RESUMO
Over the last decade, several of the Food and Drug Administration-regulated investigational device exemption (IDE) trials have compared multiple cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) devices to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) showing comparable and even superior patient-reported outcomes. CDA has been an increasingly attractive option because of the positive outcomes and the motion-preserving technology. However, with the large burden that health care expenditures place on the economy, the focus is now on the value of treatment options. Cost-effectiveness studies assess value by evaluating both outcomes and cost, and recently several have been conducted comparing CDA and ACDF. The results have consistently shown that CDA is a cost-effective alternative, however, in comparison to ACDF the results remain inconclusive. The lack of incorporation of disease specific measures into health state utility values, the inconsistent methods of calculating cost, and the fact that a vast majority of the results have come from industry-sponsored studies makes it difficult to form a definitive conclusion. Despite these limitations, both procedures have proven to be safe, effective, and cost-efficient alternatives.
Assuntos
Artroplastia , Vértebras Cervicais/cirurgia , Substituição Total de Disco , Artroplastia/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Descompressão Cirúrgica/economia , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Fusão Vertebral/economia , Substituição Total de Disco/economia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using a nationally representative inpatient database. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the national revision burden for lumbar total disc replacements (TDRs) in the United States following Food and Drug Administration approval, for comparison with lumbar fusion and other common orthopedic procedures, including hip and knee replacement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies of revision lumbar TDR surgery have been based on IDE studies. The epidemiology and costs of TDR revision surgery from a national perspective have not yet been reported. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify primary and revision TDR and anterior fusion procedures in 2005 and 2006. Surgeries were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample using ICD9-CM codes. The prevalence of TDR and fusion surgery was calculated as a function of age, gender, race, census region, primary payer class, and type of hospital. Average length of stay and total hospitalization costs were also computed for each type of procedure. RESULTS: During the study period, there was a national total of 7172 TDR and 62,731 anterior fusion surgeries, including both primary and revisions. Overall, TDR patients were younger and had less comorbidity than fusion surgery patients. The average revision burden for lumbar TDR and anterior fusion was 11.2% and 5.8%, respectively. The average length of stay for primary lumbar TDR was significantly shorter compared to revision TDR, primary anterior fusion, and revision anterior fusion (P < 0.0001). Both the primary and the revision surgery using the TDR surgery involved significantly lower total hospital costs relative to anterior fusion surgery (P < 0.0001). Including revision, the average costs per TDR procedure were lower than anterior and posterior lumbar fusion. CONCLUSION: Although the revision burden for TDR was significantly higher than fusion surgery, the TDR revision burden fell within the revision burden range of hip and knee replacement, which are generally considered successful and cost-effective procedures. Economically, the higher revision burden for TDRs was offset by lower costs for both the primary as well as the revision procedures relative to fusion.