Cost-effectiveness of Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease

被引:50
|
作者
Ament, Jared D. [1 ]
Yang, Zhuo [1 ]
Nunley, Pierce [2 ]
Stone, Marcus B. [2 ]
Kim, Kee D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA
[2] Spine Inst Louisiana, Shreveport, LA USA
关键词
OUTCOMES RESEARCH; DISKECTOMY; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1001/jamasurg.2014.716
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
IMPORTANCE Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) was developed to treat cervical spondylosis, while preserving motion. While anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been the standard of care for 2-level disease, a randomized clinical trial (RCT) suggested similar outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of this intervention has never been elucidated. OBJECTIVE To determine the cost-effectiveness of CTDR compared with ACDF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Data were derived from an RCT that followed up 330 patients over 24 months. The original RCT consisted of multi-institutional data including private and academic institutions. Using linear regression for the current study, health states were constructed based on the stratification of the Neck Disability Index and a visual analog scale. Data from the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaires were transformed into utilities values using the SF-6D mapping algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting Diagnosis-Related Group codes from institutional billing data and then applying 2012 Medicare reimbursement rates. The costs of complications and return-to-work data were also calculated. A Markov model was built to evaluate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. The model adopted a third-party payer perspective and applied a 3% annual discount rate. Patients included in the original RCT had to be diagnosed as having radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy at 2 contiguous levels from C3-C7 that was unresponsive to conservative treatment for at least 6 weeks or demonstrated progressive symptoms. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF. RESULTS A strong correlation (R-2 = 0.6864; P < .001) was found by projecting a visual analog scale onto the Neck Disability Index. Cervical total disc replacement had an average of 1.58 QALYs after 24 months compared with 1.50 QALYs for ACDF recipients. Cervical total disc replacement was associated with $2139 greater average cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF was $24 594 per QALY at 2 years. Despite varying input parameters in the sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio value stays below the threshold of $50 000 per QALY in most scenarios (range, -$58 194 to $147 862 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with traditional ACDF is lower than the commonly accepted threshold of $50 000 per QALY. This remains true with varying input parameters in a robust sensitivity analysis, reaffirming the stability of the model and the sustainability of this intervention. Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1231 / 1239
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease
    Narayan, P
    Haid, RW
    NEUROLOGIC CLINICS, 2001, 19 (01) : 217 - +
  • [22] Investigating the 7-Year Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Level Cervical Disc Replacement Compared to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion
    McAnany, Steven J.
    Merrill, Robert K.
    Overley, Samuel C.
    Kim, Jun S.
    Brochin, Robert L.
    Qureshi, Sheeraz A.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 8 (01) : 32 - 39
  • [23] The 5-year cost-effectiveness of two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or cervical disc replacement: a Markov analysis
    Overley, Samuel C.
    McAnany, Steven J.
    Brochin, Robert L.
    Kim, Jun S.
    Merrill, Robert K.
    Qureshi, Sheeraz A.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 18 (01): : 63 - 71
  • [24] The 5-Year Cost-effectiveness of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion and Cervical Disc Replacement A Markov Analysis
    McAnany, Steven J.
    Overley, Samuel
    Baird, Evan O.
    Cho, Samuel K.
    Hecht, Andrew C.
    Zigler, Jack E.
    Qureshi, Sheeraz A.
    SPINE, 2014, 39 (23) : 1924 - 1933
  • [25] A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease
    Wu Yajun
    Zhu Yue
    Han Xiuxin
    Cui, Cui
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2010, 19 (08) : 1250 - 1261
  • [26] A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease
    Wu Yajun
    Zhu Yue
    Han Xiuxin
    Cui Cui
    European Spine Journal, 2010, 19 : 1250 - 1261
  • [27] A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion combined with cervical disc arthroplasty and cervical disc arthroplasty for the treatment of skip-level cervical degenerative disc disease A retrospective study
    Wu, Ting-kui
    Wang, Bei-yu
    Deng, Ming-dan
    Hong, Ying
    Rong, Xin
    Chen, Hua
    Meng, Yang
    Liu, Hao
    MEDICINE, 2017, 96 (41)
  • [28] Is Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Superior to Fusion for Treatment of Symptomatic Cervical Disc Disease? A Meta-Analysis
    Yin, Si
    Yu, Xiao
    Zhou, Shuangli
    Yin, Zhanhai
    Qiu, Yusheng
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2013, 471 (06) : 1904 - 1919
  • [29] The Evidence for the Use of Osteobiologics in Hybrid Constructs (Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion and Total Disc Replacement) in Multilevel Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review
    Hoelen, Thomay-Claire A.
    Willems, Paul C.
    Loenen, Arjan
    Meisel, Hans Joerg
    Wang, Jeffrey C.
    Jain, Amit
    Buser, Zorica
    Arts, Jacobus J.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2024, 14 (2_SUPPL) : 120S - 128S
  • [30] Comparison of Outcomes of Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Fusion and Single-Level Artificial Cervical Disc Replacement for Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease
    Pandey, Praveen Kumar
    Pawar, Inder
    Gupta, Jyoti
    Verma, Raaghav Rai
    SPINE, 2017, 42 (01) : E41 - E49