A cost benefit analysis of increasing surgical technology in lumbar spine fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine fusion, such as minimally invasive (MIS) or robotic-assisted spine surgery. However, it is unknown how these advances have impacted the cost of care.

PURPOSE

Compare the economic outcomes of lumbar spine fusion between open, MIS, and robot-assisted surgery patients.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a single center spine surgery database.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Three hundred sixty propensity matched patients.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY).

METHODS

Inclusion criteria: surgical patients >18 years undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on procedure type: open, MIS, or robotic. Open patients undergoing poster spinal fusion were considered as the control group. MIS patients included those undergoing transforaminal or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous screws. Robotic patients were those undergoing robot-assisted fusion. Propensity score matching was performed between all groups for the number of levels fused. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, which reflects both private insurance and Medicare reimbursement claims for ICD-9 codes. For robotic cases, costs were reflective of operational fees and initial purchase cost. Complications and comorbidities and major complications and comorbidities were assessed according to CMS.gov manual definitions. QALYs and cost per QALY were calculated using a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline to life expectancy (78.7 years). Costs per QALY were calculated for both 1 year and life expectancy, assuming no loss of benefit. A 10,000 trial Monte Carlo simulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) assessed our model parameters and costs.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty propensity matched patients (120 open, 120 MIS, 120 robotic) met inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics for the cohort were: age 58.8±13.5, 50% women, BMI 29.4±6.3, operative time 294.4±119.0, LOS 4.56±3.31 days, estimated blood loss 515.9±670.0 cc, and 2.3±2.2 average levels fused. Rates of post-op complications were significantly higher in robotic cases versus open and MIS (43% vs. 21% and 22% for open and MIS, p<.05). However, revision rates were comparable between all groups (3% open, 3% MIS, 5% robotic, p>.05). After factoring in complications, revisions, and purchasing and operating fees, the costs of robotic cases was significantly higher than both open and MIS surgery ($60,047.01 vs. $42,538.98 open and $41,471.21 MIS). In a subanalysis of 42 patients with baseline (BL) and 1Y EQ5D data, the cost per QALY at 1Y for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases was $296,624.48, $115,911.69, and $592,734.30. If utility gained was sustained to life expectancy, the cost per QALY was $14,905.75, $5,824.71, $29,785.64 for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases. Results of the PSA were consistent with MIS surgery having the most incremental cost effectiveness when compared to open and robotic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine surgery, however, there has been limited discussion of the effect these advances have on economic outcomes. When matched for levels fused, robot-assisted surgery patients had significantly higher rates of complications and 30% higher costs of surgery compared to minimally invasive and open spine surgery patients. While 1 year economic outcomes were not optimal for robotic surgery cases, the projected costs per QALYs at life expectancy were well below established acceptable thresholds. The above findings may be reflective of an educational learning curve and emerging surgical technologies undergoing progressive refinement.