Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 3/2018

01-03-2018 | Original Article

A retrospective review comparing two-year patient-reported outcomes, costs, and healthcare resource utilization for TLIF vs. PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis

Authors: Elliott Kim, Silky Chotai, David Stonko, Joseph Wick, Alex Sielatycki, Clinton J. Devin

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs), morbidity, and costs of TLIF vs PLF to determine whether one treatment was superior in the setting of single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Methods

Patients undergoing TLIF or PLF for single-level spondylolisthesis were included for retrospective analysis. EQ-5D, ODI, SF-12 MCS/PCS, NRS-BP/LP scores were collected at baseline and 24 months after surgery. 90-day post-operative complications, revision surgery rates, and satisfaction scores were also collected. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare payment amounts (direct cost). Patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Total cost was used to assess mean total 2-year cost per QALYs gained after surgery.

Results

62 and 37 patients underwent TLIF and PLF, respectively. Patients in the PLF group were older (p < 0.01). No significant differences were seen in baseline or 24-month PROs between the two groups. There was a significant improvement in all PROs from baseline to 24 months after surgery (p < 0.001). Both groups had similar rates of 90-day complications, revision surgery, satisfaction, and similar gain in QALYs and cost per QALYs gained. There was no significant difference in 24-month direct, indirect, and total cost.

Conclusions

Overall costs and health care utilization were similar in both the groups. Both TLIF and PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis provide improvement in disability, pain, quality of life, and general health.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 73:802–808CrossRef Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 73:802–808CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge SN, Coumans JV, Harrington JF, Amin-Hanjani S, Schwartz JS, Sonntag VK, Barker FG 2nd, Benzel EC (2016) Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 374:1424–1434. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1508788 CrossRefPubMed Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge SN, Coumans JV, Harrington JF, Amin-Hanjani S, Schwartz JS, Sonntag VK, Barker FG 2nd, Benzel EC (2016) Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 374:1424–1434. doi:10.​1056/​NEJMoa1508788 CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Kepler CK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Anderson DG, Rihn JA, Albert TJ, Radcliff KE (2014) National trends in the use of fusion techniques to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1584–1589. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000486 CrossRef Kepler CK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Anderson DG, Rihn JA, Albert TJ, Radcliff KE (2014) National trends in the use of fusion techniques to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1584–1589. doi:10.​1097/​brs.​0000000000000486​ CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Kim HG (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:210–219 (discussion 219–220) CrossRef Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Kim HG (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:210–219 (discussion 219–220) CrossRef
7.
go back to reference McAfee PC, DeVine JG, Chaput CD, Prybis BG, Fedder IL, Cunningham BW, Farrell DJ, Hess SJ, Vigna FE (2005) The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis: analysis of 120 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:S60–S65CrossRef McAfee PC, DeVine JG, Chaput CD, Prybis BG, Fedder IL, Cunningham BW, Farrell DJ, Hess SJ, Vigna FE (2005) The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis: analysis of 120 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:S60–S65CrossRef
8.
9.
go back to reference Macki M, Bydon M, Weingart R, Sciubba D, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A, Witham T (2015) Posterolateral fusion with interbody for lumbar spondylolisthesis is associated with less repeat surgery than posterolateral fusion alone. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 138:117–123. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.014 CrossRefPubMed Macki M, Bydon M, Weingart R, Sciubba D, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A, Witham T (2015) Posterolateral fusion with interbody for lumbar spondylolisthesis is associated with less repeat surgery than posterolateral fusion alone. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 138:117–123. doi:10.​1016/​j.​clineuro.​2015.​08.​014 CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference McAnany SJ, Baird EO, Qureshi SA, Hecht AC, Heller JG, Anderson PA (2016) Posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001638 McAnany SJ, Baird EO, Qureshi SA, Hecht AC, Heller JG, Anderson PA (2016) Posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). doi:10.​1097/​brs.​0000000000001638​
12.
go back to reference Christensen A, Hoy K, Bunger C, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Andersen T, Sogaard R (2014) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation alongside an RCT with a 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 23:1137–1143. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3238-6 CrossRefPubMed Christensen A, Hoy K, Bunger C, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Andersen T, Sogaard R (2014) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation alongside an RCT with a 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 23:1137–1143. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-014-3238-6 CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Lebow R, Parker SL, Adogwa O, Reig A, Cheng J, Bydon A, McGirt MJ (2012) Microdiscectomy improves pain-associated depression, somatic anxiety, and mental well-being in patients with herniated lumbar disc. Neurosurgery 70:306–311. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182302ec3 (discussion 311) CrossRefPubMed Lebow R, Parker SL, Adogwa O, Reig A, Cheng J, Bydon A, McGirt MJ (2012) Microdiscectomy improves pain-associated depression, somatic anxiety, and mental well-being in patients with herniated lumbar disc. Neurosurgery 70:306–311. doi:10.​1227/​NEU.​0b013e3182302ec3​ (discussion 311) CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Main CJ, Wood PL, Hollis S, Spanswick CC, Waddell G (1992) The distress and risk assessment method. A simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:42–52CrossRef Main CJ, Wood PL, Hollis S, Spanswick CC, Waddell G (1992) The distress and risk assessment method. A simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:42–52CrossRef
15.
16.
go back to reference Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2940–2952 (discussion 2952) CrossRef Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2940–2952 (discussion 2952) CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Langley GB, Sheppeard H (1985) The visual analogue scale: its use in pain measurement. Rheumatol Int 5:145–148CrossRefPubMed Langley GB, Sheppeard H (1985) The visual analogue scale: its use in pain measurement. Rheumatol Int 5:145–148CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference EuroQol (1990) A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy (Amst, Neth) 16:199–208CrossRef EuroQol (1990) A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy (Amst, Neth) 16:199–208CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233CrossRefPubMed Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:741–749CrossRef Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:741–749CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ (2013) Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:154–160. doi:10.3171/2012.10.spine12312 CrossRefPubMed Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ (2013) Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:154–160. doi:10.​3171/​2012.​10.​spine12312 CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006 CrossRefPubMed Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974. doi:10.​1016/​j.​spinee.​2007.​11.​006 CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, Anderson WN, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ (2011) Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 14:598–604. doi:10.3171/2010.12.spine10472 CrossRefPubMed Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, Anderson WN, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ (2011) Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 14:598–604. doi:10.​3171/​2010.​12.​spine10472 CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Devin CJ, Chotai S, Parker SL, Tetreault L, Fehlings MG, McGirt MJ (2015) A cost-utility analysis of lumbar decompression with and without fusion for degenerative spine disease in the elderly. Neurosurgery 77(suppl 4):S116–S124. doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000000949 CrossRefPubMed Devin CJ, Chotai S, Parker SL, Tetreault L, Fehlings MG, McGirt MJ (2015) A cost-utility analysis of lumbar decompression with and without fusion for degenerative spine disease in the elderly. Neurosurgery 77(suppl 4):S116–S124. doi:10.​1227/​neu.​0000000000000949​ CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Chotai S, Sielatycki JA, Parker SL, Sivaganesan A, Kay HL, Stonko DP, Wick JB, McGirt MJ, Devin CJ (2016) Effect of obesity on cost per quality adjusted life years gained following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in elective degenerative pathology. Spine J. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2016.06.023 Chotai S, Sielatycki JA, Parker SL, Sivaganesan A, Kay HL, Stonko DP, Wick JB, McGirt MJ, Devin CJ (2016) Effect of obesity on cost per quality adjusted life years gained following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in elective degenerative pathology. Spine J. doi:10.​1016/​j.​spinee.​2016.​06.​023
28.
go back to reference Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: defining the value of surgical intervention. J Neurosurg Spine 16:135–140. doi:10.3171/2011.9.spine11308 CrossRefPubMed Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: defining the value of surgical intervention. J Neurosurg Spine 16:135–140. doi:10.​3171/​2011.​9.​spine11308 CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, Devin CJ, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of laminectomy and extension of instrumented fusion for adjacent-segment disease: defining the value of surgical intervention. J Neurosurg Spine 16:141–146. doi:10.3171/2011.9.spine11419 CrossRefPubMed Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, Devin CJ, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of laminectomy and extension of instrumented fusion for adjacent-segment disease: defining the value of surgical intervention. J Neurosurg Spine 16:141–146. doi:10.​3171/​2011.​9.​spine11419 CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg 78:178–184. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2011.09.013 CrossRefPubMed Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2012) Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg 78:178–184. doi:10.​1016/​j.​wneu.​2011.​09.​013 CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Hoy K, Bunger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Li H, Andersen T (2013) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22:2022–2029. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2760-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hoy K, Bunger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Li H, Andersen T (2013) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22:2022–2029. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-013-2760-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Hoy K, Truong K, Andersen T, Bunger C (2016) Addition of TLIF does not improve outcome over standard posterior instrumented fusion. 5–10 years long-term Follow-up: results from a RCT. Eur. Spine. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4592-3 Hoy K, Truong K, Andersen T, Bunger C (2016) Addition of TLIF does not improve outcome over standard posterior instrumented fusion. 5–10 years long-term Follow-up: results from a RCT. Eur. Spine. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-016-4592-3
35.
37.
go back to reference Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:567–571CrossRef Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:567–571CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Fujimori T, Le H, Schairer WW, Berven SH, Qamirani E, Hu SS (2015) Does transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion have advantages over posterolateral lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis? Global Spine J 5:102–109. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1396432 CrossRefPubMed Fujimori T, Le H, Schairer WW, Berven SH, Qamirani E, Hu SS (2015) Does transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion have advantages over posterolateral lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis? Global Spine J 5:102–109. doi:10.​1055/​s-0034-1396432 CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Austevoll IM, Gjestad R, Brox JI, Solberg TK, Storheim K, Rekeland F, Hermansen E, Indrekvam K, Hellum C (2017) The effectiveness of decompression alone compared with additional fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a pragmatic comparative non-inferiority observational study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Eur Spine J 26:404–413. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4683-1 CrossRefPubMed Austevoll IM, Gjestad R, Brox JI, Solberg TK, Storheim K, Rekeland F, Hermansen E, Indrekvam K, Hellum C (2017) The effectiveness of decompression alone compared with additional fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a pragmatic comparative non-inferiority observational study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Eur Spine J 26:404–413. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-016-4683-1 CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A retrospective review comparing two-year patient-reported outcomes, costs, and healthcare resource utilization for TLIF vs. PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis
Authors
Elliott Kim
Silky Chotai
David Stonko
Joseph Wick
Alex Sielatycki
Clinton J. Devin
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5142-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

European Spine Journal 3/2018 Go to the issue