Cost-Utility Analysis of Pedicle Screw Removal After Successful Posterior Instrumented Fusion in Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures

Impact of implant removal on quality of life and loss of correction in the treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine

Background

Benefit of implant removal in spine surgery remains unclear. While there is mostly consensus about necessity of implant removal in posterior-only stabilized patients, the effect of this measure in cases with combined anterior-posterior stabilization is undetermined. With this work we present a retrospective analysis of 87 patients with traumatic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures concerning quality of life (QOL), loss of correction (LOC) and range of motion (ROM). The effect of implant removal on the outcome 18-74 months after surgery was analyzed to determine how implant removal affects radiologic, functional and quality-of life-related parameters.

Patients and methods

87 patients suffering from a traumatic vertebral body fracture (T11 - L2) were included. Quality of life was determined using four different scoring systems (SF 36, VAS, Oswestry, LBOS). Clinical examination included range of motion. Radiologic findings were correlated with QOL.

Results

Patients with removal of the internal fixator had a trend towards better range of motion than patients with posterior instrumentation left in place. Radiologic findings showed no correlation to QOL. Implant removal led to better values in Oswestry and SF-36. 69% of patients after removal reported a reduction of their symptoms.All patients with persistence of severe pain after implant removal belonged to subgroup II.2 (anterior monosegmental fusion with bone graft).

Conclusion

Removal of the internal fixator can lead to a reduction of symptoms. Patient selection is crucial for successful indication. Radiologic findings do not correlate with QOL.

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.

The Necessity of Implant Removal after Fixation of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures—A Systematic Review

Background: Thoracolumbar burst fractures are a common traumatic vertebral fracture in the spine, and pedicle screw fixation has been widely performed as a safe and effective procedure. However, after the stabilization of the thoracolumbar burst fractures, whether or not to remove the pedicle screw implant remains controversial. This review aimed to assess the benefits and risks of pedicle screw instrument removal after fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Methods: Data sources, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Clinical trials.gov, were comprehensively searched. All types of human studies that reported the benefits and risks of implant removal after thoracolumbar burst fractures, were selected for inclusion. Clinical outcomes after implant removal were collected for further evaluation. Results: A total of 4051 papers were retrieved, of which 35 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, including four case reports, four case series, and 27 observational studies. The possible risks of pedicle screw removal after fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures include the progression of the kyphotic deformity and surgical complications (e.g., surgical site infection, neurovascular injury, worsening pain, revision surgery), while the potential benefits of pedicle screw removal mainly include improved segmental range of motion and alleviated pain and disability. Therefore, the potential benefits and possible risks should be weighed to support patient-specific clinical decision-making about the removal of pedicle screws after the successful fusion of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Conclusions: There was conflicting evidence regarding the benefits and harms of implant removal after successful fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures, and the current literature does not support the general recommendation for removal of the pedicle screw instruments, which may expose the patients to unnecessary complications and costs. Both surgeons and patients should be aware of the indications and have appropriate expectations of the benefits and risks of implant removal. The decision to remove the implant or not should be made individually and cautiously by the surgeon in consultation with the patient. Further studies are warranted to clarify this issue. Level of evidence: level 1.

Healing pattern classification for thoracolumbar burst fractures after posterior short-segment fixation

BACKGROUND

Thoracolumbar burst fractures can be treated with posterior short-segment fixation. However, no classification can help to estimate whether the healed vertebral body will have sufficient stability after implant removal. We aimed to develop a Healing Pattern Classification (HPC) to evaluate the stability of the healed vertebra based on cavity size and location.

METHODS

Fifty-two thoracolumbar burst fracture patients treated with posterior short-segmental fixation without fusion and followed up for an average of 3.2 years were retrospectively studied. The HPC was divided into 4 types: type I - no cavity; type II - a small cavity with or without the violation of one endplate; type III - a large cavity with or without the violation of one endplate; and type IV - a burst cavity with the violation of both endplates or the lateral cortical shell. The intraobserver and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the HPC were assessed. The demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes of the cohort were compared between the stable group (types I and II) and the unstable group (types III and IV). Logistic regression was conducted to evaluate risk factors for unstable healing.

RESULTS

The intraobserver and interobserver ICCs of the HPC were 0.86 (95% CI = 0.74-0.90) and 0.77 (95% CI = 0.59-0.86), respectively. While the unstable healing group (types III and IV) accounted for 59.6% of the patients, most of these patients were asymptomatic. The preoperative Load Sharing Classification (LSC) comminution score may predict the occurrence of unstable healing (OR = 8.4, 95% CI = 2.4-29.7).

CONCLUSIONS

A reliable classification for assessing the stability of a healed vertebra was developed. With type I and II healing, the vertebra is considered stable, and the implant can be removed. With type III healing, the vertebra may have healing potential, but the implant should not be removed unless type II healing is achieved. With type IV healing, the vertebra is considered extremely unstable, and instrumentation should be maintained. Assessing the LSC comminution score preoperatively may help to predict unstable healing after surgery.

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in U.S. Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Increasing costs put the value of spine surgery under scrutiny. In health economics, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are used to compare the value of competing procedures. However, inconsistent methodology prevents standardization and implementation of recommendations. The goal of this study is to perform a systematic review of all U.S. CEAs in spine surgery reported to date, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and define metrics essential for high-quality CEAs.

METHODS

We followed AMSTAR systematic review methods, identifying all U.S. spine surgery CEAs reported to March 2019 with a structured, reproducible search of PubMed, Embase, and the Tufts CEA Registry.

RESULTS

We identified 40 CEA studies. Twelve (30%) used outcome data from a randomized controlled trial. To calculate costs, 22 (55%) used allowed charges but costing methods were often unclear or imprecise. Studies applying discounting had mean follow-up of 5.92 years compared with 3.00 years for studies without. Eleven of 15 (73%) cervical studies compared cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, finding cervical disc arthroplasty to be cost-effective (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life year) for 1-level and 2-level procedures. Eleven of 25 lumbar studies (44%) compared operative with nonoperative interventions for intervertebral disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Lumbar studies comparing surgical with nonoperative intervention found surgery at least cost-effective for intervertebral disc herniation and lumbar stenosis, but cost-effective only for lumbar spondylolisthesis at 4 years follow-up. Most studies (70%) lacked appropriate sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Costing methodology remains obscure and inconsistent and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results incomparable. The language of costing methodology must be standardized and sensitivity analyses of outcome and cost inputs mandatory for publication.

A Cost-utility Analysis of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation: Transforaminal versus Interlaminar

STUDY DESIGN

A cost-utility analysis (CUA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) techniques for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The annual cost of treatment for lumbar disc herniation is staggering. As the two major approaches of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD): percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) have gained recognition for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and showed similar clinical outcome. ost-utility analysis (CUA) can help clinicians make appropriate decisions about optimal health care for L5-S1 LDH.

METHODS

Fifty and 25 patients were included in the PETD and PEID groups of the study. Patients' basic characteristics, health care costs, and clinical outcome of PETD and PEID group were collected and analyzed. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated and validated by EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost per QALY gained.

RESULTS

The mean total cost of the PETD group was $5275.58 ± 292.98 and the PEID group was $5494.45 ± 749.24. No significant differences were observed in hospitalization expenses, laboratory and radiographic evaluations expenses, surgical expenses, and drug costs. Surgical equipment and materials costs, and anesthesia expense in the PEID group were significantly higher than in the PETD group (P < 0.001). Clinical outcomes, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), also showed no significant differences between the two groups. The cost-effectiveness ratio of PETD and PEID were $6816.05 ± 717.90/QALY and $7073.30 ± 1081.44/QALY, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of PEID over PETD was $21887.00/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Observed costs per QALY gained for L5-S1 LDH with PETD or PEID were similar for patients, demonstrating that the two different approaches of PELD are equally cost-effective and valuable interventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.