A systematic review comparing the cost-effectiveness of the direct anterior, posterior, and straight lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty is a reliable option to treat osteoarthritis. It reduces pain, increases quality of life, and restores function. The direct anterior approach (DAA), posterior approach (PA), and straight lateral approach (SLA) are mostly used. This systematic review evaluates current literature about costs and cost-effectiveness of DAA, PA, and SLA.METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic search, registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42021237427), was conducted of databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, Econlit, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative cohort studies reporting or comparing costs or cost-effectiveness of either approach as the primary outcome. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed. For comparison, all costs were converted to American Dollars (reference year 2016).RESULTS: Six systematic review studies were included. RoB ranged from low to high, the level of evidence ranged from 2 to 4, and methodological quality was moderate. Costs ranged from $5313.85 to$15 859.00 (direct) and $1921.00 to$6364.30 (indirect) in DAA. From $5158.46 to$12 344.47 (direct) to $2265.70 to$5566.01 (indirect) for PA and from $3265.62 to$8501.81 (direct) and $2280.16 (indirect) for SLA. Due to heterogeneity of included costs, they were not directly comparable. Solid data about cost-effectiveness cannot be presented.CONCLUSIONS: Due to limited and heterogenous evidence about costs and cost-effectiveness, the effect of these in surgical approach is unknown. Further well-powered research to make undisputed conclusions is needed.</p

Advocating uniformity in spine surgery:A practical disease-specific guideline for trial-based economic evaluations

Objectives Despite the availability of general and national guidelines for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations, there is heterogeneity in economic evolutions concerning spine surgery. This is partly the result of differing levels of adherence to the existing guidelines and the lack of disease-specific recommendations for economic evaluations. The extensive heterogeneity in study design, follow-up duration and outcome measurements limit the comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery. This study has three objectives: (1) to create disease-specific recommendations for the design and conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery, (2) to define recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery as a complement to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and (3) to discuss methodological challenges and defining the need for future research. Design A modified Delphi method according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Setting A four-step process was followed to create and validate disease-specific statements and recommendations for the conduct and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. Consensus was defined as &gt;75% agreement. Participants A total of 20 experts were included in the expert group. Validation of the final recommendations was obtained in a Delphi panel, which consisted of 40 researchers in the field who were not included in the expert group. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measure is a set of recommendations for the conduct and reporting, as a complement to the CHEERS 2022 checklist, of economic evaluations in spine surgery. Results A total of 31 recommendations are made. The Delphi panel confirmed consensus on all of the recommendations in the proposed guideline. Conclusion This study provides an accessible and practical guideline for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. This disease-specific guideline is a complement to existing guidelines, and should aid in reaching uniformity and comparability

Process Evaluation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries in Five Dutch Hospitals: A Qualitative Analysis

Background and Objectives: Only limited qualitative research concerning instrumented spine surgeries has been published, despite the increasing number of these surgeries and the evident importance of qualitative analysis of the processes surrounding these complex interventions. Current qualitative research is mainly limited to the experiences, emotions and expectations of patients. Insight into the full process, including experiences from the perspective of informal caregivers and healthcare professionals, remains scarce. Materials and Methods: Data were gathered by means of semi-structured face-to-face interviews. In total, there were 27 participants, including 11 patients, 7 informal caregivers and 9 healthcare professionals. The interview process was audiotaped, and each interview was transcribed verbatim. To systematically analyse the gathered data, software for qualitative analysis (NVivo) was used. After immersion in the raw data of transcripts and field notes, a list of broad categories for organising the data into meaningful clusters for analysis was developed. All interviews were coded by the first author, and 25% was independently assessed by the second author. Results: The results of our study describe several promoting and limiting factors concerning the process of lumbar fusion surgery from the perspective of patients, informal caregivers and healthcare providers. The most frequently mentioned promoting factors were: information and opportunities to ask questions during consultations; multidisciplinary consultations; good communication and guidance during hospitalization; and follow-up appointments. The most frequently mentioned limiting factors were: lack of educational material; lack of guidance and communication prior to, during and after hospitalisation. Conclusion: Overall, participants were satisfied with the current healthcare-process in lumbar fusion surgery. However, we found that lack of educational material and guidance during the process led to insecurity about complaints, surgery and recovery. To improve the process of lumbar interbody fusion and to increase patient satisfaction, healthcare providers should focus on guiding and educating patients and informal caregivers about the pre-operative trajectory, the surgery and the recovery. From the healthcare providers’ perspective, the process could be improved by multidisciplinary consultations and a dedicated spine team in the operation room. Although this study focusses on lumbar fusion surgery, results could be translated to other fields of spine surgery and surgery in general

Process Evaluation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries in Five Dutch Hospitals: A Qualitative Analysis

Background and Objectives: Only limited qualitative research concerning instrumented spine surgeries has been published, despite the increasing number of these surgeries and the evident importance of qualitative analysis of the processes surrounding these complex interventions. Current qualitative research is mainly limited to the experiences, emotions and expectations of patients. Insight into the full process, including experiences from the perspective of informal caregivers and healthcare professionals, remains scarce. Materials and Methods: Data were gathered by means of semi-structured face-to-face interviews. In total, there were 27 participants, including 11 patients, 7 informal caregivers and 9 healthcare professionals. The interview process was audiotaped, and each interview was transcribed verbatim. To systematically analyse the gathered data, software for qualitative analysis (NVivo) was used. After immersion in the raw data of transcripts and field notes, a list of broad categories for organising the data into meaningful clusters for analysis was developed. All interviews were coded by the first author, and 25% was independently assessed by the second author. Results: The results of our study describe several promoting and limiting factors concerning the process of lumbar fusion surgery from the perspective of patients, informal caregivers and healthcare providers. The most frequently mentioned promoting factors were: information and opportunities to ask questions during consultations; multidisciplinary consultations; good communication and guidance during hospitalization; and follow-up appointments. The most frequently mentioned limiting factors were: lack of educational material; lack of guidance and communication prior to, during and after hospitalisation. Conclusion: Overall, participants were satisfied with the current healthcare-process in lumbar fusion surgery. However, we found that lack of educational material and guidance during the process led to insecurity about complaints, surgery and recovery. To improve the process of lumbar interbody fusion and to increase patient satisfaction, healthcare providers should focus on guiding and educating patients and informal caregivers about the pre-operative trajectory, the surgery and the recovery. From the healthcare providers&rsquo; perspective, the process could be improved by multidisciplinary consultations and a dedicated spine team in the operation room. Although this study focusses on lumbar fusion surgery, results could be translated to other fields of spine surgery and surgery in general

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment

Objectives The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.Study design Systematic literature review.Data sources PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.Data extraction and synthesis The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.Results 130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.Conclusions The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery