Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, Davis, CA, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Sierra Neuroscience Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Spine J. 2019 Jul;19(7):1170-1179. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.02.010. Epub 2019 Feb 15.
Lumbar discectomy is largely successful surgical procedure; however, reherniation rates in patients with large annular defects are as high as 27%. The expense associated with a revision surgery places significant burden on the healthcare system.
To compare the direct health care costs through 5 years follow-up of conventional discectomy (Control) with those of discectomy supplemented by an adjunctive annular closure device (ACD) in high-risk patients with large annular defects.
This was a cost-effectiveness study.
All-cause index level reoperations were reviewed from a multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial that allocated 554 high-risk discectomy patients with large annular defects to either control or ACD. Medicare and private insurer (Humana) direct costs were derived from a commercially available payer database to estimate costs in the US healthcare system, including those associated with facility, surgeon, imaging, follow-up visits, physical therapy, and injections. A 50:50 split between Medicare and commercial insurers was assumed for the base case analysis. The analysis was also performed on a 80:20 commercial:Medicare payer basis. For the base case scenario, a 2-year time horizon and outpatient cost setting was established for the index procedure. Repeat discectomy was assumed to be performed on a 60:40 outpatient-to-inpatient basis. Complications requiring surgery, revisions, and/or fusion were assumed to be managed in the inpatient setting. Total costs of reoperation and per-patient costs of reoperation were compared between groups for both forms of insurers. One author received consulting fees of <$50,000 for the completion of this study, and the other eight authors did not have any financial associations with the current work. Funding for this study was provided by Intrinsic Therapeutics, but all analyses, interpretation, and writing were performed independently by the authors.
At two years follow-up, use of the ACD reduced the rate of symptomatic reherniations in a large defect population to 13% compared with 25% in the control group (p<.001). This reduction in symptomatic reherniations in the ACD group translated to a savings of $2,802 per patient in direct health care costs compared with Control at 2 years and $5,315 per patient by 5 years based on 50% private and 50% public (Medicare) payer split. Under the scenario of 80:20 private:public insurance reimbursement, the estimated direct cost savings were $3,215 and $6,099 per patient at 2- and 5-years postoperatively, respectively, with the use of the ACD.
Symptomatic reherniation and reoperation rates were nearly double among control patients compared with ACD-treated patients, which translated to markedly greater per-patient healthcare costs in the control group, where the ACD was not used.
腰椎间盘切除术是一种广泛成功的手术方法,但对于存在大环形缺陷的患者,再突出率高达 27%。与修订手术相关的费用给医疗保健系统带来了巨大的负担。
比较常规椎间盘切除术(对照组)与大环形缺陷高危患者辅助使用环形封闭装置(ACD)的椎间盘切除术在 5 年随访期间的直接医疗成本。
这是一项成本效益研究。
对来自一项多中心、随机对照优势试验的全因索引水平再手术进行了回顾,该试验将 554 例存在大环形缺陷的高危椎间盘切除术患者随机分配至对照组或 ACD 组。从商业可用的支付者数据库中获得医疗保险和私人保险公司(Humana)的直接费用,以估计美国医疗保健系统的成本,包括与设施、外科医生、影像学、随访、物理治疗和注射相关的成本。假设基础案例分析中医疗保险和商业保险公司各占 50%。还根据 80:20 的商业医疗保险支付者比例进行了分析。对于基础案例场景,为索引手术建立了 2 年的时间范围和门诊成本设置。假设再次椎间盘切除术以 60:40 的门诊到住院比例进行。需要手术、修订和/或融合的并发症假设在住院环境中进行管理。比较两组之间两种形式的保险公司的再手术总费用和每位患者的再手术费用。一位作者因完成这项研究而获得了低于 50,000 美元的咨询费,其他八位作者与当前工作没有任何财务关联。这项研究的资金由 Intrinsic Therapeutics 提供,但所有分析、解释和写作均由作者独立完成。
在两年的随访中,与对照组的 25%相比,ACD 的使用将大缺陷人群中症状性再突出的发生率降低至 13%(p<.001)。在 ACD 组中,这种症状性再突出的减少转化为与对照组相比,在 2 年时每位患者直接医疗费用节省 2802 美元,在 5 年时每位患者节省 5315 美元,这是基于 50%的私人(医疗保险)和 50%的公共(医疗保险)支付者的划分。在 80:20 的私人:公共保险报销方案下,使用 ACD 分别估计在术后 2 年和 5 年的每位患者的直接成本节省分别为 3215 美元和 6099 美元。
与 ACD 治疗患者相比,对照组患者的症状性再突出和再手术率几乎翻了一番,这导致对照组每位患者的医疗保健费用显著增加,而在对照组中未使用 ACD。