Cost-effectiveness analysis: comparing single-level cervical disc replacement and single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Clinical article

Sheeraz A. Qureshi M.D., M.B.A., Steven McAnany M.D., Vadim Goz B.A., Steven M. Koehler M.D., and Andrew C. Hecht M.D.
View More View Less
  • Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York, New York
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

Object

In recent years, there has been increased interest in the use of cervical disc replacement (CDR) as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). While ACDF is a proven intervention for patients with myelopathy or radiculopathy, it does have inherent limitations. Cervical disc replacement was designed to preserve motion, avoid the limitations of fusion, and theoretically allow for a quicker return to activity. A number of recently published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials have demonstrated positive clinical results for CDR, but no studies have revealed which of the 2 treatment strategies is more cost-effective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CDR and ACDF by using the power of decision analysis. Additionally, the authors aimed to identify the most critical factors affecting procedural cost and effectiveness and to define thresholds for durability and function to focus and guide future research.

Methods

The authors created a surgical decision model for the treatment of single-level cervical disc disease with associated radiculopathy. The literature was reviewed to identify possible outcomes and their likelihood following CDR and ACDF. Health state utility factors were determined from the literature and assigned to each possible outcome, and procedural effectiveness was expressed in units of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Using ICD-9 procedure codes and data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the authors calculated the median cost of hospitalization by multiplying hospital charges by the hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratio. Gross physician costs were determined from the mean Medicare reimbursement for each current procedural terminology (CPT) code. Uncertainty as regards both cost and effectiveness numbers was assessed using sensitivity analysis.

Results

In the reference case, the model assumed a 20-year duration for the CDR prosthesis. Cervical disc replacement led to higher average QALYs gained at a lower cost to society if both strategies survived for 20 years ($3042/QALY for CDR vs $8760/QALY for ACDF). Sensitivity analysis revealed that CDR needed to survive at least 9.75 years to be considered a more cost-effective strategy than ACDF. Cervical disc replacement becomes an acceptable societal strategy as the prosthesis survival time approaches 11 years and the $50,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold is crossed. Sensitivity analysis also indicated that CDR must provide a utility state of at least 0.796 to be cost-effective.

Conclusions

Both CDR and ACDF were shown to be cost-effective procedures in the reference case. Results of the sensitivity analysis indicated that CDR must remain functional for at least 14 years to establish greater cost-effectiveness than ACDF. Since the current literature has yet to demonstrate with certainty the actual durability and long-term functionality of CDR, future long-term studies are required to validate the present analysis.

Abbreviations used in this paper:

ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; CDR = cervical disc replacement; CEA = cost-effectiveness analysis; CER = cost-effectiveness ratio; CPT = current procedural terminology; DRG = diagnosis-related group; ICER = incremental CER; NDI = Neck Disability Index; NIS = Nationwide Inpatient Sample; QALY = quality-adjusted life year; SF-36 = 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey; WTP = willingness-to-pay.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Anderson PA, , Sasso RC, & Riew KD: Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:13051312, 2008

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Anderson PA, , Sasso RC, , Rouleau JP, , Carlson CS, & Goffin J: The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:6 Suppl 303S309S, 2004

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Bhadra AK, , Raman AS, , Casey AT, & Crawford RJ: Single-level cervical radiculopathy: clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of four techniques of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 18:232237, 2009

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Bohlman HH, , Emery SE, , Goodfellow DB, & Jones PK: Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:12981307, 1993

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Burkus JK, , Haid RW, , Traynelis VC, & Mummaneni PV: Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:308318, 2010

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Chang RW, , Pellisier JM, & Hazen GB: A cost-effectiveness analysis of total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the hip. JAMA 275:858865, 1996

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Coric D, , Finger F, & Boltes P: Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine 4:3135, 2006

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Coric D, , Nunley PD, , Guyer RD, , Musante D, , Carmody CN, & Gordon CR, et al.: Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:348358, 2011

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Emery SE, , Bolesta MJ, , Banks MA, & Jones PK: Robinson anterior cervical fusion comparison of the standard and modified techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:660663, 1994

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Epstein NE: Efficacy and outcomes of dynamic-plated single-level anterior diskectomy/fusion with additional analysis of comparative costs. Surg Neurol Int 2:9, 2011

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Fraser JF, & Hartl R: Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a meta-analysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:298303, 2007

  • 12

    Fryback DG, , Dasbach EJ, , Klein R, , Klein BE, , Dorn N, & Peterson K, et al.: The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 13:89102, 1993

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Garrido BJ, , Taha TA, & Sasso RC: Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:367371, 2010

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Goffin J, , Casey A, , Kehr P, , Liebig K, , Lind B, & Logroscino C, et al.: Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840847, 2002

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Goffin J, , Van Calenbergh F, , van Loon J, , Casey A, , Kehr P, & Liebig K, et al.: Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:26732678, 2003

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Goffin J, , van Loon J, , Van Calenbergh F, & Lipscomb B: A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 12:261269, 2010

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Gore DR, & Sepic SB: Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs: a review of one hundred and forty-six patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9:667671, 1984

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Heller JG, , Sasso RC, , Papadopoulos SM, , Anderson PA, , Fessler RG, & Hacker RJ, et al.: Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:101107, 2009

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Hilibrand AS, , Carlson GD, , Palumbo MA, , Jones PK, & Bohlman HH: Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519528, 1999

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Malter AD, , Larson EB, , Urban N, & Deyo RA: Cost-effectiveness of lumbar discectomy for the treatment of herniated intervertebral disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:10481055, 1996

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    McAfee PC, , Reah C, , Gilder K, , Eisermann L, & Cunningham B: A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:943952, 2012

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Mummaneni PV, , Burkus JK, , Haid RW, , Traynelis VC, & Zdeblick TA: Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198209, 2007

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Murrey D, , Janssen M, , Delamarter R, , Goldstein J, , Zigler J, & Tay B, et al.: Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9:275286, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Naimark D, , Krahn MD, , Naglie G, , Redelmeier DA, & Detsky AS: Primer on medical decision analysis: part 5—working with Markov processes. Med Decis Making 17:152159, 1997

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Nesterenko SO, , Riley LH III, & Skolasky RL: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty: current state and trends in treatment for cervical disc pathology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:14701474, 2012

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Peng CW, , Yue WM, , Basit A, , Guo CM, , Tow BP, & Chen JL, et al.: Intermediate results of the prestige LP cervical disc replacement: clinical and radiological analysis with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E105E111, 2011

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Riew KD, , Buchowski JM, , Sasso RC, , Zdeblick T, , Metcalf NH, & Anderson PA: Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:23542364, 2008

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Robertson JT, , Papadopolous SM, & Traynelis VC: Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417423, 2005

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Russell LB, , Gold MR, , Siegel JE, , Daniels N, & Weinstein MC: The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA 276:11721177, 1996

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Sasso RC, , Smucker JD, , Hacker RJ, & Heller JG: Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:29332942, 2007

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Schulman KA: Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 354:207209, 2006. (Letter)

  • 32

    Siegel JE, , Weinstein MC, , Russell LB, & Gold MR: Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 276:13391341, 1996

  • 33

    SooHoo NF, & Kominski G: Cost-effectiveness analysis of total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:24462455, 2004

  • 34

    Tengs TO, & Wallace A: One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38:583637, 2000

  • 35

    Tumeh JW, , Moore SG, , Shapiro R, & Flowers CR: Practical approach for using Medicare data to estimate costs for cost-effectiveness analysis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 5:153162, 2005

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Upadhyaya CD, , Wu JC, , Trost G, , Haid RW, , Traynelis VC, & Tay B, et al.: Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:216228, 2012

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Weinstein MC, , Siegel JE, , Gold MR, , Kamlet MS, & Russell LB: Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 276:12531258, 1996

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Wohns R: Safety and cost-effectiveness of outpatient cervical disc arthroplasty. Surg Neurol Int 1:77, 2010

  • 39

    Yue WM, , Brodner W, & Highland TR: Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:21382144, 2005

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Zechmeister I, , Winkler R, & Mad P: Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:177184, 2011

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1167 268 9
Full Text Views 288 33 1
PDF Downloads 286 46 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0