An economic model of one-level lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a cause of low back pain commonly requiring surgical intervention. The option of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) represents an advance in the surgical treatment of DDD. However, new treatments, particularly those that include the use of new implants, may lead to increased costs to both hospitals and payers. Therefore, it is both necessary and appropriate to examine the potential costs associated with a new procedure such as total disc replacement compared with traditional treatments for a specific pathology. PURPOSE To perform an economic analysis of lumbar TDR versus three different techniques for lumbar fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING A cost-minimization model. METHODS An economic model examining hospital and payer cost perspectives was developed to compare costs of TDR with the CHARITE Artificial Disc to three spinal fusion procedures: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with iliac crest bone graft (ICBG); ALIF with INFUSE Bone Graft and LT-Cages, and instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (IPLIF) with ICBG. The hospital perspective compares direct medical costs during the index hospitalization. The payer perspective considers direct medical costs of the index hospitalization and those incurred in the following two-year period. The model contains a Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) arm based strictly on DRG coding and payment, and a per-diem arm that includes a device carve-out cost and payment. RESULTS In the DRG and per-diem arms of the model, compared with TDR, hospital costs are 12.0% higher for ALIF with ICBG, 36.5% higher for ALIF with INFUSE, and 36.5% higher for IPLIF. For payers, in the per-diem arm compared with TDR, ALIF with ICBG has 4.4% lower cost, whereas ALIF with INFUSE and IPLIF have costs of 16.1% and 27.1% higher, respectively. In the DRG arm compared with TDR, payer cost is 87.1% higher for ALIF with ICBG, 82.8% higher for ALIF with INFUSE, and 99.0% higher for IPLIF. CONCLUSIONS The model shows that the overall economic effect of one-level TDR procedures on hospitals and payers is likely to be less than or at worse equivalent to one-level lumbar fusion procedures.

[1]  S. Stralka,et al.  A cost analysis of bone morphogenetic protein versus autogenous iliac crest bone graft in single-level anterior lumbar fusion. , 2003, Orthopedics.

[2]  Rolando Garcia,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemptions Study of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement With the CHARITÉ™ Artificial Disc Versus Lumbar Fusion: Part I: Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes , 2005, Spine.

[3]  D. Lansky,et al.  Correlation Between Health Outcome and Length of Hospital Stay in Lumbar Microdiscectomy , 1998, Spine.

[4]  K. Guire,et al.  Diagnostic and Management Procedures for Compensable Back Injuries Without Serious Associated Injuries: Modeling of the 1991 Injury Cohort From a Major Michigan Compensation Insurer , 1998, Spine.

[5]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Economic analysis of finasteride: a model-based approach using data from the Proscar Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study. , 1999, Clinical therapeutics.

[6]  T. Zdeblick,et al.  Is INFUSE Bone Graft Superior to Autograft Bone? An Integrated Analysis of Clinical Trials Using the LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[7]  K. Büttner-Janz.  Letter to the Editor concerning “Charité total disc replacement: clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years” (M. Putzier et al.) , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[8]  J. Brantigan,et al.  Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. , 2000, Spine.

[9]  N. D. Glick,et al.  Resource cost analysis of cervical spine trauma radiography. , 2001, Radiology.

[10]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  R. Deyo,et al.  Rapid magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing cancer-related low back pain , 2003, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[12]  H. Zippel,et al.  Eine alternative Behandlungsstrategie beim lumbalen Bandscheibenschaden mit der Bandscheibenendoprothese Modulartyp SB Charité , 1987 .

[13]  François Lavaste,et al.  Clinical and Radiological Outcomes With the Charité™ Artificial Disc: A 10-Year Minimum Follow-Up , 2005, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[14]  Philippe Gillet,et al.  The Fate of the Adjacent Motion Segments After Lumbar Fusion , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[15]  K. Nolte,et al.  Letter to the Editor concerning , 2001 .

[16]  M. Tavakoli,et al.  An economic model of the market for hospital treatment for non-urgent conditions. , 1995, Health economics.

[17]  Carsten Perka,et al.  Charité total disc replacement—clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[18]  Bradley C Strunk,et al.  Tracking health care costs: declining growth trend pauses in 2004. , 2005, Health affairs.

[19]  J. Zivin,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Spondylosis , 2005, Spine.

[20]  G. Bevan,et al.  An economic model to estimate the relative costs over 20 years of different hip prostheses. , 1999, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[21]  R. Deyo,et al.  Cervical spine screening with CT in trauma patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis. , 1999, Radiology.