Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has impending significance for the field of spine surgery. This article outlines the rationale for comparative effectiveness research and reviews recommended priorities of spinal surgery emphasis. It also examines recent key studies of CER in the spine surgery literature and associated cost-effectiveness studies. It concludes with a discussion of the direction of CER in the spine surgery community.
Kalil G. Abdullah, Edward C. Benzel and Thomas E. Mroz
Matthew D. Alvin, Jacob A. Miller, Daniel Lubelski, Benjamin P. Rosenbaum, Kalil G. Abdullah, Robert G. Whitmore, Edward C. Benzel and Thomas E. Mroz
Cost-effectiveness research in spine surgery has been a prominent focus over the last decade. However, there has yet to be a standardized method developed for calculation of costs in such studies. This lack of a standardized costing methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an intervention for a specific diagnosis. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review all cost-effectiveness studies published on spine surgery and compare and contrast various costing methodologies used.
The authors performed a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature related to spine surgery. All cost-effectiveness analyses pertaining to spine surgery were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis registry database of the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy, and the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed to determine the study subject, methodology, and results. Data were collected from each study, including costs, interventions, cost calculation method, perspective of cost calculation, and definitions of direct and indirect costs if available.
Thirty-seven cost-effectiveness studies on spine surgery were included in the present study. Twenty-seven (73%) of the studies involved the lumbar spine and the remaining 10 (27%) involved the cervical spine. Of the 37 studies, 13 (35%) used Medicare reimbursements, 12 (32%) used a case-costing database, 3 (8%) used cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs), 2 (5%) used a combination of Medicare reimbursements and CCRs, 3 (8%) used the United Kingdom National Health Service reimbursement system, 2 (5%) used a Dutch reimbursement system, 1 (3%) used the United Kingdom Department of Health data, and 1 (3%) used the Tricare Military Reimbursement system. Nineteen (51%) studies completed their cost analysis from the societal perspective, 11 (30%) from the hospital perspective, and 7 (19%) from the payer perspective. Of those studies with a societal perspective, 14 (38%) reported actual indirect costs.
Changes in cost have a direct impact on the value equation for concluding whether an intervention is cost-effective. It is essential to develop a standardized, accurate means of calculating costs. Comparability and transparency are essential, such that studies can be compared properly and policy makers can be appropriately informed when making decisions for our health care system based on the results of these studies.
Urological complications following use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein–2 in anterior lumbar interbody fusion
Presented at the 2012 Joint Spine Section Meeting
Daniel Lubelski, Kalil G. Abdullah, Amy S. Nowacki, Matthew D. Alvin, Michael P. Steinmetz, Srita Chakka, Yumeng Li, Nicholas Gajewski, Edward C. Benzel and Thomas E. Mroz
The goal of this study was to compare the urological complications in patients after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with and without the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein–2 (rhBMP-2).
The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent ALIF with and without rhBMP-2 between January 2002 and August 2010. Patient demographic, operative, and complication information was analyzed. Male patients who underwent ALIF between L-4 and S-1 were contacted to assess postoperative urological complications.
Of the 110 male patients who underwent ALIF and were included in this study, 59 were treated with rhBMP-2 and 51 did not receive rhBMP-2. The mean follow-up duration was 17.5 months for the rhBMP-2 group and 30.8 months for the control group. No difference was found regarding the total number of urological complications in the rhBMP-2 group versus the control group (22% vs 20%, respectively; p = 1.0) or for retrograde ejaculation specifically (8% vs 8%, respectively; p = 1.0).
In this study, the use of rhBMP-2 with ALIF surgery was not associated with an increased incidence of urological complications and retrograde ejaculation when compared with control ALIF without rhBMP-2. Further prospective analyses that specifically look at these complications are warranted.