Use of Local Morselized Bone Autograft in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Cost Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated the financial influence of surgical site local morselized bone autograft (LMBA) on the overall cost of spinal arthrodesis procedures. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential savings from introducing LMBA in spinal fusion procedures compared with no LMBA use. METHODS: Retrospectively, cost analysis was conducted on a single-center data collected from 266 patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) ranging from L1 through S1 during a period of approximately 4 years. Cost data were obtained from individual patient invoices from the distributor. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted for different costs of allograft and LMBA. RESULTS: A total of 282 levels were grafted in 266 subjects. The total quantity of LMBA harvested was 2433.5 mL, and a total of 1610 mL of allograft (Trinity Elite, ORTHOFIX, Lewisville, Texas, USA) were used. The overall cost savings from introducing LMBA in MI-TLIF surgery were $1,094,931 over the 4-year period with mean direct cost saving of $4116.28 per patient based on reduction in allograft. Results for cost savings per patient were sensitive to different direct costs of allograft and LMBA. A >95% fusion rate was achieved based on dynamic radiographs evaluated by an independent radiologist. CONCLUSIONS: LMBA is a cost-saving bone graft extender option in MI-TLIF procedures while achieving high fusion rates. The savings are mainly achieved by reducing the amount of allograft needed and subsequent reduction in the total bone graft costs. Further research needs to be performed regarding long-term economic benefit.

Allografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

PURPOSE: To review the relative cost-effectiveness of allografts and autografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. METHODS: Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The available evidence does not show any significant difference in clinical effectiveness between autografts and allografts. Given that, only a cost analysis is provided, which shows that allografts are more costly. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of any benefit of allografts over autografts, autografts should be preferred on cost grounds, if available. However, there may be situations where an allograft is indicated, for example, in multiple ligament reconstructions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Autograft or allograft for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of allografts versus autografts in the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments. METHODS: Systematic review of comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Both autograft and allograft reconstruction are highly effective. Recent studies show little difference in failure rates between autografts and allografts (about 6% and 7%, respectively). In cost-effectiveness analysis, the price differential is the main factor, making autografts the first choice. However, there will be situations, particularly in revision ACL reconstruction, where an allograft may be preferred, or may be the only reasonable option available. CONCLUSION: In ACL reconstruction, clinical results with autografts are as good as or slightly better than with allografts. Allografts cost more, indicating that autografts are more cost-effective and should usually be first choice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

A comparison and cost analysis of cranioplasty techniques: autologous bone versus custom computer-generated implants.

BACKGROUND: Cranioplasty can be performed either with gold-standard, autologous bone grafts and osteotomies or alloplastic materials in skeletally mature patients. Recently, custom computer-generated implants (CCGIs) have gained popularity with surgeons because of potential advantages, which include preoperatively planned contour, obviated donor-site morbidity, and operative time savings. A remaining concern is the cost of CCGI production. The purpose of the present study was to objectively compare the operative time and relative cost of cranioplasties performed with autologous versus CCGI techniques at our center. METHODS: A review of all autologous and CCGI cranioplasties performed at our institution over the last 7 years was performed. The following operative variables and associated costs were tabulated: length of operating room, length of ward/intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hardware/implants utilized, and need for transfusion. RESULTS: Total average cost did not differ statistically between the autologous group (n = 15; $25,797.43) and the CCGI cohort (n = 12; $28,560.58). Operative time (P = 0.004), need for ICU admission (P < 0.001), and number of complications (P = 0.008) were all statistically significantly less in the CCGI group. The length of hospital stay and number of cases needing transfusion were fewer in the CCGI group but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study demonstrated no significant increase in overall treatment cost associated with the use of the CCGI cranioplasty technique. In addition, the latter was associated with a statistically significant decrease in operative time and need for ICU admission when compared with those patients who underwent autologous bone cranioplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, therapeutic.

Biological substitutes/extenders for spinal arthrodesis: which agents are cost-effective?

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lumbar or cervical spinal arthrodesis using biological substitutes and extenders compared with iliac crest autograft for the treatment of degenerative spinal conditions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The cost-effectiveness of using bone graft substitutes and extenders for spinal fusion compared with using iliac crest autograft is not yet well established. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, EMBASE, the CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) database, and Tuft's CEA registry for literature published through December 2013 was performed to identify full formal economic analyses comparing the use of biological grafts with iliac crest bone graft in spinal fusion for thoracolumbar or cervical degenerative, deformity, and traumatic spinal conditions. Economic outcomes such as cost per improved outcome or cost per quality-adjusted life year were reported in the context of the model type, analytic perspective clinical comparisons, and sensitivity analyses employed. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 88 citations, and 6 full economic analyses ultimately met our inclusion criteria. For the comparison of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 to iliac crest bone graft in the lumbar spine, data from 4 cost-effectiveness studies and 1 cost-utility study provided discordant conclusions that varied with type of data used, cost-measurement methods, and study design. In the cervical spine, one study suggested that from a societal perspective, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with allograft is similarly cost-effective as ACDF with autograft. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that compared with use of iliac crest bone graft in lumbar spinal fusion, use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein is not cost-effective from a payer perspective with higher upfront costs, but it may be cost-effective from a societal perspective due to a decrease in lost productivity. The data in this study also suggest that from a societal perspective, ACDF with allograft is similarly cost-effective to ACDF with autograft. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Agenesis of maxillary lateral incisor and tooth replacement: cost-effectiveness of different treatment alternatives.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of five treatment alternatives for maxillary lateral incisor agenesis where space maintenance and tooth replacement are indicated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following treatment modalities were considered: single-tooth implant-supported crown, resin-bonded fixed partial denture (FPD), cantilever FPD, full-coverage FPD, and autotransplantation. The cost-effectiveness for each treatment modality was determined as the ratio of the outcome of each modality divided by the cost. Direct costs, clinical and laboratory, were calculated based on national fee schedules and converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity exchange rates. Outcomes were based on the most recently published long-term (10-year) survival rates. Sensitivity analyses were carried out, testing the robustness of the cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The five treatment modalities ranked in the following order from most to least cost-effective: autotransplantation, cantilever FPDs, resin-bonded FPDs, single-tooth implants and implant-supported crowns, and full-coverage FPDs. Sensitivity analysis illustrated that the cost-effectiveness analysis was reliable in identifying autotransplantation as the most and full-coverage FPDs as the least cost-effective treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: When replacing a missing maxillary lateral incisor, the most costeffective, long-term treatment modality is autotransplantation, whereas the least cost-effective is full-coverage FPDs. However, factors such as patient age, the state of the dentition, occlusion, and tooth conservation should also influence the choice of restoration.