Cost-effectiveness of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical spondylosis.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA.

Published: September 2005

Study Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis with retrospective cost analysis and literature review.

Objective: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with autograft, allograft, and allograft with plating for single-level anterior cervical spondylosis.

Summary Of Background Data: There are several accepted methods of surgically treating single-level cervical spondylosis anteriorly. No study has clearly demonstrated the superiority of one method over the alternatives. The techniques may differ in their operative risks and resource use, perioperative complications, short-term outcome, and long-term outcome and complications. Formal cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) provides a structure for analyzing many variables and comparing different treatment outcomes. Sensitivity analysis is used to test the robustness of the model and to determine variables that have significant effects on the results. Future areas of research and refinements of the CEA model can be developed from these findings.

Methods: A retrospective review of hospital charges was performed for 78 patients who underwent single-level ACDF with allograft alone or ACDF with allograft and plating (ACDFP). The charges were converted to estimated costs for fiscal year 2000 using the ratio of costs to charges method. A CEA model was developed consisting of a decision-analysis model for the first year postsurgery and a Markov model for the next 4 years after surgery. Probabilities and outcome utilities were estimated from the literature. Outcome was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental CEA was performed. Several variables were tested in one-way sensitivity analysis.

Results: Compared with ACDF with autograft, ACDF with allograft offered an improvement in quality of life at a cost of 496 dollars per QALY. ACDFP provided additional gains in quality of life compared with ACDF with allograft at a cost of 32,560 dollars per QALY in the base case analysis. In sensitivity analysis, these estimates varied between 417 dollars and 741 dollars per QALY and between 19,090 dollars per QALY and domination of ACDFP by ACDF with allograft, respectively. The results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding differences in the length of the postoperative recovery period.

Conclusions: ACDF with allograft offers a benefit relative to ACDF with autograft at a cost of 496 dollars per QALY. ACDFP has a benefit relative to ACDF with allograft at an approximate cost of 32,560 dollars per QALY. CEA provides a method for comparing the benefits and risks of these three procedures. Further research needs to be performed regarding these procedures, particularly examining the postoperative recovery period.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000176332.67849.eaDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

acdf allograft
28
dollars qaly
24
anterior cervical
12
acdf autograft
12
acdf
10
allograft
9
single-level anterior
8
cervical discectomy
8
discectomy fusion
8
cervical spondylosis
8

Similar Publications

The bioactive glass-ceramic spacer (BGS)-7, a biosynthetic intervertebral fusion material introduced in 2014, has not been the subject of comparative clinical studies on anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. This study, for the first time, aims to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of the renewed BGS-7, released in 2019, with those of an allograft spacer. The comparison includes a finite element analysis of the biomechanical properties of each implant, adding a novel dimension to the research.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • This study compared the effectiveness of CaO-SiO-PO-BO bioactive glass-ceramics (BGS-7) versus allograft spacers with iliac bone grafts (IBG) in patients undergoing multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgeries for neck issues.
  • Patients who received BGS-7 had a fusion rate of 89.5%, while those with IBG had a fusion rate of 92.2%. Both methods showed solid integration with bone, and no significant differences were noted between the two types of spacers.
  • Post-surgery, the BGS-7 group maintained better lower segmental height compared to the
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Study Design: Retrospective cohort.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the relationship between the cervical levels fused and the degree of subsidence following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures.

Background: Subsidence following ACDF may worsen clinical outcomes.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • - The study focuses on evaluating the effectiveness and safety of using an allograft cellular bone matrix (ACBM) instead of traditional iliac crest bone grafts in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating cervical radiculopathy.
  • - A retrospective analysis was performed on 73 patients who underwent ACDF surgery, assessing patient demographics, fusion rates through imaging, and complications over time.
  • - The results included a mixed demographic of 73 patients, with some experiencing post-operative pain manageable with injections, while a small portion required additional surgery, highlighting the ongoing need for evaluating alternative graft options.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Structural Allograft versus Polyetheretherketone Cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Analysis.

World Neurosurg

November 2024

Department of Orthopedics, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Orthopedics, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address:

Article Synopsis
  • - A meta-analysis was conducted to compare outcomes of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and structural allografts (SAs) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures.
  • - The analysis included 11 studies with 1213 patients, revealing that SAs had better fusion rates and lower subsidence rates compared to PEEK cages, although both methods had similar reoperation rates and clinical improvements.
  • - Overall, SAs performed better in terms of fusion and subsidence, but both graft types showed equivalent success in postoperative clinical outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!