RESUMO
PURPOSE: Anterior Temporal Lobectomy (ATL) is the gold standard surgical treatment for refractory temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), but it carries the risks associated with invasiveness, including cognitive and visual deficits and potential damage to eloquent structures. Laser thermal hippocampectomy (LTH) is a new procedure that offers a less invasive alternative to the standard open approach. In this decision analysis, we determine the seizure freedom rate at which LTH would be equivalent to ATL. METHODS: MEDLINE searches were performed for studies of ATL from 1995 to 2014. Using complication and success rates from the literature, we constructed a decision analysis model for treatment with ATL and LTH. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from examining patient preferences in similar clinical conditions. LTH data were obtained from a preliminary multicenter study report following patients for 6-12 months. A sensitivity analysis in which major parameters were systematically varied within their 95% CIs was used. RESULTS: 350 studies involving 25,144 cases of ATL were included. Outcomes of LTH were taken from a recently presented multicenter series of 68 cases. Over a 10-year postoperative modeling period, LTH value was 5.9668 QALYs and ATL value was 5.8854. Sensitivity analysis revealed that probabilities of seizure control and late morbidity of LTH are most likely to affect outcomes compared to ATL. We calculated that LTH would need to stop disabling seizures (Engel class I) in at least 43% of cases and have fewer than 40% late mortality/morbidity to result in quality of life at least as good as that after ATL. CONCLUSIONS: This decision analysis based on early follow-up data suggests LTH has similar utility to ATL. These early data support LTH as a potentially comparable less invasive alternative to ATL in refractory TLE. LTH utility may remain comparable to ATL even if long-term seizure control is less than that of ATL. Larger prospective studies with long-term follow up will be needed to validate the true role of LTH in the refractory epilepsy patient population.
Assuntos
Lobectomia Temporal Anterior , Epilepsia do Lobo Temporal/cirurgia , Hipocampo/cirurgia , Terapia a Laser , Lobo Temporal/cirurgia , Lobectomia Temporal Anterior/efeitos adversos , Lobectomia Temporal Anterior/métodos , Teoria da Decisão , Epilepsia do Lobo Temporal/mortalidade , Seguimentos , Humanos , Terapia a Laser/efeitos adversos , Terapia a Laser/métodos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias , Qualidade de Vida , Reoperação , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis with decision analysis and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (with autograft, allograft, or spacers), anterior cervical discectomy without fusion (ACD), and cervical disc replacement (CDR) for the treatment of 1-level cervical disc disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is debate as to the optimal anterior surgical strategy to treat single-level cervical disc disease. Surgical strategies include 3 techniques of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (autograft, allograft, or spacer-assisted fusion), ACD, and CDR. Several controlled trials have compared these treatments but have yielded mixed results. Decision analysis provides a structure for making a quantitative comparison of the costs and outcomes of each treatment. METHODS: A literature search was performed and yielded 156 case series that fulfilled our search criteria describing nearly 17,000 cases. Data were abstracted from these publications and pooled meta-analytically to estimate the incidence of various outcomes, including index-level and adjacent-level reoperation. A decision analytic model calculated the expected costs in US dollars and outcomes in quality-adjusted life years for a typical adult patient with 1-level cervical radiculopathy subjected to each of the 5 approaches. RESULTS: At 5 years postoperatively, patients who had undergone ACD alone had significantly (P < 0.001) more quality-adjusted life years (4.885 ± 0.041) than those receiving other treatments. Patients with ACD also exhibited highly significant (P < 0.001) differences in costs, incurring the lowest societal costs ($16,558 ± $539). Follow-up data were inadequate for comparison beyond 5 years. CONCLUSION: The results of our decision analytic model indicate advantages for ACD, both in effectiveness and costs, over other strategies. Thus, ACD is a cost-effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and CDR in patients with single-level cervical disc disease. Definitive conclusions about degenerative changes after ACD and adjacent-level disease after CDR await longer follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.