A randomized controlled trial of the X-Stop interspinous distractor device versus laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis with 2-year quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common and debilitating condition that is increasing in prevalence in the world population. Surgical decompression is often standard treatment when conservative measures have failed. Interspinous distractor devices (IDDs) have been proposed as a safe alternative; however, the associated cost and early reports of high failure rates have brought their use into question. The primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness and long-term quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes after treatment of LSS with the X-Stop IDD compared with surgical decompression by laminectomy. METHODS: A multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial of 47 patients with LSS was conducted; 21 patients underwent insertion of the X-Stop device and 26 underwent laminectomy. The primary outcomes were monetary cost and QOL measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire administered at 6-, 12-, and 24-month time points. RESULTS: The mean monetary cost for the laminectomy group was £2712 ($3316 [USD]), and the mean cost for the X-Stop group was £5148 ($6295): £1799 ($2199) procedural cost plus £3349 mean device cost (£2605 additional cost per device). Using an intention-to-treat analysis, the authors found that the mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain for the laminectomy group was 0.92 and that for the X-Stop group was 0.81. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -£22,145 (-$27,078). The revision rate for the X-Stop group was 19%. Five patients crossed over to the laminectomy arm after being in the X-Stop group. CONCLUSIONS: Laminectomy was more cost-effective than the X-Stop for the treatment of LSS, primarily due to device cost. The X-Stop device led to an improvement in QOL, but it was less than that in the laminectomy group. The use of the X-Stop IDD should be reserved for cases in which a less-invasive procedure is required. There is no justification for its regular use as an alternative to decompressive surgery. Clinical trial registration no.: ISRCTN88702314 (www.isrctn.com).

Cost-effectiveness of cell saver in short-segment lumbar laminectomy and fusion (≤3 levels).

STUDY DESIGN: Mixed retrospective-prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To characterize practice patterns for the use of Cell Saver at our institution, investigate its cost-effectiveness, and propose a new tool for patient selection. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Blood loss is an exceedingly common complication of spine surgery, and Cell Saver intraoperative cell salvage has been used to decrease reliance on allogeneic blood transfusions for blood volume replacement. The cost-effectiveness of Cell Saver has not been established for lumbar spinal surgery, and no universal guidelines exist for clinicians to decide when to utilize this tool. Other authors have proposed cutoffs for anticipated blood loss volumes which indicate that Cell Saver should be used. METHODS: Five hundred and eight patients undergoing lumbar laminectomy in 3 or fewer levels were reviewed from our prospective spinal outcomes registry. Cost information for Cell Saver and allogeneic transfusions was collected from our institution's billing and collections department. Logistic regression was used to identify patient characteristics associated with use of Cell Saver. An incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated based on transfusion and cost data. A clinical prediction score was derived using logistic regression. RESULTS: Use of Cell Saver correlated with increased age, higher body mass index, diabetes, greater American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and greater number of previous spine surgeries. Outcomes for patients who did and did not have Cell Saver set up intraoperatively were equivocal. Cell Saver was not cost effective based on current usage patterns, but may become cost effective if used for patients with high expected blood loss. A simple clinical prediction rule is proposed which may aid in selection of patients to have Cell Saver present intraoperatively. CONCLUSION: Cell Saver is not a cost-effective intervention but may become cost effective if a threshold of expected intraoperative blood loss is used to select patients more judiciously. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.