Cost-Effectiveness of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Surgery at 2-Year Follow-up

State-of-the-art Applications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Spinal Care

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assign objective measures to patient's subjective experiences of health, pain, disability, function, and quality of life. PROMs can be useful for providers in shared decision making, outcome assessment, and indicating patients for surgery. In this article, we provide an overview of the legacy PROMs used in spinal care, recent advancements in patient-reported outcomes, and future directions in PROMs. Recent advances in patient-reported outcome assessments have included standardization of measurement tools, integration of data collection into workflow, and applications of outcome measures in predictive models and decision-making tools. Continual appraisal of instruments and incorporation into artificial intelligence and machine learning analytics will continue to augment the delivery of high-value spinal care.

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.

Recovery Kinetics After Commonly Performed Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Procedures

STUDY DESIGN

Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days.

RESULTS

In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84).

CONCLUSION

Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

Isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults… A review of the current literature

Isthmic spondylolisthesis can be defined as the anterior translation of a vertebral body relative to the one subjacent to it and secondary to an abnormality of the pars interarticularis. Isthmic spondylolisthesis is usually asymptomatic and discovered as an incidental radiographic finding. However, it can be symptomatic due to its biomechanical effects on the adjacent neural structures and patients may present with low back and/or radicular leg pain. Standing plain radiographs can be obtained to confirm the presence or assess the degree of isthmic spondylolisthesis. Computed tomography (CT) clearly shows the pars defect and provides a better assessment of the pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is indicated in patients with neurologic manifestations and can be used to assess the degree of foraminal or central stenosis. Conservative management including oral anti-inflammatory medication, physical therapy, and/or transforaminal epidural corticosteroid injections can be utilized initially. Surgery can be considered in the setting of persistent symptoms unrelieved with conservative management or significant neurologic compromise. Several surgical methods and techniques are available in the management of isthmic spondylolisthesis. There has been a significant national increase in the use of interbody fusion posteriorly for the management of isthmic spondylolisthesis. Reports have suggested that interbody fusion can be a cost-effective technique in selected patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. Future studies are encouraged to further characterize the specific indications of various surgical modalities in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Cost-effectiveness Applications of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Spine Surgery

Because of the rising health care costs in the United States, there has been a focus on value-based care and improving the cost-effectiveness of surgical procedures. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can not only give physicians and health care providers immediate feedback on the well-being of the patients but also be used to assess health and determine outcomes for surgical research purposes. Recently, PROMs have become a prominent tool to assess the cost-effectiveness of spine surgery by calculating the improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The cost of a procedure per QALY gained is an essential metric to determine cost-effectiveness in universal health care systems. Common patient-reported outcome questionnaires to calculate QALY include the EuroQol-5 dimensions, the SF-36, and the SF-12. On the basis of the health-related quality of life outcomes, the cost-effectiveness of various spine surgeries can be determined, such as cervical fusions, lumbar fusions, microdiscectomies. As the United States attempts to reduce costs and emphasize value-based care, PROMs may serve a critical role in spine surgery moving forward. In addition, PROM-driven QALYs may be used to analyze novel spine surgical techniques for value-based improvements.

Using minimally invasive techniques adds to the value equation for select patients

Conditions of the spine are one of the most prevalent causes of global disability, and result in a considerable portion of total health expenditures. Surgical treatment of the spine has been demonstrated in multiple studies to be a cost-effective treatment option for many patients, especially with continuing improvements in surgical technique and instrumentation. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), in particular, has evolved as a valuable option in treating certain patients. Numerous studies have analyzed minimally invasive techniques in regards to cost-effectiveness and other purported advantages. These advantages include conduciveness to outpatient settings, better perioperative and immediate post-operative benefits, and faster time to recovery. This article will describe the current literature on the advantages of MISS, specifically in regards to value and cost savings.

Cost-Effectiveness for Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is significantly more cost-effective than nonsurgical management in patients who have failed to improve with a 6-week trial of nonsurgical management. Decompression plus fusion becomes more cost-effective compared with decompression alone at 2 years following surgery. Further study is needed to evaluate the most cost-effective fusion approach and augmentation strategy.

Cost-effectiveness of circumferential fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: propensity-matched comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with anterior-posterior fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and dual-approach anteroposterior (AP) are common techniques to achieve circumferential fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. It is unclear which approach is more cost-effective.

PURPOSE

Our goal was to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) by calculating the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for each approach.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This study is a propensity-matched cost-effectiveness comparison.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis undergoing single-level AP fusion or TLIF and enrolled in a prospective observational surgical database were included in this study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures in this study were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Short Form-6D (SF-6D).

METHODS

From a prospective surgical database, patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis undergoing single-level AP fusion were propensity matched to a TLIF cohort based on age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, workers compensation, preoperative ODI, and back and leg pain numeric scores. Quality-adjusted life years gained were determined using baseline and 1- and 2-yearpostoperative SF-6D scores. Cost was calculated from actual, direct hospital costs and included subsequent postsurgical costs (epidural spinal injections, spine-related emergency department visits, readmissions, and revision surgery).

RESULTS

Thirty-one cases of AP fusions were identified and propensity matched to 31 TLIF patients. Patients undergoing TLIF had a shorter mean operative time (270 vs. 328 minutes, p=.039) but no difference in estimated blood loss (526 vs. 548 cc, p=.804) or hospital length of stay (4.5 vs. 6.1 days, p=.146). Quality-adjusted life years gained at 2 years were also similar (0.140 vs. 0.130, p=.672). The mean index surgery and the total 2-year costs were lower for TLIF compared with AP (index: $29,428 vs. $31,466; final: $30,684 vs. $331,880). As overall costs were lower and QALYs gained were similar for TLIF compared with AP fusion, TLIF was the dominant intervention with an ICER of $116,327.

CONCLUSIONS

Under our study parameters, surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis with TLIF is more cost-effective compared with AP fusion. Because of the short-term follow-up, the longevity of this should be further investigated.