Demetriades Andreas K, Mavrovounis Georgios, Deml Moritz C, Soe Kyaw Min, Buser Zorica, Meisel Hans Jörg
Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Global Spine J. 2024 Feb;14(2_suppl):163S-172S. doi: 10.1177/21925682221148139. Epub 2023 Jan 2.
This study constitutes a systematic review of the literature.
The aim of this study was to identify and present all available studies that report on the costs of osteobiologics used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).
The literature was systematically reviewed to identify studies with specific inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials and observational studies, (2) in adult patients, (3) with herniated disc(s) or degenerative cervical spine disease, (4) reporting on either direct or indirect costs of using specific osteobiologics in an ACDF operation. (5) Only studies in English were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the MINORS and RoB 2.0 tools.
Overall, 14 articles were included; one randomized controlled trial and 13 observational studies. The most commonly used osteobiologics other than autograft/iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) were allograft and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP). None of the studies was reported to be industry-supported. There was considerable heterogeneity on the reported costs. Overall, most studies reported on surgery-related costs, such as anesthesia, operating room, surgical materials and surgeon's fee. Only two studies, both using allograft, reported the exact cost of the osteobiologic used (450 GBP, $700). Some of the studies reported on the cost of care during hospitalization for the surgical operation, such as radiology studies, emergency room costs, cardiologic evaluation, laboratory studies, pharmacy costs, and room costs. Only a few studies reported on the cost of follow-up, reoperation, and physical therapy and rehabilitation.
Based on the data of this current systematic review, no recommendations can be made regarding the cost-effectiveness of using osteobiologics in ACDF. Given the high costs of osteobiologics, this remains a topic of importance. The design of future studies on the subject should include cost effectiveness.
本研究构成了对文献的系统评价。
本研究的目的是识别并呈现所有报告颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)中使用的骨生物材料成本的现有研究。
对文献进行系统评价,以识别符合特定纳入标准的研究:(1)随机对照试验和观察性研究;(2)成年患者;(3)患有椎间盘突出或退行性颈椎疾病;(4)报告ACDF手术中使用特定骨生物材料的直接或间接成本;(5)仅纳入英文研究。使用MINORS和RoB 2.0工具评估纳入研究的质量。
总体而言,纳入了14篇文章;1篇随机对照试验和13篇观察性研究。除自体骨/髂嵴骨移植(ICBG)外,最常用的骨生物材料是同种异体骨和骨形态发生蛋白(BMP)。没有研究报告得到行业支持。报告的成本存在相当大的异质性。总体而言,大多数研究报告了与手术相关的成本,如麻醉、手术室、手术材料和外科医生费用。只有两项均使用同种异体骨的研究报告了所使用骨生物材料的确切成本(450英镑,700美元)。一些研究报告了手术住院期间的护理成本,如放射学检查、急诊室费用、心脏评估、实验室检查、药房费用和病房费用。只有少数研究报告了随访、再次手术以及物理治疗和康复的成本。
基于本次系统评价的数据,无法就ACDF中使用骨生物材料的成本效益提出建议。鉴于骨生物材料成本高昂,这仍然是一个重要的话题。未来关于该主题的研究设计应包括成本效益。