Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2011 | Health Technology Assessment and Transfer

Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Authors: Peter Fritzell, Svante Berg, Fredrik Borgström, Tycho Tullberg, Hans Tropp

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 7/2011

Abstract

This randomized controlled health economic study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the concept of total disc replacement (TDR) (Charité/Prodisc/Maverick) when compared with the concept of instrumented lumbar fusion (FUS) [posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) /posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)]. Social and healthcare perspectives after 2 years are reported. In all, 152 patients were randomized to either TDR (n = 80) or lumbar FUS (n = 72). Cost to society (total mean cost/patient, Swedish kronor = SEK, standard deviation) for TDR was SEK 599,560 (400,272), and for lumbar FUS SEK 685,919 (422,903) (ns). The difference was not significant: SEK 86,359 (−45,605 to 214,332). TDR was significantly less costly from a healthcare perspective, SEK 22,996 (1,202 to 43,055). Number of days on sick leave among those who returned to work was 185 (146) in the TDR group, and 252 (189) in the FUS group (ns). Using EQ-5D, the total gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years was 0.41 units for TDR and 0.40 units for FUS (ns). Based on EQ-5D, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of using TDR instead of FUS was difficult to analyze due to the “non-difference” in treatment outcome, which is why cost/QALY was not meaningful to define. Using cost-effectiveness probabilistic analysis, the net benefit (with CI) was found to be SEK 91,359 (−73,643 to 249,114) (ns). We used the currency of 2006 where 1 EURO = 9.26 SEK and 1 USD = 7.38 SEK. It was not possible to state whether TDR or FUS is more cost-effective after 2 years. Since disc replacement and lumbar fusion are based on different conceptual approaches, it is important to follow these results over time.

Norlund AI, Waddell G (2000) Cost of back pain in some OECD countries. In: Nachemson AL, Jonsson E (eds) Neck and back pain. The scientific evidence of causes, diagnosis, and treatment. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 421–425

Juniper M, Le TK, Mladsi D (2009) The epidemiology, economic burden, and pharmacological treatment of chronic low back pain in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK: a literature-based review. Expert Opin Pharmacother 10(16):2581–2592PubMedCrossRef

Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S (2008) A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J 8(1):8–20PubMedCrossRef

Andersson GB (1999) Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 354(9178):581–585PubMedCrossRef

SBU—Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (2000) Back and Neck Pain. Report 145/1, 145/2, P 306. ISBN: 91-87890-60-7

Brox JI et al (2003) Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine 28(17):1913–1921PubMedCrossRef

Fairbank J et al (2005) Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ 330(7502):1233PubMedCrossRef

Fritzell P et al (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27(11):1131–1141PubMedCrossRef

Hagg O et al (2003) Predictors of outcome in fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study. Eur Spine J 12(1):22–33PubMed

10.

Link HD (2002) History, design and biomechanics of the LINK SB Charite artificial disc. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S98–S105PubMed

11.

Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G (2005) Effect of total disc replacement with prodisc on intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(7):738–743CrossRef

12.

De Kleuver M, Oner FC, Jacobs WC (2003) Total disc replacement for chronic low back pain: background and a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 12(2):108–116PubMed

13.

Rohlmann A et al (2009) Effect of an artificial disc on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study. Eur Spine J 18(1):89–97PubMedCrossRef

14.

Lee CS et al (2009) Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 10:314–319

15.

Drummond MF et al (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

16.

Berg S et al (2009) Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19:205–214

17.

Ito M et al (1998) Predictive signs of discogenic lumbar pain on magnetic resonance imaging with discography correlation. Spine 23(11):1252–1258PubMedCrossRef

18.

Goossens ME et al (2000) The cost diary: a method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost-effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol 53(7):688–695PubMedCrossRef

19.

Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2001) Health-related quality of life by disease and socio-economic group in the general population in Sweden. Health Policy 55(1):51–69PubMedCrossRef

20.

Fairbank JC et al (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273PubMed

21.

Johannesson M, O’Conor RM (1997) Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy 39(3):241–253PubMedCrossRef

22.

Blumenschein K et al (2001) Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. J Health Econ 20(3):441–457PubMedCrossRef

23.

Johannesson M (1996) The willingness to pay for health changes, the human-capital approach and the external costs. Health Policy 36(3):231–244PubMedCrossRef

24.

Persson U, Hjelmgren J (2003) Health services need knowledge of how the public values health. Lakartidningen 100(43):3436–3437PubMed

25.

Black WC (1990) The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 10(3):212–214PubMedCrossRef

26.

Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G (2002) THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health 23:377–401PubMedCrossRef

27.

Fritzell P et al (2004) Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 29(4):421–434 (discussion Z3)PubMedCrossRef

28.

Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 168–177

29.

Freeman BJ, Davenport J (2006) Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 3):S439–S447PubMedCrossRef

30.

Guyer RD et al (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: 5-year follow-up. Spine J 9(5):374–386PubMedCrossRef

31.

Le Huec JC et al (2005) Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: 2-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36(3):315–322PubMedCrossRef

32.

Zigler J et al (2007) Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine 32(11):1155–1162 (discussion 1163)PubMedCrossRef

33.

Blumenthal S et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30(14):1565–1575 (discussion E387-391)PubMedCrossRef

34.

Solberg TK et al (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 14(10):1000–1007PubMedCrossRef

35.

Eichler HG et al (2004) Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 7(5):518–528PubMedCrossRef

36.

Raftery J (2001) NICE: faster access to modern treatments? analysis of guidance on health technologies. Bmj 323(7324):1300–1303PubMedCrossRef

37.

Guyer RD, Tromanhauser SG, Regan JJ (2007) An economic model of one-level lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion. Spine J 7(5):558–562PubMedCrossRef

38.

Malchau H et al (2005) Presidential guest address: the Swedish Hip Registry: increasing the sensitivity by patient outcome data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:19–29PubMedCrossRef

39.

Soegaard R, Christensen FB (2005) Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno. Eur Spine J 15:1165–1173

40.

Soegaard R et al (2007) Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain. Spine 32(22):2405–2414PubMedCrossRef

41.

42.

Rivero-Arias O et al (2005) Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 330(7502):1239PubMedCrossRef

Title: Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up
Authors: Peter Fritzell
Svante Berg
Fredrik Borgström
Tycho Tullberg
Hans Tropp
Publication date: 01-07-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 7/2011
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1607-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2011

Computer algorithms and applications used to assist the evaluation and treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review of published articles 2000–2009

Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review

Perioperative morbidity and complications in minimal access surgery techniques in obese patients with degenerative lumbar disease

Reviewer’s comment concerning ‘‘Simultaneous translation on two rods is an effective method of correction of hypokyphosis in AIS: radiographic results of 27 hypokyphotic thoracic scoliosis with two years minimum follow-up’’ by J.-L. Clément et al. (doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1779-5)

Prospective evaluation of physical activity in patients with idiopathic scoliosis or kyphosis receiving brace treatment