Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Economic Value in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

  • Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (W Hsu, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The field of spine surgery remains a unique target in the transition to value-based care. While spine surgery has benefited from new medical technologies, including minimally invasive surgery (MIS), these technologies may be a key driver in rising US healthcare costs. As such, MIS needs to clear an economic value threshold through a rigorous evaluation of the outcomes they provide and costs they incur. In this article, we review recent MIS surgery literature from the perspective of economic value.

Recent Findings

Many studies report modest all-in cost savings and direct procedural cost equivalence for minimally invasive approaches relative to open surgeries. In terms of quality, studies found lower blood loss, length of stay, and infectious complications with MIS surgery but evidence on QALYs was mixed.

Summary

In the past 5 years, there has been increasing research interest in defining economic value in MIS surgery. However, a significant amount of heterogeneity in research quality and methodology persists. Therefore, MIS surgery has the potential to be of high economic value, though this is not yet definitive. Future research should continue to focus on high-quality cost-effectiveness studies with clear methodologies to further elucidate economic value in MIS surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. McCarthy M. US healthcare spending is expected to accelerate after recent lull. BMJ. 2014;349:g5514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kazberouk A, McGuire K, Landon BE. A survey of innovative reimbursement models in spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(4):344–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rossi VJ, Ahn J, Bohl DD, Tabaraee E, Singh K. Economic factors in the future delivery of spinal healthcare. World J Orthop. 2015;6(5):409–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Parker SL, Chotai S, Devin CJ, Tetreault L, Mroz TE, Brodke DS, et al. Bending the cost curve-establishing value in spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(3S):S61–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Birkmeyer JD, Gust C, Baser O, Dimick JB, Sutherland JM, Skinner JS. Medicare payments for common inpatient procedures: implications for episode-based payment bundling. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(6 Pt 1):1783–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Scalise J, Jacofsky D. Payor reform opportunities for spine surgery: part I: background and stimulus for bundled payments. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(5):229–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Drymalski M, Agha M. The changing face of spine care: the MU Comprehensive Spine Center. Mo Med. 2017;114(1):44–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. A. G. Burden of muskuloskeletal diseases spine: low back and neck pain. 2014.

  9. Fehlings MG, Tetreault L, Nater A, Choma T, Harrop J, Mroz T, et al. The aging of the global population: the changing epidemiology of disease and spinal disorders. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(Suppl 4):S1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Oppenheimer JH, DeCastro I, McDonnell DE. Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27(3):E9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Deyo RA, Mirza SK. Trends and variations in the use of spine surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;443:139–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Callahan D. “Healthcare costs and medical technology” The Hastings Center and the early years of bioethics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1999;9(1):53–71.

  13. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Porter ME. A strategy for health care reform--toward a value-based system. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(2):109–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Allen RT, Garfin SR. The economics of minimally invasive spine surgery: the value perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(26 Suppl):S375–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Awad BI, Lubelski D, Shin JH, Carmody MA, Hoh DJ, Mroz TE, et al. Bilateral pedicle screw fixation versus unilateral pedicle and contralateral facet screws for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical outcomes and cost analysis. Global Spine J. 2013;3(4):225–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fidai MS, Saltzman BM, Meta F, Lizzio VA, Stephens JP, Bozic KJ, et al. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system and legacy patient-reported outcome measures in the field of orthopaedics: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(2):605–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McDonald KM, Romano PS, Geppert J, et al. In: Measures of patient safety based on hospital administrative data - the patient safety indicators. Rockville (MD)2002.

  21. Boody BS, Bhatt S, Mazmudar AS, Hsu WK, Rothrock NE, Patel AA. Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests in cervical spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(3):268–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bhatt S, Boody BS, Savage JW, Hsu WK, Rothrock NE, Patel AA. Validation of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system computer adaptive tests in lumbar disk herniation surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018:1.

  23. Purvis TE, Neuman BJ, Riley LH 3rd, Skolasky RL. Can early patient-reported outcomes be used to identify patients at risk for poor 1-year health outcomes after lumbar laminectomy with arthrodesis? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(15):1067–73.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hartman JD, Craig BM. Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(3):725–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vijan S. Should we abandon QALYs as a resource allocation tool? Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(10):953–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. • Tapp SJ, Martin BI, Tosteson TD, et al. Understanding the value of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: the case of interspinous spacer devices. Spine J. 2018;18(4):584–92. This study finds that interspinous spacers may be cost-effective as an initial treatment option for lumbar spinal stenosis. The cost-effectiveness may improve over time as more of these procedures are being done in outpatient surgery centers with lower cost structures.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Khouja LT, Baron EM, Johnson JP, Kim TT, Drazin D. Cost-effectiveness analysis in minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(6):E4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fehlings MG, Nater A, Chapman J, Harrop J, Mroz T. Consensus statement: systematic reviews of value-based surgical spine care: what do we know? Where are the limitations? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S3–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Johans SJ, Amin BY, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression for lumbar stenosis: review of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness. J Neurosurg Sci. 2015;59(1):37–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lubelski D, Mihalovich KE, Skelly AC, Fehlings MG, Harrop JS, Mummaneni PV, et al. Is minimal access spine surgery more cost-effective than conventional spine surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. •• Pendharkar AV, Shahin MN, Ho AL, et al. Outpatient spine surgery: defining the outcomes, value, and barriers to implementation. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;44(5):E11. Lumbar laminectomy with or without discectomy, lumbar fusion, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and cervical disc arthroplasty can all be performed as outpatient spine surgies. This study summarizes the proposed cost savings and potential barriers in the transition to outpatient spine surgery.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Newton PO, Upasani VV, Lhamby J, Ugrinow VL, Pawelek JB, Bastrom TP. Surgical treatment of main thoracic scoliosis with thoracoscopic anterior instrumentation. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 2):233–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. 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. 2012;78(1–2):178–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Parker SL, Anderson LH, Nelson T, Patel VV. Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative care, laminectomy, and the superion interspinous spacer. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9:28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pelton MA, Phillips FM, Singh K. A comparison of perioperative costs and outcomes in patients with and without workers’ compensation claims treated with minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22):1914–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Phan K, Hogan JA, Mobbs RJ. Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(11):2503–13. In this systematic review, outcomes and costs of minimally invasive open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative lumbar pathologies are explored. Results suggest significantly reduced perioperative costs, length of stay, and blood loss for minimally invasive compared with open TLIF.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Oglesby M, Pelton MA, et al. A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1694–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lucio JC, Vanconia RB, Deluzio KJ, Lehmen JA, Rodgers JA, Rodgers W. Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2012;5:65–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(1–2):230–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Udeh BL, Costandi S, Dalton JE, Ghosh R, Yousef H, Mekhail N. The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Pain Pract. 2015;15(2):107–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vertuani S, Nilsson J, Borgman B, Buseghin G, Leonard C, Assietti R, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive versus open surgery techniques for lumbar spinal fusion in Italy and the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2015;18(6):810–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang MY, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt MJ. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25(6):324–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. • Gandhoke GS, Shin HM, Chang YF, Tempel Z, Gerszten PC, Okonkwo DO, et al. A cost-effectiveness comparison between open transforaminal and minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusions using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at 2-year follow-up. Neurosurgery. 2016;78(4):585–95. This study showed that TLIF and LLIF produced equivalent 2-year patient outcomes at an equivalent cost-effectiveness profile. Mean total cost of care and EuroQol-5D were statistically equivalent between the 2 treatment groups.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011;54(1):33–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. • Swamy G, Lopatina E, Thomas KC, Marshall DA, Johal HS. The cost effectiveness of minimally invasive spine surgery in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: a comparison of transpsoas and open techniques. Spine J. 2018; This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the less invasive transpsoas interbody fusion technique for patients with adult degenerative scoliosis over a 12-month time period. Transpsoas surgeries were associated with better HRQol outcomes and lower costs at 1-year follow-up relative to the open technique.

  46. Uddin OM, Haque R, Sugrue PA, Ahmed YM, el Ahmadieh TY, Press JM, et al. Cost minimization in treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(6):798–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mansfield HE, Canar WJ, Gerard CS, O’Toole JE. Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a cost analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;37(5):E9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ackerman SJ, Polly DW Jr, Knight T, Holt T, Cummings J. Management of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis with nonoperative care is medical resource-intensive and costly in a United States commercial payer population. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;6:63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ackerman SJ, Polly DW Jr, Knight T, Holt T, Cummings J Jr. Nonoperative care to manage sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis: high costs and medical resource utilization in the United States Medicare population. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(4):354–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ackerman SJ, Polly DW Jr, Knight T, Schneider K, Holt T, Cummings J Jr. Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States commercial payer population: potential economic implications of a new minimally invasive technology. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;6:283–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lorio M, Martinson M, Ferrara L. Paired comparison survey analyses utilizing Rasch methodology of the relative difficulty and estimated work relative value units of CPT((R)) code 27279. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lonne G, Johnsen LG, Aas E, et al. Comparing cost-effectiveness of X-Stop with minimally invasive decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(8):514–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Menger RP, Savardekar AR, Farokhi F, Sin A. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the integration of robotic spine technology in spine surgery. Neurospine. 2018;15(3):216–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. • Maillard N, Buffenoir-Billet K, Hamel O, Lefranc B, Sellal O, Surer N, Bord E, Grimandi G, Clouet J A cost-minimization analysis in minimally invasive spine surgery using a national cost scale method. Int J Surg 2015;15:68–73. This French study demonstrated that percutaneous osteosynthesis is associated with decreased hospital charges, shorter length of stay, similar clinical outcomes, and equivalent medical device costs compared with open surgery.

  55. Slotman GJ, Stein SC. Laparoscopic L5-S1 diskectomy: a cost-effective, minimally invasive general surgery--neurosurgery team alternative to laminectomy. Am Surg. 1996;62(1):64–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Fan SW, Fang XQ, Zhao X, Zhao FD. Clinical value of minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion assisted by X-Tube system in the treatment of low back disorders. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2008;46(7):488–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Newton PO, Wenger DR, Mubarak SJ, Meyer RS. Anterior release and fusion in pediatric spinal deformity. A comparison of early outcome and cost of thoracoscopic and open thoracotomy approaches. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(12):1398–406.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Davis BJ, Fulchiero E, Aaronson O, Cheng J, et al. Cost-utility analysis of minimally invasive versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy for lumbar stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(1):42–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Parker SL, Lerner J, McGirt MJ. Effect of minimally invasive technique on return to work and narcotic use following transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion: a review. Prof Case Manag. 2012;17(5):229–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Cher DJ, Frasco MA, Arnold RJ, Polly DW. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:1–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Benjamin Hopkins & Kartik Kesavabhotla

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Aditya Mazmudar & Alpesh A Patel

Authors
  1. Benjamin Hopkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aditya Mazmudar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kartik Kesavabhotla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alpesh A Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aditya Mazmudar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Benjamin Hopkins BS, Aditya Mazmudar BA, and Kartik Kesavabhotla MD declare no conflict of interest. Alpesh A Patel MD declares royalties from Amedica, Nuvasive, Zimmer, stock ownership in Amedica, Nocimed, Vital 5, Cytonics, consulting for Amedica, Relievant, Pacira, Nuvasive, Zimmer, and service on the Board of Directors of CSRS.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hopkins, B., Mazmudar, A., Kesavabhotla, K. et al. Economic Value in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 12, 300–304 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09560-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09560-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation