Comparing the 5-Year Health State Utility Value of Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression surgery for cervical degenerative disk disease: a systematic review of economic evaluations

PURPOSE

No clear consensus exists on which anterior surgical technique is most cost-effective for treating cervical degenerative disk disease (CDDD). One of the most common treatment options is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) was developed in an effort to reduce the incidence of clinical adjacent segment pathology and associated additional surgeries by preserving motion. This systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression techniques used to treat radiculopathy and/or myelopathy caused by CDDD.

METHODS

The search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit, NHS-EED and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if healthcare costs and utility or effectivity measurements were mentioned.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included out of the 1327 identified studies. In 9 of the 13 studies directly comparing ACDA and ACDF, ACDA was the most cost-effective technique, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio ranging from $2.900/QALY to $98.475/QALY. There was great heterogeneity between the costs of due to different in- and exclusion criteria of costs and charges, cost perspective, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. The methodological quality of the included studies was moderate.

CONCLUSION

The majority of studies report ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in comparison with ACDF. The lack of uniform literature impedes any solid conclusions to be drawn. There is a need for high-quality cost-effectiveness research and uniformity in the conduct, design and reporting of economic evaluations concerning the treatment of CDDD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020207553 (04.10.2020).

Clinical Outcomes of Cervical Hybrid Reconstructions: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

The study design was a prospective clinical cohort study. The aim of this study was to assess the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient satisfaction, as well as complication and reoperation rate of cervical hybrid procedures for symptomatic cervical multilevel degenerative disc disease (MLDDD). Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of degenerative pathologies. However, there is minimal PROMs data on the outcomes of combined CTDR and anterior cervical decompression and fusion procedures, commonly referred to as cervical hybrid surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected PROMs were analyzed from patients receiving cervical hybrid surgery for symptomatic cervical MLDDD. Between 2004 and 2016, data were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months, then yearly thereafter. Patient reported outcome measures included patient satisfaction, visual analog score for neck and arm, and Neck Disability Index. Complication and reoperation rates were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients (80 males, 71 females) who had a minimum of 12 months follow up were included. The mean age was 53 years (range = 24-81), and median follow up was 2 years (range = 1-10). The median number of levels treated was 3, with 29.8%, 49.0%, and 21.2% of patients having 2, 3, and 4 levels treated, respectively. The most common indication for surgery was multilevel cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (52.8%), followed by combined cervical spondylotic radiculomyelopathy (16.7%), axial neck pain (16%), and cervical spondylotic myelopathy (13.9%). Improvement in pain and disability scores were both clinically and statistically significant (P < .001), and these improvements were sustained throughout the course of follow up. There was a 16% incidence of minor adverse events, and 3 (1.9%) reoperations.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical hybrid surgery for cervical MLDDD demonstrates favorable and sustained clinical outcomes at short-term to midterm follow up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Statistically and substantial clinical benefits can be achieved by cervical hybrid surgery, in the treatment of cervical pathologies including radiculopathy and myelopathy. The key principles is to follow strict indications, and to match technology with the pathology.

Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Cervical degenerative disc disease is a multifactorial condition that begins with deterioration of the intervertebral disc and results in further degeneration within the spine involving the facet joints and ligaments. This health technology assessment examined the effectiveness, safety, durability, and cost-effectiveness of cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) versus fusion for treating cervical degenerative disc disease.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence comparing C-ADR with fusion. We assessed the risk of bias in each study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic review of the economic literature and assessed the cost-effectiveness of C-ADR compared with fusion. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding C-ADR in Ontario over the next 5 years. To contextualize the potential value of C-ADR, we spoke with people with cervical degenerative disc disease.

RESULTS

Eight studies of C-ADR for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease and two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease satisfied the criterion of statistical noninferiority compared with fusion on the primary outcome of 2-year overall treatment success (GRADE: Moderate). In two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease, C-ADR was statistically superior to fusion surgery for the same primary outcome (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was also noninferior to fusion for perioperative outcomes (e.g., operative time, blood loss), patient satisfaction, and health-related quality of life (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was superior to fusion for recovery and return to work, had higher technical success, and had lower rates of re-operation at the index site (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR also maintained motion at the index-treated cervical level (GRADE: Moderate), but evidence was insufficient to determine if adjacent-level surgery rates differed between C-ADR and fusion. Current evidence is also insufficient to determine the long-term durability of C-ADR.The primary economic analysis shows that C-ADR is likely to be cost-effective compared with fusion for both one-level ($11,607/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and two-level ($16,782/QALY) degeneration. Various sensitivity and scenario analyses confirm the robustness of the results. The current uptake for one-level and two-level C-ADR in Ontario is about 8% of the total eligible. For one-level involvement, the estimated net budget impact increases from $7,243 (18 procedures) in the first year to $395,623 (196 procedures) in the fifth year following public funding, for a total budget impact over 5 years of $916,326. For two-level involvement, the corresponding values are $5,460 (7 procedures) in the first year and $283,689 (76 procedures) in the fifth year, for an estimated total budget impact of $705,628 over 5 years.People with cervical degenerative disc disease reported that symptoms of pain and numbness can have a negative impact on their quality of life. People with whom we spoke had tried a variety of treatments with minor success; surgery was perceived as the most effective and permanent solution. Those who had undergone C-ADR spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

For carefully selected patients with cervical degenerative disc disease, C-ADR provides patient-important and statistically significant reductions in pain and disability. Further, unlike fusion, C-ADR allows people to maintain relatively normal cervical spine motion.Compared with fusion, C-ADR appears to represent good value for money for adults with one-level cervical degenerative disc disease ($11,607/QALY) and for adults with two-level disease ($16,782/QALY). In Ontario, publicly funding C-ADR could result in total additional costs of $916,326 for one-level procedures and $705,628 for two-level procedures over the next 5 years.People with whom we spoke who had undergone C-ADR surgery spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.

Value of Cervical Disk Arthroplasty

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.