McAnany Steven J, Merrill Robert K, Brochin Robert L, Overley Samuel C, Kim Jun S, Qureshi Sheeraz A
Washington University Orthopedics-St Louis, MO, USA.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Global Spine J. 2018 Feb;8(1):6-10. doi: 10.1177/2192568217721893. Epub 2017 Jul 28.
Health utility analysis.
To determine the health state utility (HSU) of 1- and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc replacement (CDR).
Data from the Medtronic Prestige Cervical Disc investigational device exemption studies was used. Four groups were defined: 1-level ACDF, 1-level CDR, 2-level ACDF, and 2-level CDR. The 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was collected at baseline, 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 60 months postoperatively and converted into utility scores for each time point. A repeated-measures 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences among groups. Tukey's method for multiple comparisons was used to determine which means within the groups were statistically different ( < .05).
We found a statistically significant difference in HSU among groups as determined by repeated-measures 1-way ANOVA ( = .0008). Post hoc analysis indicated that 1-level ACDF had a statistically lower utility score compared with 1- and 2-level CDR ( = .04 and = .02, respectively). Similarly, 2-level ACDF had lower utility values compared with 2-level CDR ( = .010). One-level ACDF utility values were not different from 2-level ACDF values ( = .55). Similarly, 1-level CDR and 2-level CDR did not have different utility values ( = .67).
Overall, CDR had higher health state utility scores for 1- and 2-level procedures at every time point. This study indicates that CDR results in a higher postoperative health utility state than ACDF, and may therefore be an effective alternative to ACDF for treating degenerative conditions of the cervical spine.
健康效用分析。
确定1级和2级颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)及颈椎间盘置换术(CDR)的健康状态效用(HSU)。
使用美敦力Prestige颈椎间盘研究性器械豁免研究的数据。定义了四组:1级ACDF、1级CDR、2级ACDF和2级CDR。在术后基线、12个月、24个月、36个月和60个月收集36项简短健康调查问卷(SF - 36),并将每个时间点的数据转换为效用得分。采用重复测量单因素方差分析(ANOVA)检测组间差异。使用Tukey多重比较法确定组内哪些均值具有统计学差异(P <.05)。
通过重复测量单因素方差分析确定,组间HSU存在统计学显著差异(P =.0008)。事后分析表明,与1级和2级CDR相比,1级ACDF的效用得分在统计学上较低(分别为P =.04和P =.02)。同样,与2级CDR相比,2级ACDF的效用值较低(P =.010)。1级ACDF的效用值与2级ACDF的值无差异(P =.55)。同样,1级CDR和2级CDR的效用值也无差异(P =.67)。
总体而言,在每个时间点,CDR在1级和2级手术中的健康状态效用得分更高。本研究表明,CDR术后的健康效用状态高于ACDF,因此可能是治疗颈椎退行性疾病的ACDF的有效替代方法。