Bhadra Arup K, Raman A S, Casey Adrian T H, Crawford R J
Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, London HA7 4LP, UK.
Eur Spine J. 2009 Feb;18(2):232-7. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0866-8. Epub 2009 Jan 9.
Although there are several accepted methods of surgical treatment for single-level cervical radiculopathy, the choice depend on the surgeon's preference. The techniques may vary in peri-operative morbidity, short- and long-term outcome, but no study so far has analyzed their cost-effectiveness. This study might give some insight in balancing cost and effectiveness and deciding the right technique. Sixty consecutive patients (15 each group), mean age 36 (range 24-76 years) with single-level cervical disc disease underwent surgical treatment with four different techniques in two centers over the period of 1999-2005. The four groups were--(1) plate and tricortical autograft, (2) plate, cage, and bone substitute, (3) cage only, and (4) disc arthroplasty. The data was collected prospectively according to our protocol and subsequently analyzed. The clinical outcome was assessed comparing visual analog scale (VAS) of neck pain and, short form 12 (SF12) questionnaire both pre- and postoperatively. The radiological assessment was done for fusion rate and postoperative related possible complications at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and final follow-up. The cost analysis was done calculating the operative time, hospital stay, implant cost together. The mean follow-up period was 31 months (range 28-43 months). The clinical outcome in terms of VAS of neck and arm pain and SF12 physical and mental score improvement (P=0.001) were comparable with all four techniques. The radiological fusion rate was comparable to current available data. As the hospital stay was longer (average 5 days) with plate and autograft group, the total cost was maximum (average 2,920 pound sterling) with this group. There was satisfactory clinical and radiological outcome with all four techniques. Using the cage alone was the most cost-effective technique, but the disc arthroplasty was comparable to the use of cage and plate. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is an established surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy. Single-level cervical radiculopathy was treated with four different techniques. The clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness were compared in this study.
尽管对于单节段颈椎神经根病有几种公认的手术治疗方法,但选择取决于外科医生的偏好。这些技术在围手术期发病率、短期和长期结果方面可能有所不同,但迄今为止尚无研究分析它们的成本效益。本研究可能会为平衡成本和效益以及确定正确的技术提供一些见解。在1999年至2005年期间,两个中心的60例连续患者(每组15例),平均年龄36岁(范围24 - 76岁),患有单节段颈椎间盘疾病,接受了四种不同技术的手术治疗。这四组分别是:(1)钢板和三面皮质自体骨移植;(2)钢板、椎间融合器和骨替代物;(3)仅使用椎间融合器;(4)椎间盘置换术。数据根据我们的方案前瞻性收集,随后进行分析。通过比较术前和术后颈部疼痛的视觉模拟量表(VAS)以及简短健康调查问卷12项(SF12)来评估临床结果。在3个月、6个月、1年和最终随访时进行放射学评估,以评估融合率和术后相关的可能并发症。通过计算手术时间、住院时间和植入物成本进行成本分析。平均随访期为31个月(范围28 - 43个月)。就颈部和手臂疼痛的VAS以及SF12身体和心理评分改善而言(P = 0.001),所有四种技术的临床结果相当。放射学融合率与现有数据相当。由于钢板和自体骨移植组的住院时间较长(平均5天),该组的总成本最高(平均2920英镑)。所有四种技术都有令人满意的临床和放射学结果。仅使用椎间融合器是最具成本效益的技术,但椎间盘置换术与使用椎间融合器和钢板相当。颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术是治疗颈椎神经根病的既定手术方法。本研究采用四种不同技术治疗单节段颈椎神经根病,并比较了临床结果和成本效益。