Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

This randomized controlled health economic study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the concept of total disc replacement (TDR) (Charité/Prodisc/Maverick) when compared with the concept of instrumented lumbar fusion (FUS) [posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) /posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)]. Social and healthcare perspectives after 2 years are reported. In all, 152 patients were randomized to either TDR (n = 80) or lumbar FUS (n = 72). Cost to society (total mean cost/patient, Swedish kronor = SEK, standard deviation) for TDR was SEK 599,560 (400,272), and for lumbar FUS SEK 685,919 (422,903) (ns). The difference was not significant: SEK 86,359 (−45,605 to 214,332). TDR was significantly less costly from a healthcare perspective, SEK 22,996 (1,202 to 43,055). Number of days on sick leave among those who returned to work was 185 (146) in the TDR group, and 252 (189) in the FUS group (ns). Using EQ-5D, the total gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years was 0.41 units for TDR and 0.40 units for FUS (ns). Based on EQ-5D, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of using TDR instead of FUS was difficult to analyze due to the “non-difference” in treatment outcome, which is why cost/QALY was not meaningful to define. Using cost-effectiveness probabilistic analysis, the net benefit (with CI) was found to be SEK 91,359 (−73,643 to 249,114) (ns). We used the currency of 2006 where 1 EURO = 9.26 SEK and 1 USD = 7.38 SEK. It was not possible to state whether TDR or FUS is more cost-effective after 2 years. Since disc replacement and lumbar fusion are based on different conceptual approaches, it is important to follow these results over time

Linn\ue9s Hammarby

Volume: 1Start Page: 1End Page: 7

Familjetraditioner om Linn\ue9 : upptecknade

Volume: 2Start Page: 1End Page: 2

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study with historical controls. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: On theoretical grounds, PLIF has been suggested to result in an improved outcome compared with PLF. Data to support this view, however, are lacking. METHODS: A total of 86 patients (age range, 18-55 years) with adult isthmic spondylolisthesis were operated on with PLIF. The comparison group consisted of 77 patients operated on with PLF with iliac bone autograft, 40 with and 37 without pedicle fixation. The 2 groups had similar socioeconomic, age and sex distribution, level of pain, and disability. Inclusion criteria and outcome measurements were identical in both groups. The PLIF group was operated on with autograft and carbon fiber ramps with pedicle fixation. Before surgery and at the 2-year follow-up, pain (VAS) and functional disability were quantified by the Disability Rating Index (DRI, 0-100) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The global outcome was assessed by the patient as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. RESULTS: The follow-up rate was 98% in the PLIF group and 97% in the PLF group. In PLIF patients, pain index improved from 66 to 35 (P < 0.0001) and the DRI from 47 to 30 (P < 0.01). The levels of pain and DRI were similar to that of the PLF group (pain 37, DRI 29, not significant), and the ODI was identical in both groups (25); 74% of the patients in both groups classified the results as much better or better. CONCLUSION: Type of fusion, PLIF or PLF, does not affect the 2-year outcome of surgical treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Despite the theoretical advantages of PLIF, no improvement on patient outcome compared with posterolateral fusion could be demonstrated, questioning the need of anterior support in short lumbar fusions