The Cost Effectiveness of Polyetheretheketone (PEEK) Cages for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Cost-utility Analysis of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Spondylosis Patients Comparing Polyetheretherketone Versus Tricortical Iliac Crest Bone Graft

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a cost-utility analysis and to investigate the clinical outcomes and patient's quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to treat cervical spondylosis compared between fusion with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and fusion with tricortical iliac bone graft (IBG) in Thailand.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ACDF is one of the standard treatments for cervical spondylosis. The fusion material options include PEEK and tricortical IBG. No previous studies have compared the cost-utility between these 2 fusion material options.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with cervical spondylosis who were scheduled for ACDF at Siriraj Hospital (Bangkok, Thailand) during 2019-2020 were prospectively enrolled. Patients were allocated to the PEEK or IBG fusion material group according to the patient's choice of fusion material. EuroQol-5 dimensions 5 levels and relevant costs were collected during the operative and postoperative periods. A cost-utility analysis was performed using a societal perspective. All costs were converted to 2020 United States dollars (USD), and a 3% discount rate was used. The outcome was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (18 ACDF-PEEK and 18 ACDF-IBG) were enrolled. Except for Nurick grading, there was no significant difference in patient baseline characteristics between groups. The average utility at 1 year after ACDF-PEEK and ACDF-IBG were 0.939 ± 0.061 and 0.798 ± 0.081, respectively ( P < 0.001). The total lifetime cost of ACDF-PEEK and ACDF-IBG was 83,572 USD and 73,329 USD, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ACDF-PEEK when compared with that of ACDF-IBG showed a gain of 4468.52 USD/quality-adjusted life-years, which is considered cost-effective at the Thailand willingness-to-pay threshold of 5115 USD/quality-adjusted life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

ACDF-PEEK was found to be more cost-effective than ACDF-IBG for treating cervical spondylosis in Thailand.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

A Five-Year Cost-Utility Analysis Comparing Synthetic Cage Versus Allograft Use in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cost-utility analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-analysis comparing synthetic cage (SC) versus allograft (Allo) over a five-year time horizon.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SC and Allo are two commonly used interbody choices for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. Previous analyses comparative analyses have reached mixed conclusions regarding their cost-effectiveness, yet recent estimates provide high-quality evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision-analysis model comparing the use of Allo versus SC was developed for a hypothetical 60-year-old patient with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing single-level ACDF surgery. A comprehensive literature review was performed to estimate probabilities, costs (2020 USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained over a five-year period. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 patients was carried out to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the contribution of individual parameters to uncertainty in the model.

RESULTS

The use of Allo was favored in 81.6% of the iterations at a societal willing-to-pay threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. Allo dominated (higher net QALYs and lower net costs) in 67.8% of the iterations. The incremental net monetary benefits in the Allo group was 2650 USD at a willing-to-pay threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of the index surgery was the only factor which significantly contributed to uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Cost-utility analysis suggests that Allo maybe a more cost-effective option compared with SCs in adult patients undergoing ACDF for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

The Variability and Contributions to Cost of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Constructs

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the variability in cost for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) constructs and to identify key predictors of procedural cost.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ACDF is commonly performed for surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Numerous biomechanical constructs and graft/biological options are available, with most demonstrating relatively equivalent clinical results. Despite the substantial focus on value in spine care, the differences and contributions to procedural cost in ACDF have not been well defined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the records of patients who underwent a single level ACDF from 2016 to 2020 at 4 hospitals in a major metropolitan area. We abstracted demographics, insurance status, operative time, diagnosis, surgeon, institution, and components of procedural costs. Costs based on construct were compared using multivariable adjusted analyses using negative binomial regression. The primary outcome measures were cost differences between ACDF techniques.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-four patients were included, with procedures by 13 surgeons across 4 institutions. The total procedural cost for ACDF had a mean of US$2317 with wide variation (range, US$967-US$7370). Multivariable analysis revealed body mass index and use of polyether ether ketone to be correlated with increased cost while carbon fiber and autograft correlated with decreased cost. When comparing standalone device constructs to cases with anterior instrumentation (plate/screws), the total cost was significantly higher in the plate/screw group (US$2686±US$921 vs. US$1466±US$878, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We encountered wide variation in procedural costs associated with ACDF, including as much as an 8-fold difference in the cost of constructs. The most important drivers included instrumentation type and implant materials. Here, we identify potential targets of opportunity for health care organizations that are looking to reduce variance in procedural expenditures to improve health care savings associated with the performance of ACDF.

Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Clinical Trial Comparing PEEK and Allograft Spacers in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgeries

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To examine clinical and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgeries randomized to receive either polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) or structural bone allografts.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The biomechanical qualities as well as osteoconductive, osteogenic, and osteoinductive properties of various graft materials have been previously evaluated. There remain questions, however, as to whether there are any clinical and/or radiographic outcome differences in the selection of interbody graft types for ACDF.

METHODS

Patients undergoing one- to three-level ACDF with single anterior plate fixation were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive either cortical allograft or PEEK interbody spacers. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months with an additional postoperative radiographic assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were enrolled and randomized. Comparing clinical outcomes, no differences in arm or neck pain scores were noted; however, there was a statistically significant (≤0.041) improvement in SF-36 PCS scores for the allograft group at all follow-up time points and a tendency toward lower disability scores. Overall, evidence of radiographic fusion was achieved in 87 (91.6%) patients: five (10.2%) and three (6.5%) patients had pseudoarthrosis (P = 0.72) in the PEEK and allograft groups, respectively. At 24 months' follow-up time, any cervical or segmental alignment restoration achieved with surgery was lost and no statistically significant changes were detected when all levels of surgery were included. Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups for anterior or posterior body height measurements at the 24 months' follow-up. Approximately 20% of patients had anterior and posterior subsidence, all grade 0 regardless of the group assignment.

CONCLUSION

Comparable radiographic outcomes were observed for patients undergoing one- to three-level PEEK versus allograft-assisted ACDF surgeries. Although MCID comparisons suggest that allograft and PEEK-treated patients have similar clinical outcomes, testing that incorporates the magnitude of the change suggests that there may be a statistically significant greater magnitude of improvement for the allograft group patients, but further studies with a larger sample size would be helpful to determine if a true effect exists.

Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review

Introduction

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common procedure to address cervical spine pathology. The most common grafts used are titanium, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or structural allograft. Comparison of fusion rate is difficult due to non-standardized methods of assessment. We stratified studies by method of fusion assessment and performed a systematic review of fusion rates for titanium, PEEK, and allograft.

Research question

Which of the common implants used in ACDF has the highest reported rate of fusion?

Materials and methods

An experienced librarian performed a five-database systematic search for published articles between 01/01/1990 and 08/07/2021. Studies performed in adults with at least 1 year of radiographic follow up were included. The primary outcome was the rate of fusion. Fusion criteria were stratified into 6 classes based upon best practices.

Results

34 studies met inclusion criteria. 10 studies involving 924 patients with 1094 cervical levels, used tier 1 fusion criteria and 6 studies (309 patients and 367 levels) used tier 2 fusion criteria. Forty seven percent of the studies used class 3–6 fusion criteria and were not included in the analysis. Fusion rates did differ between titanium (avg. 87.3%, range 84%–100%), PEEK (avg. 92.8%, range 62%–100%), and structural allograft (avg. 94.67%, range 82%–100%).

Discussion and conclusion

After stratifying studies by fusion criteria, significant heterogeneity in study design and fusion assessment prohibited the performance of a meta-analysis. Fusion rate did not differ by graft type. Important surgical goals aside from fusion rate, such as degree of deformity correction, could not be assessed. Future studies with standardized high-quality methods of assessing fusion, are required.

•

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common procedure to address cervical spine pathology.

•

The optimal graft type of promote fusion is unknown. The methods for assessing fusion are not standardized.

•

This is a systematic review comparing fusion rates for ACDF grafts after first stratified by method of fusion assessment.

•

Significant heterogeneity in study design and fusion assessment prohibited the performance of a meta-analysis; Fusion rate did not differ by graft type.

•

Future studies with standardized high-quality methods of assessing fusion, are required.

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).

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With "Kissing" Allograft Interbodies

Background: There is recent evidence to suggest that the use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbodies are inherently associated with a higher rate of pseudarthrosis, in particular, at the C5-6 and C6-7 levels. Herein, we describe our technique utilizing two parallel structural allografts or “kissing” allografts, designed to mitigate the risk of pseudarthrosis and subsidence at these levels.

Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures with “kissing” for degenerative spine pathology at a single institution between 2018 and 2019 for the C5-6 and C6-7 levels. One-year postoperative flexion/extension cervical X-rays were evaluated for evidence of radiographic pseudarthrosis and subsidence.

Results: A total of 28 patients met the study criteria. Solid fusion was achieved in 93%. There were no infections or wound complications. One patient developed postoperative dysphagia that resolved at 3-months post-op. Two patients were found to have clinically asymptomatic radiographic pseudarthrosis that did not warrant intervention. One patient developed a postoperative hematoma that required surgical evacuation.

Conclusions: “Kissing” allograft ACDF is a safe and effective method designed to address the intrinsically higher risk of pseudarthrosis at the C5-6 and C6-7 levels. Further prospective studies are warranted to comparatively evaluate this technique against single allograft and PEEK interbodies.

Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Interbody Cage for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparison of 1-Year Outcomes From a National Database

STUDY DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 1-year perioperative complications between structural allograft (SA) and synthetic cage (SC) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a national database.

METHODS

The TriNetX Research Network was retrospectively queried. Patients undergoing initial single or multilevel ACDF surgery between October 1, 2015 and April 30, 2019 were propensity score matched based on age and comorbidities. The rates of 1-year revision ACDF surgery and reported diagnoses of pseudoarthrosis, surgical site infection (SSI), and dysphagia were compared between structural allograft and synthetic cage techniques.

RESULTS

A comparison of 1-year outcomes between propensity score matched cohorts was conducted on 3056 patients undergoing single-level ACDF and 3510 patients undergoing multilevel ACDF. In single-level ACDF patients, there was no difference in 1-year revision ACDF surgery (P = .573), reported diagnoses of pseudoarthrosis (P = .413), SSI (P = .620), or dysphagia (P = .529) between SA and SC groups. In multilevel ACDF patients, there was a higher rate of revision surgery (SA 3.8% vs SC 7.3%, odds ratio = 1.982, P < .001) in the SC group, and a higher rate of dysphagia in the SA group (SA 15.9% vs SC 12.9%).

CONCLUSION

While the overall revision and complication rate for single-level ACDF remains low despite interbody graft selection, SC implant selection may result in higher rates of revision surgery in multilevel procedures despite yielding lower rates of dysphagia. Further prospective study is warranted.

Synthetic Cages Associated With Increased Rates of Revision Surgery and Higher Costs Compared to Allograft in ACDF in the Nonelderly Patient

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare all-cause reoperation rates and costs in nonelderly patients treated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with structural allograft versus synthetic cages for degenerative pathology.

Methods

We queried a private claims database to identify adult patients (≤ 65 years) who underwent single-level ACDF in a hospital setting using either structural allograft or a synthetic cage (polyetheretherketone, metal, or hybrid device), from 2010 to 2016. The rate of all-cause reoperations at 2 years were compared between the 2 groups. Index hospitalization costs and 90-day complication rates were also compared. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

A total of 26,754 patients were included in the study. 11,514 patients (43%) underwent ACDF with structural allograft and 15,240 (57%) underwent ACDF with a synthetic cage. The patients in the allograft group were younger and more likely to be male. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to 90-day complications including: wound dehiscence, dysphagia, dysphonia, and hematoma/seroma. In the 2-year postoperative period, the synthetic cage group had a significantly higher rate of allcause reoperation compared to the allograft group (9.1% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.002). Index hospitalization costs were significantly higher in the synthetic cage group compared to those in the allograft group ($23,475 vs. $20,836, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Structural allograft is associated with lower all-cause reoperation rates and lower index costs in nonelderly patients undergoing ACDF surgery for degenerative pathology. It is important to understand this data as we transition toward value-based care.

Anterior Cervical Arthrodesis With Polyetheretherketone Spacers: What is the Role of the Grafting Material?

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of 2 surgeons' use of a single polyetheretherketone (PEEK) device.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to investigate the fusion adjunct placed within PEEK devices to examine the likelihood of an arthrodesis, regardless of the PEEK interbody device itself.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The effectiveness of PEEK interbody devices in anterior cervical arthrodesis has been questioned.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed the results of 121 patients with demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and 96 with local autograft bone placed within identical PEEK devices for anterior cervical arthrodesis (from 2011 to 2018); 1 surgeon used DBM and another local autograft bone. Arthrodesis was determined independently by a surgeon and 2 blinded neuroradiologists.

RESULTS

For DBM versus autograft; mean age was 60 versus 61 years, smoking status 42.1% versus 31%, diabetes mellitus 18.2% versus 28%, mean body mass index 31 versus 30, and follow up averaged 17 months in both groups. For DBM versus autograft; a radiographic arthrodesis was observed in 22.3% versus 76% of patients. Refusion at the index level was required in 5.8% of the DBM and 0% of the autograft patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A PEEK interbody device filled with local autograft resulted in a higher radiographic fusion rate and a lower need for reoperation at the index level than an identical device filled with DBM. Caution is warranted in assigning fusion failure to the PEEK device alone in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery.

Structural Allograft Versus PEEK Implants in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary objective was to compare reported fusion rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody devices in patients with cervical spine degeneration. Our secondary objectives were to compare differences in rates of subsidence and reoperation and in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups.

METHODS

Through a systematic review of the English-language literature using various databases, we identified 4702 articles. After we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 articles (7 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective studies, and 3 retrospective studies) reporting fusion rates of structural allograft or PEEK interbody devices were eligible for our analysis. No randomized controlled trials compared outcomes of structural allograft versus PEEK interbody devices. Extracted data included authors, study years, study designs, sample sizes, patient ages, duration of follow-up, types of interbody devices used, fusion rates, definition of fusion, reoperation rates, subsidence rates, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Fusion rates were 82% to 100% for allograft and 88% to 98% for PEEK interbody devices. The reported data were insufficient to perform meta-analysis. Structural allograft had the highest reported rate of reoperation (14%), and PEEK interbody devices had the highest reported subsidence rate (18%). Patient-reported outcomes improved in both groups. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to compare the associations of various PEEK modifications with fusion rates.

CONCLUSION

Fusion rates were similar between structural allograft and PEEK interbody devices when used for ACDF for cervical spine degeneration. Currently, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess associations of PEEK modifications with fusion rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

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.

PEEK interbody devices for multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: association with more than 6-fold higher rates of pseudarthrosis compared to structural allograft

OBJECTIVE

Common interbody graft options for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) include allograft and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). PEEK has gained popularity due to its radiolucent properties and a modulus of elasticity similar to that of bone. PEEK devices also result in higher billing costs than allograft, which may drive selection. A previous study found a 5-fold higher rate of pseudarthrosis with the use of PEEK devices compared with structural allograft in single-level ACDF. Here the authors report on the occurrence of pseudarthrosis with PEEK devices versus structural allograft in patients who underwent multilevel ACDF.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed 81 consecutive patients who underwent a multilevel ACDF and had radiographic follow-up for at least 1 year. Data were collected on age, sex, BMI, tobacco use, pseudarthrosis, and rate of reoperation for pseudarthrosis. Logistic regression was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Of 81 patients, 35 had PEEK implants and 46 had structural allograft. There were no significant differences between age, sex, smoking status, or BMI in the 2 groups. There were 26/35 (74%) patients with PEEK implants who demonstrated radiographic evidence of pseudarthrosis, compared with 5/46 (11%) patients with structural allograft (p < 0.001, OR 22.2). Five patients (14%) with PEEK implants required reoperation for pseudarthrosis, compared with 0 patients with allograft (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reinforces previous findings on 1-level ACDF outcomes and suggests that the use of PEEK in multilevel ACDF results in statistically significantly higher rates of radiographic pseudarthrosis and need for revision surgery than allograft. Surgeons should consider these findings when determining graft options, and reimbursement policies should reflect these discrepancies.

Correlation of Anterior Interbody Graft Choice With Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cervical Spine Trauma

STUDY DESIGN

Ambispective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

Synthetic graft usage avoids morbidity associated with harvest and reduces operative time. This study aims to evaluate outcomes of anterior cervical stabilization surgery using a synthetic cage in comparison with iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) following cervical spine trauma.

METHODS

An ambispective review was conducted on patients from the Alfred Trauma Registry. Consecutive patients treated at a level 1 trauma center, aged 18 years and older who were treated with standalone anterior cervical stabilization following spine trauma (2011-2016) were included in the study. Primary outcome measures were patient overall satisfaction, Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck pain 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS-neck) and arm pain 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS-arm). Secondary outcome measures were radiographic evidence of fusion and rate of revision surgery. All patients had follow-up for at least 1 year.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2016, 114 traumatic disc levels in 104 patients were treated. ICBG was used in 32% and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in 68% of the patients. Both groups had similar demographic metrics. There was no significant difference in primary outcome measures between the graft types: (1) patient satisfaction (P = .15), (2) NDI (P = .11), (3) VAS-neck (P = .13), and (4) VAS-arm (P = .20). Radiology based fusion assessment 6 months postsurgery did not show statistical significance (P = .10). The rates of revision surgery were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed no significant difference in patient-reported outcome measures when comparing the usage of PEEK cage and ICBG in anterior stand alone cervical spine stabilization. Level 1 evidence studies are required to further investigate this finding.

What Factors Influence Reimbursement for 1 to 2 Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Procedures?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine reimbursement associated with an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and the demographic factors influencing reimbursement for an ACDF.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ACDF has been shown to be a cost-effective procedure. However, there has been minimal analysis of factors influencing reimbursement for this procedure.

METHODS

Clinical and financial data were retrospectively reviewed for 176 patients undergoing an ACDF procedure in 2013 and 2014. Patients were included if they had primary ACDF and excluded if they were treated for a traumatic cervical spine fracture, infection, failed primary procedure, front/back procedure, or total disc replacement procedure. Clinical factors analyzed included number of levels fused, surgical time, length of stay in the hospital, estimated blood loss, implant type, Charleson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and preoperative diagnosis. Payer type and reimbursement associated with physician and hospital fees were collected for each patient. A multiple linear regression model determined the factors influencing reimbursement data using a backward conditional stepwise methodology. Variables were only included in multivariate analysis if there was a significant (P < 0.05) impact on reimbursement within univariate analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. The average reimbursement per patient was $24,622 (+/- standard deviation of 14,616). The only significant factors influencing reimbursement was payer type (P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.001). These two independent multivariate determinants of reimbursement only accounted for 18.6% of reimbursement variability.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variability in reimbursement for ACDF procedures. Multivariate analysis indicates that payer type and length of hospital stay significantly influence reimbursement. Our model, however, only explained a small proportion of reimbursement variability indicating that factors outside our analysis may significantly affect hospital reimbursement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Fivefold higher rate of pseudarthrosis with polyetheretherketone interbody device than with structural allograft used for 1-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

In BriefThe authors examined fusion rates after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, comparing use of a structural allograft with use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody devices packed with bone graft. The results demonstrate superior results of structural allograft in terms of arthrodesis rates and reoperation rates. Currently, reimbursement rates substantially favor the use of PEEK and other synthetic devices, which the authors believe should be changed based on the results of this study.

Patterns of healthcare resource utilization prior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion in patients with radiculopathy

Objective

To assess patterns of healthcare resource utilization prior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) in patients diagnosed with radiculopathy with a retrospective cohort study design.

Background

ACDF is associated with improvement in quality of life among patients with cervical radiculopathy. However, little is known regarding utilization of healthcare services and total cost of care before ACDF surgery in the United States.

Methods

We analyzed a group of patients who received ACDF for radiculopathy during 2009-2011 using a healthcare database of over 20 million patients of all ages. Patients with fewer than two years of data prior to ACDF procedure were excluded. Inclusion criteria included patients with a diagnosis of disc displacement/degeneration and radiculopathy. All charges related to healthcare administration within two years prior to surgery were recorded and analyzed.

Results

Sixteen hundred seventy six patients met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-three percent of patients were in the 40-59 year age range; 55% were women and 45% were men. In the two years preceding the surgery, 34% of patients received prescription NSAIDs, and 98% received prescription narcotics for total charges of $101,188 ($174.46/patient) and $222,860 ($134.82/patient) respectively. Total pain-related interventions over two years (oral pharmacotherapy and injections) were charged at $4,368,900 at an average of $2,606/treatment. Total outpatient charges including physician office visits, other outpatient visits and emergency room visits amounted to $25,450,012. Mean total outpatient charges over the two years preceding ACDF was $15,556 per patient for 26,397 episodes of care. Injectable corticosteroids were provided for 84.7% of patients and charges related to this treatment totaled $1,137 per patient.

Conclusions

In the two years prior to ACDF, healthcare resource utilization is extremely high. Given that these patients ultimately undergo surgical intervention, opportunities to reduce charges of conservative care exist.

Reimbursement Related to a 90-Day Episode of Care for a One or Two-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

BACKGROUND

A bundled payment represents a single payment for services during an episode of care for a surgical procedure. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and associated 90-day costs have been suggested as a bundle amenable to such a payment structure; however, to our knowledge, there are limited available data with regard to costs related to this procedure and subsequent care.

METHODS

The Medicare 5% National Sample Administrative Database was used to catalog clinical and financial data associated with the day of the surgical procedure and the 90-day postoperative period for patients undergoing a one to two-level ACDF procedure from 2005 to 2012. We simultaneously queried the database for total knee replacement as a means to compare the payments and to verify the reliability of our analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 4,506 patients underwent an ACDF procedure for cervical radiculopathy. The total 90-day reimbursement was $69,469,550 or a mean cost per patient (and standard deviation) of $15,417 ± $947 (median, $15,589). As a comparison, the mean reimbursement for patients who had undergone a total knee replacement amounted to $17,451 per patient. The physician reimbursement for ACDF represented 20.42% of the total, with the surgeon receiving 18.07% of the total reimbursement. Revision surgery, readmission, and emergency department reimbursement accounted for 0.71% of the total reimbursement. Reimbursement for rehabilitation services, including physical therapy, skilled nursing facilities, and home care, represented 3.11% of the total reimbursement. There was a significant variation in reimbursement among geographic regions in the United States (p < 0.001), with the highest in the West.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study is the first report on 90-day reimbursement per patient for one to two-level ACDF procedures in a Medicare cohort. Payments varied significantly among geographic locations. Our study provides a reimbursement benchmark for one to two-level ACDF procedures. Clarifying the payments relative to costs will help providers to understand whether a bundled payment for the ACDF procedure is economically viable.