Traditional growing rod versus magnetically controlled growing rod for treatment of early onset scoliosis: Cost analysis from implantation till skeletal maturity.

PURPOSE

To compare the yearly cost involved per patient in the use of magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) and traditional growing rods (TGRs) in the treatment of early onset scoliosis (EOS) and to assess the overall cost burden of MCGR with reference to patient and health-care infrastructure.

METHODS

For a hypothetical case of a 5-year-old girl with a diagnosis of EOS, a decision-tree model using TreeAge Software was developed to simulate annual health state transitions and compare the 8-year accumulative direct, indirect, and total cost among the four groups: (1) dual MCGRs with exchange every 2 years, (2) dual MCGRs with exchange every 3 years, (3) TGR with surgical distraction every year, and (4) TGR with surgical distraction every 6 months. Base-case values and ranges of clinical parameters reflecting complication rate after each type of surgical distraction were determined from a review of literature and expert opinion. Government gazette and expert opinion provided cost estimation of growing rods, surgeries, surgical complications, and routine follow-up. Microsimulation of 1000 individuals was conducted to test the variation in total direct costs (in 2016 Hong Kong dollars (HKD)) between individuals, and estimated the standard deviations of total direct costs for each group.

RESULTS

Over the projected treatment period, indirect costs incurred by patients and family were higher for the MCGR as compared to the TGR. However, the total costs incurred by MCGR groups (group 1: HKD164k; group 2: HKD138k) were lower than those incurred by TGR groups (group 3: HKD191k; group 4: HKD290k). Although the accumulative costs of three groups (TGR with distraction every year and MCGR replacing every 2 and 3 years) were approaching each other in the first 2 years after initial implantation, at year 3 the accumulative cost of MCGR exchange every 2 years was HKD36k more than the yearly TGR surgery due to the cost of implant exchange. The cost incurred by both the MCGR groups was less than that incurred by the TGR groups from year 4 to skeletal maturity.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dual MCGRs, regardless of its 2- or 3-year exchange, was only cost saving and less expensive than the dual TGRs for EOS treatment from the fourth year of continuous treatment. Despite higher patient-related costs during MCGR treatment, it is important to consider the reduced risks and mental burden suffered by these children during repeat surgeries. With improved knowledge of the costs associated with long-term MCGR use, better constructed cost-effectiveness studies can be performed in the future.