Cost-utility analysis modeling at 2-year follow-up for cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A single-center contribution to the randomized controlled trial

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment

OBJECTIVES

The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.

RESULTS

130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression surgery for cervical degenerative disk disease: a systematic review of economic evaluations

PURPOSE

No clear consensus exists on which anterior surgical technique is most cost-effective for treating cervical degenerative disk disease (CDDD). One of the most common treatment options is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) was developed in an effort to reduce the incidence of clinical adjacent segment pathology and associated additional surgeries by preserving motion. This systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression techniques used to treat radiculopathy and/or myelopathy caused by CDDD.

METHODS

The search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit, NHS-EED and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if healthcare costs and utility or effectivity measurements were mentioned.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included out of the 1327 identified studies. In 9 of the 13 studies directly comparing ACDA and ACDF, ACDA was the most cost-effective technique, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio ranging from $2.900/QALY to $98.475/QALY. There was great heterogeneity between the costs of due to different in- and exclusion criteria of costs and charges, cost perspective, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. The methodological quality of the included studies was moderate.

CONCLUSION

The majority of studies report ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in comparison with ACDF. The lack of uniform literature impedes any solid conclusions to be drawn. There is a need for high-quality cost-effectiveness research and uniformity in the conduct, design and reporting of economic evaluations concerning the treatment of CDDD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020207553 (04.10.2020).

Economics of Cervical Disc Replacement

BACKGROUND

Although extensive reports of clinical outcome after cervical disc replacement (CDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion exist, few reviews of the cost-effectiveness research in cervical spine surgery exist. The purpose of this study was to review the concepts of cost-effectiveness research, the various approaches to cost-effectiveness studies in the context of cervical spine surgery, and some of the literature results.

METHODS

Review article describing cost-effectiveness research concepts, methodology, and results. The article reviews the concept of value, cost, utility, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and recent research.

RESULTS

Mixed data on cost-effectiveness of CDR compared with fusion exist. Notably, several studies performed within the last 5 years that use prospectively collected utility scores, costs, and adverse event calculations demonstrate a significant cost savings associated with CDR compared with fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The recent literature confirms that, in properly selected patients, CDR is more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease. The primary driver of the differential in cost effectiveness is the difference in secondary surgery rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In properly selected patients, CDR is more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease.

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in U.S. Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Increasing costs put the value of spine surgery under scrutiny. In health economics, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are used to compare the value of competing procedures. However, inconsistent methodology prevents standardization and implementation of recommendations. The goal of this study is to perform a systematic review of all U.S. CEAs in spine surgery reported to date, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and define metrics essential for high-quality CEAs.

METHODS

We followed AMSTAR systematic review methods, identifying all U.S. spine surgery CEAs reported to March 2019 with a structured, reproducible search of PubMed, Embase, and the Tufts CEA Registry.

RESULTS

We identified 40 CEA studies. Twelve (30%) used outcome data from a randomized controlled trial. To calculate costs, 22 (55%) used allowed charges but costing methods were often unclear or imprecise. Studies applying discounting had mean follow-up of 5.92 years compared with 3.00 years for studies without. Eleven of 15 (73%) cervical studies compared cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, finding cervical disc arthroplasty to be cost-effective (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life year) for 1-level and 2-level procedures. Eleven of 25 lumbar studies (44%) compared operative with nonoperative interventions for intervertebral disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Lumbar studies comparing surgical with nonoperative intervention found surgery at least cost-effective for intervertebral disc herniation and lumbar stenosis, but cost-effective only for lumbar spondylolisthesis at 4 years follow-up. Most studies (70%) lacked appropriate sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Costing methodology remains obscure and inconsistent and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results incomparable. The language of costing methodology must be standardized and sensitivity analyses of outcome and cost inputs mandatory for publication.

Financial Aspects of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review of Recent Literature

Recently, there has been significant interest in understanding the cost-effectiveness of treatments in spine surgery as health care systems in the United States move toward value-based care and alternative payment models. Previous studies have shown comparable outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy fusion; however, there is a lack of consensus on the cost-effectiveness of CDA to support full adoption. Evidence of the limitations of these cost-analysis studies also exists in the literature, including industry funding, potential selection bias, and varying methods of calculating value. The goal of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the cost-effectiveness of CDA compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and potential limitations with cost-analysis studies in spine surgery.

Outcomes and value in elective cervical spine surgery: an introductory and practical narrative review

How we determine a successful clinical outcome and the value of a spine intervention are two major questions surrounding clinical spine research. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), both LEGACY and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, are becoming ubiquitous throughout the literature. Spine surgeons need a facile understanding of the financial landscape of their environment to influence change. In the current introductory, narrative review on outcomes and value in cervical spine surgery, we aim to: (I) define relevant outcome and cost terminology, (II) review recent cervical spine surgery literature, divided by specific pathology with a focus on LEGACY and PROMIS measures, and (III) discuss value and cost as they pertain to postoperative return to work and ambulatory surgery centers surgeries.

Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Cervical degenerative disc disease is a multifactorial condition that begins with deterioration of the intervertebral disc and results in further degeneration within the spine involving the facet joints and ligaments. This health technology assessment examined the effectiveness, safety, durability, and cost-effectiveness of cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) versus fusion for treating cervical degenerative disc disease.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence comparing C-ADR with fusion. We assessed the risk of bias in each study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic review of the economic literature and assessed the cost-effectiveness of C-ADR compared with fusion. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding C-ADR in Ontario over the next 5 years. To contextualize the potential value of C-ADR, we spoke with people with cervical degenerative disc disease.

RESULTS

Eight studies of C-ADR for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease and two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease satisfied the criterion of statistical noninferiority compared with fusion on the primary outcome of 2-year overall treatment success (GRADE: Moderate). In two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease, C-ADR was statistically superior to fusion surgery for the same primary outcome (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was also noninferior to fusion for perioperative outcomes (e.g., operative time, blood loss), patient satisfaction, and health-related quality of life (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was superior to fusion for recovery and return to work, had higher technical success, and had lower rates of re-operation at the index site (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR also maintained motion at the index-treated cervical level (GRADE: Moderate), but evidence was insufficient to determine if adjacent-level surgery rates differed between C-ADR and fusion. Current evidence is also insufficient to determine the long-term durability of C-ADR.The primary economic analysis shows that C-ADR is likely to be cost-effective compared with fusion for both one-level ($11,607/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and two-level ($16,782/QALY) degeneration. Various sensitivity and scenario analyses confirm the robustness of the results. The current uptake for one-level and two-level C-ADR in Ontario is about 8% of the total eligible. For one-level involvement, the estimated net budget impact increases from $7,243 (18 procedures) in the first year to $395,623 (196 procedures) in the fifth year following public funding, for a total budget impact over 5 years of $916,326. For two-level involvement, the corresponding values are $5,460 (7 procedures) in the first year and $283,689 (76 procedures) in the fifth year, for an estimated total budget impact of $705,628 over 5 years.People with cervical degenerative disc disease reported that symptoms of pain and numbness can have a negative impact on their quality of life. People with whom we spoke had tried a variety of treatments with minor success; surgery was perceived as the most effective and permanent solution. Those who had undergone C-ADR spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

For carefully selected patients with cervical degenerative disc disease, C-ADR provides patient-important and statistically significant reductions in pain and disability. Further, unlike fusion, C-ADR allows people to maintain relatively normal cervical spine motion.Compared with fusion, C-ADR appears to represent good value for money for adults with one-level cervical degenerative disc disease ($11,607/QALY) and for adults with two-level disease ($16,782/QALY). In Ontario, publicly funding C-ADR could result in total additional costs of $916,326 for one-level procedures and $705,628 for two-level procedures over the next 5 years.People with whom we spoke who had undergone C-ADR surgery spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.

Adjacent segment degeneration or disease after cervical total disc replacement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been widely used in cervical spondylosis, but adjacent segment degeneration/disease (ASD) was inevitable. Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) could reduce the stress of adjacent segments and retard ASD in theory, but the superiority has not been determined yet. This analysis aimed that whether TDR was superior to ACDF for decreasing adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) and adjacent segment disease (ASDis).

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration with PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CBM (China Biological Medicine) databases. It included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ASDeg, ASDis, and reoperation on adjacent segments after TDR and ACDF. Two investigators independently selected trials, assessed methodological quality, and evaluated the quality of this meta-analysis using the grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with 2632 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall rate of ASD in TDR group was lower than ACDF group (OR = 0.6; 95% CI [0.38, 0.73]; P < 0.00001). Both the incidence of ASDeg and the reoperation rate were statistically lower in the TDR group than in the ACDF group (OR = 0.58, P < 0.00001; OR = 0.52, P = 0.01, respectively). Subgroup analysis was performed according to the follow-up time and trial site; the rate of ASDeg was lower in patients underwent TDR no matter the follow-up time, and TDR tended to increase the superiority across time. The rate of ASDeg was also lower with TDR both in the USA and China (P < 0.0001, P = 0.03, respectively). But the cost-effectiveness result might be prone to neither of the two surgery approaches. According to GRADE, the overall quality of this meta-analysis was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

TDR decreased the rates of ASDeg and reoperation compared with that of ACDF, and the superiority may become more apparent over time. We cautiously and slightly suggest adopting TDR according to the GRADE but may not believe it excessively.

Long-Term Clinical Experience with Selectively Constrained SECURE-C Cervical Artificial Disc for 1-Level Cervical Disc Disease: Results from Seven-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Trial

Background

This research was initiated to compare the long-term clinical safety and effectiveness of the selectively constrained SECURE-C (Globus Medical, Audubon, Pennsylvania) Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). To preserve segmental motion, cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) was developed as an alternative to ACDF. Current CTDR designs incorporate constrained and unconstrained metal-on-metal or metal-on-polymer articulation with various means of fixation.

Methods

Eighteen investigational sites participated in this prospective clinical trial; 380 patients were enrolled and treated in the investigational device exemption study. The first 5 patients treated at each site were nonrandomized and received the investigational SECURE-C device. Patients were randomized, treated surgically, and evaluated postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and annually thereafter through 84 months postoperative.

Results

Overall results for the randomized cohorts demonstrated statistical superiority of the investigational SECURE-C group over the control ACDF group at 84 months postoperative. SECURE-C showed clinically significant improvement in pain and function in terms of neck disability index and visual analog scale scores, and superiority in patient satisfaction was also achieved for patients treated with SECURE-C.

Conclusion

Clinical study results indicated that the selectively constrained SECURE-C Cervical Artificial Disc is as safe and effective as ACDF. Long-term results from the Post Approval Study demonstrated that SECURE-C is statistically superior to ACDF in terms of overall success and patient satisfaction. Lower rates of subsequent index-level surgeries and device-related adverse events were observed in the SECURE-C group than in the ACDF group. The long-term, level 1 clinical evidence presented here is consistent with other reports supporting the safety and efficacy of cervical arthroplasty, and furthers advocacy for motion preservation as a viable alternative to fusion.

Cost-Effectiveness of Primary and Revision Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to compare functional outcomes, hospital resource utilization, and spine-related costs during 2 years in patients who had undergone primary or revision surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

After surgery for ASD, patients may require revision for pseudarthrosis, implant complications, or deformity progression. Data evaluating cost-effectiveness of primary and, in particular, revision surgery, for ASD are sparse.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed records for 119 consecutive patients who had undergone primary or revision surgery for ASD. Two-year total spine-related medical costs were derived from hospital charge data. Functional outcome scores were extracted from prospectively collected patient data. Cost utility ratios (cost/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) at 2 years were calculated and assessed against a threshold of $154,458/QALY gained (three times the 2015 US per-capita gross domestic product).

RESULTS

The primary surgery cohort (n = 56) and revision cohort (n = 63) showed significant improvements in health-related quality-of-life scores at 2 years. Median surgical and spine-related 2-year follow-up costs were $137,990 (interquartile range [IQR], $84,186) for primary surgery and $115,509 (IQR, $63,753) for revision surgery and were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.12). We report 2-year QALY gains of 0.36 in the primary surgery cohort and 0.40 in the revision group (P = 0.71). Primary instrumented fusion was associated with a median 2-year cost per QALY of $197,809 (IQR, $187,350) versus $129,950 (IQR, $209,928) for revision surgery (P = 0.31).

CONCLUSION

Revision surgery had lower total 2-year costs and higher QALY gains than primary surgery for ASD, although the differences were not significant. Although revision surgery for ASD is known to be technically challenging and to have a higher rate of major complications than primary surgery, revision surgery was cost-effective at 2 years. The cost/QALY ratio for primary surgery for ASD exceeded the threshold for cost effectiveness at 2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Cost Variation of Anterior Cervical Fusions in Elderly Medicare Beneficiaries

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how demographics and comorbid diagnoses influence hospital costs during admission for anterior cervical fusions (ACFs) in the elderly Medicare population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Elective ACFs to treat degenerative cervical pathology are extremely common within the elderly population. Although it is well known that every patient has a significantly different medical profile that guides treatment and postoperative care, little information is available regarding how hospital costs vary from patient to patient.

METHODS

Medicare records from the PearlDiver database (2011-2012) were retrospectively queried to select all 65- to 84-year-old patients who underwent primary, 1 to 2 level ACF (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 81.02) for either cervical spondylosis or cervical disc disease. All patients with corpectomies, posterior cervical fusions, and all other same-day spine fusion surgeries were excluded. The primary outcome of this study was Medicare reimbursement from the full inpatient stay as associated with the selected International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure code. The relative contributions of year, age, sex, region, myelopathy diagnosis, and various comorbidities to the total cost were determined with both univariate statistics and multivariate analysis. For all analyses, P < 0.001 was determined to be significant.

RESULTS

In total, 21,853 patients were selected for analysis. The average reimbursement for the full cohort was $13,648 ± $7306. On multivariate analysis, advanced age ($1083), diagnosis of myelopathy ($2150), diabetes mellitus ($1019), obesity ($651), congestive heart failure ($1523), chronic kidney disease ($1962), and chronic pulmonary disease ($489) were all factors that increased costs. Of note, sex, smoking history, and prior liver disease were not associated with changes in cost.

CONCLUSION

Medicare reimbursements provide a value means by which determinants of cost can be elucidated. Although multiple comorbidities, older age, and myelopathy diagnosis could be theorized to contribute to increased costs, there is still some uncertainty regarding their relative costs. These data are informative to practicing physicians as health care as a whole transitions to a more value-based approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Degenerative cervical myelopathy

Cervical myelopathy is the most common cause of acquired spinal cord compromise. The concept of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), defined as symptomatic myelopathy associated with degenerative arthropathic changes in the spine axis, is being introduced. Given its progressive nature, treatment options have to be chosen in a timely manner. Surgical options include anterior discectomy and fusion (ACDF), anterior corpectomy and fusion (ACCF), arthroplasty (in highly select cases), posterior laminectomy with/without fusion, and laminoplasty. Indications for each should be carefully considered in individual patients. Riluzole, a sodium-glutamate antagonist, is a promising option to optimize neurologic outcomes post-surgery and is being examined in the CSM-Protect Randomized Controlled Trial. Preoperative risk assessment is mandatory for prognostication. Sagittal alignment is known to play an important role to optimize surgical outcome. Guidelines for optimal management of DCM are in process. In principle, all but the mildest cases of DCM should be offered surgery for optimal outcome.

Prospective, Randomized Comparison of One-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Results at 5-year Follow-up

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing interest in the role of cervical total disc replacement (TDR) as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Multiple prospective randomized studies with minimum 2 year follow-up have shown TDR to be at least as safe and effective as ACDF in treating symptomatic degenerative disc disease at a single level. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of cervical TDR using the Mobi-C(®) with ACDF at 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted as a Food and Drug Administration regulated Investigational Device Exemption trial across 23 centers with 245 patients randomized (2:1) to receive TDR with Mobi-C(®) Cervical Disc Prosthesis or ACDF with anterior plate and allograft. Outcome assessments included a composite overall success score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing neck and arm pain, Short Form-12 (SF-12) health survey, patient satisfaction, major complications, subsequent surgery, segmental range of motion, and adjacent segment degeneration.

RESULTS

The 60-month follow-up rate was 85.5% for the TDR group and 78.9% for the ACDF group. The composite overall success was 61.9% with TDR vs. 52.2% with ACDF, demonstrating statistical non-inferiority. Improvements in NDI, VAS neck and arm pain, and SF-12 scores were similar between groups and were maintained from earlier follow-up through 60 months. There was no significant difference between TDR and ACDF in adverse events or major complications. Range of motion was maintained with TDR through 60 months. Device-related subsequent surgeries (TDR: 3.0%, ACDF: 11.1%, p<0.02) and adjacent segment degeneration at the superior level (TDR: 37.1%, ACDF: 54.7%, p<0.03) were significantly lower for TDR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Five-year results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of TDR with the Mobi-C as a viable alternative to ACDF with the potential advantage of lower rates of reoperation and adjacent segment degeneration, in the treatment of one-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This prospective, randomized study with 5-year follow-up adds to the existing literature indicating that cervical TDR is a viable alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

This is a Level I study.

Seven-year cost-effectiveness of ProDisc-C total disc replacement: results from investigational device exemption and post-approval studies

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 7-year cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. A change in the spending trajectory for spine care is to be achieved, in part, through the selection of interventions that have been proven effective yet cost less than other options. This analysis complements and builds upon findings from other cost-effectiveness evaluations of CTDR through the use of long-term, patient-level data from a randomized study. METHODS This was a 7-year health economic evaluation comparing CTDR versus ACDF from the US commercial payer perspective. Prospectively collected health care resource utilization and treatment effects (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were obtained from individual patient-level adverse event reports and SF-36 data, respectively, from the randomized, multicenter ProDisc-C total disc replacement investigational device exemption (IDE) study and post-approval study. Statistical distributions for unit costs were derived from a commercial claims database and applied using Monte Carlo simulation. Patient-level costs and effects were modeled via multivariate probabilistic analysis. Confidence intervals for 7-year costs, effects, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were obtained using the nonparametric percentile method from results of 10,000 bootstrap simulations. The robustness of results was assessed through scenario analysis and within a parametric regression model controlling for baseline variables. RESULTS Seven-year follow-up data were available for more than 70% of the 209 randomized patients. In the base-case analysis, CTDR resulted in mean per-patient cost savings of $12,789 (95% CI $5362-$20,856) and per-patient QALY gains of 0.16 (95% CI -0.073 to 0.39) compared with ACDF over 7 years. CTDR was more effective and less costly in 90.8% of probabilistic simulations. CTDR was cost-effective in 99.8% of sensitivity analysis simulations and generated a mean incremental NMB of $20,679 (95% CI $6053-$35,377) per patient at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS Based on this modeling evaluation, CTDR was found to be more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. These results are robust across a range of scenarios and perspectives and are intended to support value-based decision making.