We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparisons of direct costs, outcomes, and cost-utility of decompression surgery with fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analysis of surgery for degenerative lumber spondylolisthesis (DS) is essential for healthcare providers and patients to select appropriate treatment. The purpose of this study was to review the cost-utility of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for DS.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 99 consecutive patients who were treated for Meyerding grade 1 DS at two representative spine centers was performed. Patients with significant spinal instability were treated by decompression with fusion (F group, 40 patients); all others were treated by decompression surgery alone (D group, 59 patients). All patients were followed for three years. Demographic and radiographic data, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the direct cost for surgery were analyzed, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined using cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY).
RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups in baseline demographics (D vs. F: age 68 ± 9 vs. 66 ± 7 years; 37% vs. 40% female) or HRQoL (ODI: D, 41 ± 16 vs. F, 46 ± 13%). The F group had a higher initial-surgery cost ($18,992 ± 2932) but lower reoperation frequency (7%) than the D group ($7660 ± 2182 and 12%, respectively). The three-year total direct cost was higher for F than for D ($19,222 ± 3332 vs. $9668 ± 6,168, p = .01). ICER was higher for F at one year ($136,408 ± 187,911 vs. $237,844 ± 212,049, p < .01), but was comparable for F and D at three years (D, $41,923 ± 44,503 vs. F, $51,313 ± 32,849, p = .17).
CONCLUSION: At the three-year follow-up, the two methods had comparable cost-utility. Both methods were cost-effective (defined as an ICER within three times the per-capita gross domestic product).
METHODS: A retrospective review of 99 consecutive patients who were treated for Meyerding grade 1 DS at two representative spine centers was performed. Patients with significant spinal instability were treated by decompression with fusion (F group, 40 patients); all others were treated by decompression surgery alone (D group, 59 patients). All patients were followed for three years. Demographic and radiographic data, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the direct cost for surgery were analyzed, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined using cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY).
RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups in baseline demographics (D vs. F: age 68 ± 9 vs. 66 ± 7 years; 37% vs. 40% female) or HRQoL (ODI: D, 41 ± 16 vs. F, 46 ± 13%). The F group had a higher initial-surgery cost ($18,992 ± 2932) but lower reoperation frequency (7%) than the D group ($7660 ± 2182 and 12%, respectively). The three-year total direct cost was higher for F than for D ($19,222 ± 3332 vs. $9668 ± 6,168, p = .01). ICER was higher for F at one year ($136,408 ± 187,911 vs. $237,844 ± 212,049, p < .01), but was comparable for F and D at three years (D, $41,923 ± 44,503 vs. F, $51,313 ± 32,849, p = .17).
CONCLUSION: At the three-year follow-up, the two methods had comparable cost-utility. Both methods were cost-effective (defined as an ICER within three times the per-capita gross domestic product).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app