Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity: comparison of posterior-only versus anteroposterior approach.
Samrat Yeramaneni Ph.D.
Ogura, Y., J. L. Gum, R. A. Hostin, C. Robinson, C. P. Ames, S. D. Glassman, D. C. Burton, R. S. Bess, C. I. Shaffrey, J. S. Smith, S. Yeramaneni, V. F. Lafage, T. Protopsaltis, P. G. Passias, F. J. Schwab and L. Y. Carreon (2020). “Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity: comparison of posterior-only versus anteroposterior approach.” Spine J Apr 12. pii: S1529-9430(20)30136-4. [Epub ahead of print].
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Considerable debate exists regarding the optimal surgical approach for adult spinal deformity (ASD). It remains unclear which approach, posterior-only or combined anterior-posterior (AP), is more cost-effective. Our goal is to determine the 2-year cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for each approach. PURPOSE: To compare the 2-year cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for ASD between the posterior-only approach and combined AP approach. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective economic analysis of a prospective, multicenter database PATIENT SAMPLE: From a prospective, multicenter surgical database of ASD, patients undergoing five or more level fusions through a posterior-only or AP approach were identified and compared. METHODS: QALYs gained were determined using baseline, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative Short Form 6D. Cost was calculated from actual, direct hospital costs including any subsequent readmission or revision. Cost-effectiveness was determined using cost/QALY gained. RESULTS: The AP approach showed significantly higher index cost than the posterior-only approach ($84,329 vs. $64,281). This margin decreased at 2-year follow-up with total costs of $89,824 and $73,904, respectively. QALYs gained at 2 years were similar with 0.21 and 0.17 in the posterior-only and the AP approaches, respectively. The cost/QALY at 2 years after surgery was significantly higher in the AP approach ($525,080) than in the posterior-only approach ($351,086). CONCLUSIONS: We assessed 2-year cost-effectiveness for the surgical treatment through posterior-only and AP approaches. The posterior-only approach is less expensive both for the index surgery and at 2-year follow-up. The QALY gained at 2-years was similar between the two approaches. Thus, posterior-only approach was more cost-effective than the AP approach under our study parameters. However, both approaches were not cost-effective at 2-year follow-up.