameter uncertainty. Probabilistic sampling was used to assess ranges of outcomes across 100,000 trials. RESULTS The authors' base-case model demonstrated that ulnar and median nerve transfers, with an estimated cost of $5066.19, improved effectiveness by 0.79 QALY over a lifetime compared with conservative management. Without modeling the indirect cost due to loss of income over lifetime associated with elbow function loss, surgical treatment had an ICER of $6453.41/QALY gained. Factoring in the loss of income as indirect cost, surgical treatment had an ICER of -$96,755.42/QALY gained, demonstrating an overall lifetime cost savings due to increased probability of returning to work. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the model was most sensitive to assumptions about cost of surgery, probability of good surgical outcome, and spontaneous recovery of neurological function with conservative treatment. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that surgical intervention was cost-effective with an ICER of $18,828.06/QALY even with the authors' most conservative parameters with surgical costs at $50,000 and probability of success of 50% when considering the potential income recovered through returning to work. Probabilistic sampling demonstrated that surgical intervention was cost-effective in 76% of cases at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS The authors' model demonstrates that ulnar and median nerve transfers for upper brachial plexus injury improves QALY in a cost-effective manner.

Comparing clinical outcomes of repeat discectomy versus fusion for recurrent disc herniation utilizing the N2QOD.

OBJECTIVE Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is a significant cause of morbidity in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy and has been reported to occur in up to 18% of cases. While repeat discectomy is often successful in treating these patients, concern over repeat RLDH may lead surgeons to advocate instrumented fusion even in the absence of instability. The authors' goal was to compare clinical outcomes for patients undergoing repeat discectomy versus instrumented fusion for RLDH. METHODS The authors used the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD) to assess outcomes of patients who underwent repeat discectomy versus instrumented fusion at a single institution from 2012 to 2015. Primary outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) measures. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, discharge status, and hospital charges. RESULTS The authors identified 25 repeat discectomy and 12 instrumented fusion patients with 3- and 12-month follow-up records. The groups had similar ODI and VAS scores and QALY measurements at 3 and 12 months. Patients in the instrumented fusion group had significantly longer hospitalizations (3.7 days vs 1.0 days, p < 0.001) and operative times (229.6 minutes vs 82.7 minutes, p < 0.001). They were also more likely to be female (p = 0.020) and to be discharged to inpatient rehabilitation instead of home (p = 0.036). Hospital charges for the instrumented fusion group were also significantly higher ($54,458.29 vs $11,567.05, p < 0.001). Rates of reoperation were higher in the repeat discectomy group (12% vs 0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.211). CONCLUSIONS Repeat discectomy and instrumented fusion result in similar clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up. Patients undergoing repeat discectomy had significantly shorter operative times and length of stay, and they incurred dramatically lower hospital charges. They were also less likely to require acute rehabilitation postoperatively. Further research is needed to compare these two management strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiation therapy for up to 10 brain metastases.

OBJECTIVE The JLGK0901 study found that stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a safe and effective treatment option for treating up to 10 brain metastases. The purpose of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of treating up to 10 brain metastases with SRS, whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), or SRS and immediate WBRT (SRS+WBRT). METHODS A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of SRS, WBRT, and SRS+WBRT in patients with 1 or 2-10 brain metastases. Transition probabilities were derived from the JLGK0901 study and modified according to the recurrence rates observed in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9508 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22952-26001 studies to simulate the outcomes for patients who receive WBRT. Costs are based on 2015 Medicare reimbursements. Health state utilities were prospectively collected using the Standard Gamble method. End points included cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $100,000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty with regard to the model assumptions. RESULTS In patients with 1 brain metastasis, the ICERs for SRS versus WBRT, SRS versus SRS+WBRT, and SRS+WBRT versus WBRT were $117,418, $51,348, and $746,997 per QALY gained, respectively. In patients with 2-10 brain metastases, the ICERs were $123,256, $58,903, and $821,042 per QALY gained, respectively. On the sensitivity analyses, the model was sensitive to the cost of SRS and the utilities associated with stable post-SRS and post-WBRT states. In patients with 2-10 brain metastases, SRS versus WBRT becomes cost-effective if the cost of SRS is reduced by $3512. SRS versus WBRT was also cost effective at a WTP of $200,000 per QALY on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS The most cost-effective strategy for patients with up to 10 brain metastases is SRS alone relative to SRS+WBRT. SRS alone may also be cost-effective relative to WBRT alone, but this depends on WTP, the cost of SRS, and patient preferences.

Modeled cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis using N(2)QOD data.

OBJECTIVE Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become the most commonly used fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disorders. This suggests an expectation of better clinical outcomes with this technique, but this has not been validated consistently. How surgical variables and choice of health utility measures drive the cost-effectiveness of TLIF relative to posterolateral fusion (PSF) has not been established. The authors used health utility values derived from Short Form-6D (SF-6D) and EQ-5D and different cost-effectiveness thresholds to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of TLIF compared with PSF. METHODS From the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N(2)QOD), 101 patients with spondylolisthesis who underwent PSF were propensity matched to patients who underwent TLIF. Health-related quality of life measures and perioperative parameters were compared. Because health utility values derived from the SF-6D and EQ-5D questionnaires have been shown to vary in patients with low-back pain, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from both measures. On the basis of these matched cases, a sensitivity analysis for the relative cost per QALY of TLIF versus PSF was performed in a series of cost-assumption models. RESULTS Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, and 30-day and 90-day readmission rates were similar for the TLIF and PSF groups. Both TLIF and PSF significantly improved back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and EQ-5D and SF-6D scores at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. At 12 months postoperatively, patients who had undergone TLIF had greater improvements in mean ODI scores (30.4 vs 21.1, p = 0.001) and mean SF-6D scores (0.16 vs 0.11, p = 0.001) but similar improvements in mean EQ-5D scores (0.25 vs 0.22, p = 0.415) as patients treated with PSF. At a cost per QALY threshold of $100,000 and using SF-6D-based QALYs, the authors found that TLIF would be cost-prohibitive compared with PSF at a surgical cost of $4830 above that of PSF. However, with EQ-5D-based QALYs, TLIF would become cost-prohibitive at an increased surgical cost of $2960 relative to that of PSF. With the 2014 US per capita gross domestic product of $53,042 as a more stringent cost-effectiveness threshold, TLIF would become cost-prohibitive at surgical costs $2562 above that of PSF with SF-6D-based QALYs or at a surgical cost exceeding that of PSF by $1570 with EQ-5D-derived QALYs. CONCLUSIONS As with all cost-effectiveness studies, cost per QALY depended on the measure of health utility selected, durability of the intervention, readmission rates, and the accuracy of the cost assumptions.

Economic value of treating lumbar disc herniation in Brazil.

OBJECT: Lumbar discectomy is one of the most common surgical spine procedures. In order to understand the value of this surgical care, it is important to understand the costs to the health care system and patient for good results. The objective of this study was to evaluate for the first time the cost-effectiveness of spine surgery in Latin America for lumbar discectomy in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for patients in Brazil. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective cohort study involving 143 consecutive patients who underwent open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed utilizing the SF-6D, which is derived from a 12-month variation of the SF-36. Direct medical costs included medical reimbursement, costs of hospital care, and overall resource consumption. Disability losses were considered indirect costs. A 4-year horizon with 3% discounting was applied to health-utilities estimates. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying utility gain by 20%. The costs were expressed in Reais (R$) and US dollars ($), applying an exchange rate of 2.4:1 (the rate at the time of manuscript preparation). RESULTS: The direct and indirect costs of open lumbar discectomy were estimated at an average of R$3426.72 ($1427.80) and R$2027.67 ($844.86), respectively. The mean total cost of treatment was estimated at R$5454.40 ($2272.66) (SD R$2709.17 [$1128.82]). The SF-6D utility gain was 0.044 (95% CI 0.03197-0.05923, p = 0.017) at 12 months. The 4-year discounted QALY gain was 0.176928. The estimated cost-utility ratio was R$30,828.35 ($12,845.14) per QALY gained. The sensitivity analysis showed a range of R$25,690.29 ($10,714.28) to R$38,535.44 ($16,056.43) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The use of open lumbar discectomy to treat LDH is associated with a significant improvement in patient outcomes as measured by the SF-6D. Open lumbar discectomy performed in the Brazilian supplementary health care system provides a cost-utility ratio of R$30,828.35 ($12,845.14) per QALY. The value of acceptable cost-effectiveness will vary by country and region.

Contemporary health care economics: an overview.

Economic evaluations provide a decision-making framework in which outcomes (benefits) and costs are assessed for various alternative options. Although the interest in complete and partial economic evaluations has increased over the past 2 decades, the quality of studies has been marginal due to methodological challenges or incomplete cost determination. This paper provides an overview of the main types of complete and partial economic evaluations, reviews key methodological elements to be considered for any economic evaluation, and reviews concepts of cost determination. The goal is to provide the clinician neurosurgeon with the knowledge and tools needed to appraise published economic evaluations and to direct high-quality health economic evaluations.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: assessment of economic outcome.

A comprehensive economic analysis generally involves the calculation of indirect and direct health costs from a societal perspective as opposed to simply reporting costs from a hospital or payer perspective. Hospital charges for a surgical procedure must be converted to cost data when performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. Once cost data has been calculated, quality-adjusted life year data from a surgical treatment are calculated by using a preference-based health-related quality-of-life instrument such as the EQ-5D. A recent cost-utility analysis from a single study has demonstrated the long-term (over an 8-year time period) benefits of circumferential fusions over stand-alone posterolateral fusions. In addition, economic analysis from a single study has found that lumbar fusion for selected patients with low-back pain can be recommended from an economic perspective. Recent economic analysis, from a single study, finds that femoral ring allograft might be more cost-effective compared with a specific titanium cage when performing an anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus posterolateral fusion.

Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research.

OBJECT: Cost-effectiveness research in spine surgery has been a prominent focus over the last decade. However, there has yet to be a standardized method developed for calculation of costs in such studies. This lack of a standardized costing methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an intervention for a specific diagnosis. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review all cost-effectiveness studies published on spine surgery and compare and contrast various costing methodologies used. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature related to spine surgery. All cost-effectiveness analyses pertaining to spine surgery were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis registry database of the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy, and the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed to determine the study subject, methodology, and results. Data were collected from each study, including costs, interventions, cost calculation method, perspective of cost calculation, and definitions of direct and indirect costs if available. RESULTS: Thirty-seven cost-effectiveness studies on spine surgery were included in the present study. Twenty-seven (73%) of the studies involved the lumbar spine and the remaining 10 (27%) involved the cervical spine. Of the 37 studies, 13 (35%) used Medicare reimbursements, 12 (32%) used a case-costing database, 3 (8%) used cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs), 2 (5%) used a combination of Medicare reimbursements and CCRs, 3 (8%) used the United Kingdom National Health Service reimbursement system, 2 (5%) used a Dutch reimbursement system, 1 (3%) used the United Kingdom Department of Health data, and 1 (3%) used the Tricare Military Reimbursement system. Nineteen (51%) studies completed their cost analysis from the societal perspective, 11 (30%) from the hospital perspective, and 7 (19%) from the payer perspective. Of those studies with a societal perspective, 14 (38%) reported actual indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in cost have a direct impact on the value equation for concluding whether an intervention is cost-effective. It is essential to develop a standardized, accurate means of calculating costs. Comparability and transparency are essential, such that studies can be compared properly and policy makers can be appropriately informed when making decisions for our health care system based on the results of these studies.

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis: experience with the NeuroPoint-SD registry.

OBJECT: There is significant practice variation and uncertainty as to the value of surgical treatments for lumbar spine disorders. The authors' aim was to establish a multicenter registry to assess the efficacy and costs of common lumbar spinal procedures by using prospectively collected outcomes. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study was completed at 13 academic and community sites. Patients undergoing single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis or single-level lumbar discectomy were included. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Power analysis estimated a sample size of 160 patients: lumbar disc (125 patients) and lumbar listhesis (35 patients). The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) data were calculated using 6-dimension utility index scores. Direct costs and complication costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement values from 2011, and indirect costs were estimated using the human capital approach with the 2011 US national wage index. Total costs equaled $14,980 for lumbar discectomy and $43,852 for surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis. RESULTS: There were 198 patients enrolled over 1 year. The mean age was 46 years (49% female) for lumbar discectomy (n = 148) and 58.1 years (60% female) for lumbar spondylolisthesis (n = 50). Ten patients with disc herniation (6.8%) and 1 with listhesis (2%) required repeat operation at 1 year. The overall 1-year follow-up rate was 88%. At 30 days, both lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion procedures were associated with significant improvements in ODI, visual analog scale, and SF-36 scores (p = 0.0002), which persisted at the 1-year evaluation (p < 0.0001). By 1 year, more than 80% of patients in each cohort who were working preoperatively had returned to work. Lumbar discectomy was associated with a gain of 0.225 QALYs over the 1-year study period ($66,578/QALY gained). Lumbar spinal fusion for Grade I listhesis was associated with a gain of 0.195 QALYs over the 1-year study period ($224,420/QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: This national spine registry demonstrated successful collection of high-quality outcomes data for spinal procedures in actual practice. These data are useful for demonstrating return to work and cost-effectiveness following surgical treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation or spondylolisthesis. One-year cost per QALY was obtained, and this cost per QALY is expected to improve further by 2 years. This work sets the stage for real-world analysis of the value of health interventions.