Is Two-level Cervical Disc Replacement More Cost-effective Than Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion at 7 Years?
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. OBJECTIVE: To investigate 7-years cost-effectiveness of two-level cervical disc replacement (CDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDR and ACDF are both effective treatment strategies for managing degenerative conditions of the cervical spine. CDR has been shown to be a more-cost effective intervention in the short term, but the long-term cost-effectiveness has not been established. METHODS: We analyzed 7-years follow-up data from the two-level Medtronic Prestige LP investigational device exemption study. Short-form 36 (SF-36) data were converted into health utility scores using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were based on direct costs from the payer perspective, and effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set to $50,000/QALY. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted via Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Two-level CDR had a 7-year cost of $176,654.19, generated 4.65 QALYs, and had a cost-effectiveness ratio of $37,993.53/QALY. Two-level ACDF had a 7-year cost of $158,373.48, generated 4.44 QALYs, and had a cost-effectiveness ratio of $35,635.72. CDR was associated with an incremental cost of $18,280.71 and an incremental effectiveness of 0.21 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $89,021.04, above the WTP threshold. Our Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated CDR would be chosen 46% of the time based on 10,000 simulations. CONCLUSION: Two-level CDR and ACDF are both cost-effective procedures at 7-year follow up for treating degenerative conditions of the cervical spine. Based on an ICER of $89,021.04/QALY, we cannot conclude which treatment is the more cost-effective option at 7-years. CDR would be chosen 46% of the time based on 10,000 iterations of our Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
