Browse

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • Neurosurgical Focus x
  • By Author: Malhotra, Neil R. x
Clear All
Free access

Praveen V. Mummaneni, Robert G. Whitmore, Jill N. Curran, John E. Ziewacz, Rishi Wadhwa, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Anthony L. Asher, Robert F. Heary, Joseph S. Cheng, R. John Hurlbert, Andrea F. Douglas, Justin S. Smith, Neil R. Malhotra, Stephen J. Dante, Subu N. Magge, Michael G. Kaiser, Khalid M. Abbed, Daniel K. Resnick and Zoher Ghogawala

Object

There is significant practice variation and uncertainty as to the value of surgical treatments for lumbar spine disorders. The authors' aim was to establish a multicenter registry to assess the efficacy and costs of common lumbar spinal procedures by using prospectively collected outcomes.

Methods

An observational prospective cohort study was completed at 13 academic and community sites. Patients undergoing single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis or single-level lumbar discectomy were included. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Power analysis estimated a sample size of 160 patients: lumbar disc (125 patients) and lumbar listhesis (35 patients). The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) data were calculated using 6-dimension utility index scores. Direct costs and complication costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement values from 2011, and indirect costs were estimated using the human capital approach with the 2011 US national wage index. Total costs equaled $14,980 for lumbar discectomy and $43,852 for surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Results

There were 198 patients enrolled over 1 year. The mean age was 46 years (49% female) for lumbar discectomy (n = 148) and 58.1 years (60% female) for lumbar spondylolisthesis (n = 50). Ten patients with disc herniation (6.8%) and 1 with listhesis (2%) required repeat operation at 1 year. The overall 1-year follow-up rate was 88%. At 30 days, both lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion procedures were associated with significant improvements in ODI, visual analog scale, and SF-36 scores (p = 0.0002), which persisted at the 1-year evaluation (p < 0.0001). By 1 year, more than 80% of patients in each cohort who were working preoperatively had returned to work. Lumbar discectomy was associated with a gain of 0.225 QALYs over the 1-year study period ($66,578/QALY gained). Lumbar spinal fusion for Grade I listhesis was associated with a gain of 0.195 QALYs over the 1-year study period ($224,420/QALY gained).

Conclusions

This national spine registry demonstrated successful collection of high-quality outcomes data for spinal procedures in actual practice. These data are useful for demonstrating return to work and cost-effectiveness following surgical treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation or spondylolisthesis. One-year cost per QALY was obtained, and this cost per QALY is expected to improve further by 2 years. This work sets the stage for real-world analysis of the value of health interventions.

Full access

Matthew R. Sanborn, Jayesh P. Thawani, Robert G. Whitmore, Michael Shmulevich, Benjamin Hardy, Conrad Benedetto, Neil R. Malhotra, Paul Marcotte, William C. Welch, Stephen Dante and Sherman C. Stein

Object

There is considerable variation in the use of adjunctive technologies to confirm pedicle screw placement. Although there is literature to support the use of both neurophysiological monitoring and isocentric fluoroscopy to confirm pedicle screw positioning, there are no studies examining the cost-effectiveness of these technologies. This study compares the cost-effectiveness and efficacy of isocentric O-arm fluoroscopy, neurophysiological monitoring, and postoperative CT scanning after multilevel instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

Retrospective data were collected from 4 spine surgeons who used 3 different strategies for monitoring of pedicle screw placement in multilevel lumbar degenerative disease. A decision analysis model was developed to analyze costs and outcomes of the 3 different monitoring strategies. A total of 448 surgeries performed between 2005 and 2010 were included, with 4 cases requiring repeat operation for malpositioned screws. A sample of 64 of these patients was chosen for structured interviews in which the EuroQol-5D questionnaire was used. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life years were calculated based on the incidence of repeat operation and its negative effect on quality of life and costs.

Results

The decision analysis model demonstrated that the O-arm monitoring strategy is significantly (p < 0.001) less costly than the strategy of postoperative CT scanning following intraoperative uniplanar fluoroscopy, which in turn is significantly (p < 0.001) less costly than neurophysiological monitoring. The differences in effectiveness of the different monitoring strategies are not significant (p = 0.92).

Conclusions

Use of the O-arm for confirming pedicle screw placement is the least costly and therefore most cost-effective strategy of the 3 techniques analyzed.