Cost-utility Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Multilevel Hemilaminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis

Study Design: Two-year cost-utility study comparing minimally invasive (MIS) versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Objective: The objective of the study was to determine whether MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a cost-effective advancement in lumbar decompression surgery. Summary of Background Data: MIS-multilevel hemilaminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis allows for effective treatment of back and leg pain while theoretically minimizing blood loss, tissue injury, and postoperative recovery. No studies have evaluated comprehensive healthcare costs associated with multilevel hemilaminectomy procedures, nor assessed cost-effectiveness of MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy. Methods: Fifty-four consecutive patients with lumbar stenosis undergoing multilevel hemilaminectomy through an MIS paramedian tubular approach (n=27) versus midline open approach (n=27) were included. Total back-related medical resource utilization, missed work, and health state values [quality adjusted life years (QALYs), calculated from EuroQuol-5D with US valuation] were assessed after 2-year follow-up. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts (direct cost) and work-day losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Difference in mean total cost per QALY gained for MIS versus open hemilaminectomy was assessed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER: COSTMIS–COSTOPEN/QALYMIS–QALYOPEN). Results: MIS versus open cohorts were similar at baseline. MIS and open hemilaminectomy were associated with an equivalent cumulative gain of 0.72 QALYs 2 years after surgery. Mean direct medical costs, indirect societal costs, and total 2-year cost ($23,109 vs. $25,420; P=0.21) were similar between MIS and open hemilaminectomy. MIS versus open approach was associated with similar total costs and utility, making it a cost equivalent technology compared with the traditional open approach. Conclusions: MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy was associated with similar cost over 2 years while providing equivalent improvement in QALYs. In our experience, MIS versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy is a cost equivalent technology for patients with lumbar stenosis-associated radicular pain.

[1]  M. Burnett,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: nonsurgical care, laminectomy, and X-STOP. , 2010, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[2]  G Németh,et al.  Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[3]  G. Andersson,et al.  Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. , 2008, Annals of internal medicine.

[4]  Brett Hanscom,et al.  The Cost Effectiveness of Surgical Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Disc Herniation Over Two Years: Evidence From the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) , 2008, Spine.

[5]  R. Mimran,et al.  Comparison of Techniques for Decompressive Lumbar Laminectomy: the Minimally Invasive versus the “Classic” Open Approach , 2008, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[6]  I. Colak,et al.  Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[7]  L. Khoo,et al.  Minimally invasive operative management for lumbar spinal stenosis: overview of early and long-term outcomes. , 2007, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[8]  R. Hazard Failed back surgery syndrome: surgical and nonsurgical approaches. , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  J. Wöhrle,et al.  Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[10]  Alf Nachemson,et al.  Spinal-fusion surgery - the case for restraint. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  P. Bijur,et al.  Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. , 2001, Annals of emergency medicine.

[12]  X. Badia,et al.  Using the EuroQol-5D to measure changes in quality of life 12 months after discharge from an intensive care unit , 2001, Intensive Care Medicine.

[13]  T. Whitecloud,et al.  Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. , 2001, Journal of spinal disorders.

[14]  John E. Ware,et al.  SF-36 Health Survey Update , 2000, Spine.

[15]  M. Roland,et al.  The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. , 2000, Spine.

[16]  P. Pynsent,et al.  The Oswestry Disability Index. , 2000, Spine.

[17]  M. Abdelnoor,et al.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study. , 2000, Spine.

[18]  R. K. Snider,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. , 2000, Spine.

[19]  R A Deyo,et al.  Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. , 2000, Spine.

[20]  B. Weiner,et al.  Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. , 1999, Spine.

[21]  J. Ware,et al.  Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  E. Hadar,et al.  Long-term follow-up review of patients who underwent laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a prospective study. , 1998, Journal of neurosurgery.

[23]  Jeffrey A. Johnson,et al.  Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) Health States in an Adult US Sample , 1998, PharmacoEconomics.

[24]  Robert A. Lew,et al.  Lumbar Laminectomy Alone or With Instrumented or Noninstrumented Arthrodesis in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Patient Selection, Costs, and Surgical Outcomes , 1997, Spine.

[25]  M. Gold,et al.  Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. , 1996, Medical care.

[26]  M. Miner,et al.  The effect of postlaminectomy spinal instability on the outcome of lumbar spinal stenosis patients. , 1996, Journal of spinal disorders.

[27]  M. Hupli,et al.  Intercorrelation and test-retest reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients. , 1993, The Clinical journal of pain.

[28]  R. Deyo,et al.  Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Attempted Meta‐Analysis of the Literature , 1992, Spine.

[29]  T. Hodgson,et al.  Cost-of-illness methodology: a guide to current practices and procedures. , 1982, The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly. Health and society.

[30]  J C Fairbank,et al.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. , 1980, Physiotherapy.

[31]  G. Németh,et al.  Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[32]  E. Wheelwright,et al.  Unilateral fenestration in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. , 1998, British journal of neurosurgery.