BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc replacement (CDR) are both acceptable surgical options for the treatment of cervical myelopathy and radiculopathy. To date, there are limited economic analyses assessing the relative cost-effectiveness of two-level ACDF versus CDR.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the 5-year cost-effectiveness of two-level ACDF versus CDR.

STUDY DESIGN

The study design is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients in the Prestige cervical disc investigational device exemption (IDE) study who underwent either a two-level CDR or a two-level ACDF were included in the study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures were cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was used to evaluate data from the two-level Prestige cervical disc IDE study. Data from the 36-item Short Form Health Survey were converted into utilities using the short form (SF)-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated from the payer perspective. QALYs were used to represent effectiveness. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis, assuming a 40-year-old person who failed appropriate conservative care, generated a 5-year cost of $130,417 for CDR and $116,717 for ACDF. Cervical disc replacement and ACDF generated 3.45 and 3.23 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to be $62,337/QALY for CDR. The Monte Carlo simulation validated the base-case scenario. Cervical disc replacement had an average cost of $130,445 (confidence interval [CI]: $108,395-$152,761) with an average effectiveness of 3.46 (CI: 3.05-3.83). Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion had an average cost of $116,595 (CI: $95,439-$137,937) and an average effectiveness of 3.23 (CI: 2.84-3.59). The ICER was calculated at $62,133/QALY with respect to CDR. Using a $100,000/QALY willingness to pay (WTP), CDR is the more cost-effective strategy and would be selected 61.5% of the time by the simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-level CDR and ACDF are both cost-effective strategies at 5 years. Neither strategy was found to be more cost-effective with an ICER greater than the $50,000/QALY WTP threshold. The assumptions used in the analysis were strongly validated with the results of the PSA.