» Articles » PMID: 16369828

Health Economic Evaluation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: a Systematic Literature Review Anno 2005

Overview
Journal Eur Spine J
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2005 Dec 22
PMID 16369828
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The goal of this systematic literature review was to assess the evidence for cost-effectiveness of various surgical techniques in lumbar spinal fusion in conformity with the guidelines provided by the Cochrane Back Review Group. As new technology continuously emerges and divergent directions in clinical practice are present, economic evaluation is needed in order to facilitate the decision-makers' budget allocations. NHS Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched. Two independent reviewers (one clinical content expert and one economic content expert) applied the eligibility criteria. A list of criteria for methodological quality assessment was established by merging the criteria recommended by leading health economists with the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. The two reviewers independently scored the selected literature and the disagreement was resolved by means of consensus following discussion. Key data were extracted and the level of evidence concluded. Seven studies were eligible; these studies reflected the diversified choices of economic methodology, study populations (diagnosis), outcome measures and comparators. At the conclusion of quality assessment, the methodological quality of three studies was judged credible. Two studies investigated posteolateral fusion (PLF) +/- instrumentation in different populations: one investigated non-specific low back pain and one investigated degenerative stenosis + spondylolisthesis. Both studies reflected that cost-effectiveness of instrumentation in PLF is not convincing. The third study concerned the question of circumferential vs anterior lumbar interbody fusion and found a non-significant difference between the techniques. In conclusion, the literature is limited and, in view of the fact that the clinical effects are statistically synonymous, it does not support the use of high-cost techniques. There is a great potential for improvement of methodological quality in economic evaluations of lumbar spinal fusion and further research is imperative.

Citing Articles

A Prospective Study of Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Stenosis: Early Cost-effective Assessment from the Total Posterior Spine System (TOPS™) IDE Study.

Ament J, Vokshoor A, Badr Y, Lanman T, Kim K, Johnson J J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2022; 9(1):82-89.

PMID: 35620455 PMC: 9132256. DOI: 10.36469/001c.33035.


Objective monitoring of activity and Gait Velocity using wearable accelerometer following lumbar microdiscectomy to detect recurrent disc herniation.

Mobbs R, Katsinas C, Choy W, Rooke K, Maharaj M J Spine Surg. 2019; 4(4):792-797.

PMID: 30714012 PMC: 6330584. DOI: 10.21037/jss.2018.12.02.


Long-Term Objective Physical Activity Measurements using a Wireless Accelerometer Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Surgery.

Phan K, Mobbs R Asian Spine J. 2016; 10(2):366-9.

PMID: 27114781 PMC: 4843077. DOI: 10.4184/asj.2016.10.2.366.


Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Rampersaud Y, Gray R, Lewis S, Massicotte E, Fehlings M SAS J. 2015; 5(2):29-35.

PMID: 25802665 PMC: 4365621. DOI: 10.1016/j.esas.2011.02.001.


Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up.

Christensen A, Hoy K, Bunger C, Helmig P, Hansen E, Andersen T Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(5):1137-43.

PMID: 24557326 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3238-6.


References
1.
Willan A, OBrien B . Sample size and power issues in estimating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials data. Health Econ. 1999; 8(3):203-11. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199905)8:3<203::aid-hec413>3.0.co;2-7. View

2.
Katz J, Lipson S, Lew R, Grobler L, Weinstein J, Brick G . Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997; 22(10):1123-31. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199705150-00012. View

3.
Maniadakis N, Gray A . The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain. 1999; 84(1):95-103. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00187-6. View

4.
Kuntz K, Snider R, Weinstein J, Pope M, Katz J . Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(9):1132-9. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200005010-00015. View

5.
Soegaard R, Christensen F, Lauerberg I, Lauersen I, Bunger C . Lumbar spinal fusion patients' demands to the primary health sector: evaluation of three rehabilitation protocols. A prospective randomized study. Eur Spine J. 2005; 15(5):648-56. PMC: 3489345. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0884-8. View