Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Postal Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Anaesthesiology, Groningen Pain Centre, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Eur Spine J. 2024 Aug;33(8):3087-3098. doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08340-4. Epub 2024 Jun 7.
For cervical nerve root compression, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) or posterior foraminotomy (posterior surgery) are safe and effective options. Posterior surgery might have a more beneficial economic profile compared to anterior surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyse if posterior surgery is cost-effective compared to anterior surgery.
An economic evaluation was performed as part of a multicentre, noninferiority randomised clinical trial (Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-effectiveness Trial) with a follow-up of 2 years. Primary outcomes were cost-effectiveness based on arm pain (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0-100)) and cost-utility (quality adjusted life years (QALYs)). Missing values were estimated with multiple imputations and bootstrap simulations were used to obtain confidence intervals (CIs).
In total, 265 patients were randomised and 243 included in the analyses. The pooled mean decrease in VAS arm at 2-year follow-up was 44.2 in the posterior and 40.0 in the anterior group (mean difference, 4.2; 95% CI, - 4.7 to 12.9). Pooled mean QALYs were 1.58 (posterior) and 1.56 (anterior) (mean difference, 0.02; 95% CI, - 0.05 to 0.08). Societal costs were €28,046 for posterior and €30,086 for the anterior group, with lower health care costs for posterior (€12,248) versus anterior (€16,055). Bootstrapped results demonstrated similar effectiveness between groups with in general lower costs associated with posterior surgery.
In patients with cervical radiculopathy, arm pain and QALYs were similar between posterior and anterior surgery. Posterior surgery was associated with lower costs and is therefore likely to be cost-effective compared with anterior surgery.
对于颈神经根受压,前路颈椎间盘切除术融合术(前路手术)或后路椎间孔切开术(后路手术)是安全有效的选择。与前路手术相比,后路手术可能具有更有利的经济状况。本研究旨在分析后路手术是否比前路手术更具成本效益。
作为一项多中心、非劣效性随机临床试验(椎间孔切开术与前路颈椎间盘切除术的成本效益试验)的一部分进行了经济评估,随访时间为 2 年。主要结局是基于手臂疼痛(视觉模拟量表(VAS;0-100))和成本效用(质量调整生命年(QALYs))的成本效益。使用多重插补估计缺失值,并使用自举模拟获得置信区间(CI)。
共有 265 名患者被随机分组,243 名患者被纳入分析。2 年随访时,后路组 VAS 手臂平均下降 44.2,前路组平均下降 40.0(平均差异,4.2;95%CI,-4.7 至 12.9)。后路组平均 QALY 为 1.58(后路)和 1.56(前路)(平均差异,0.02;95%CI,-0.05 至 0.08)。后路组社会成本为 28046 欧元,前路组为 30086 欧元,后路组的医疗保健成本较低(12248 欧元),而前路组为 16055 欧元。自举结果表明,两组的疗效相似,一般来说,后路手术的成本较低。
在患有颈椎病神经根病的患者中,后路手术和前路手术在手臂疼痛和 QALY 方面相似。后路手术与较低的成本相关,因此与前路手术相比可能更具成本效益。