Abstract
Up to one third of patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion show no improvement after the procedure and thus, despite evidence from RCTs, there might be a rationale for observational studies clarifying indications. Similarly, selection of the right patients for the right procedure could have significant impact on cost-effectiveness, which in some countries, in turn, affects whether procedures are to be available through the National Health Service. The aim of this study was to investigate determinants of cost-effectiveness in lumbar spinal fusion. An observational cohort study with 2-year follow-up was conducted: 695 patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion from 1996 to 2002 were included and followed for 2 years. Patients had a localized segmental pathology and were diagnosed with MRI-verified isthmic spondylolisthesis (26%) or disc degeneration (74%). The surgical techniques were non-instrumented posterolateral fusion (14%), instrumented posterolateral fusion (54%), and circumferential fusion (32%). Societal costs and improvement in functional disability (Dallas Pain Questionnaire) were transformed into a net benefit measure. Classical linear regression of the net benefit was conducted using predictors of age, sex, diagnosis, duration of pain, smoking habits, occupational status, severity of disability, emotional distress, surgical technique, and number of levels fused. The main results were that two determinants were found to negatively influence net benefit: smoking and diagnosis, whereas two others were found to be positively associated with the net benefit: severe disability and emotional distress. In conclusion, predicting net benefit reverses the picture usually seen in studies predicting clinical outcomes, because the response variable is based on improvement over time rather than end-point measures alone. Smoking habits, diagnosis, pre-operative disability, and pre-operative emotional distress were found to be significantly associated with the net benefit of spinal fusion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almen lægepraksis i Danmark. Almen praksis i sundhedstjenesten (2005) Månedskrift for praktisk lægegerning, København
Andersen T, Christensen FB, Bunger C (2006) Evaluation of a Dallas Pain Questionnaire classification in relation to outcome in lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 15(11):1671–1685
Andersen T, Christensen FB, Laursen M, Hoy K, Hansen ES, Bunger C (2001) Smoking as a predictor of negative outcome in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 26:2623–2628
Buttermann GR, Garvey TA, Hunt AF, Transfeldt EE, Bradford DS, Boachie-Adjei O et al (1998) Lumbar fusion results related to diagnosis. Spine 23:116–127
Christensen FB (2004) Lumbar spinal fusion. Outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 75:2–43
Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Laursen M, Thomsen K, Bunger CE (2002) Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion: randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine 27:1269–1277
Claxton K, Posnett J (1996) An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ 5:513–524
DeBerard MS, Masters KS, Colledge AL, Schleusener RL, Schlegel JD (2001) Outcomes of posterolateral lumbar fusion in Utah patients receiving workers’ compensation: a retrospective cohort study. Spine 26:738–746
Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI (2005) United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 30:1441–1445
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York
Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, Yu LM, Barker K, Collins R (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 330:1233–1239
Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson D, Nordwall A (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 29:421–434
Gaist D, Sorensen HT, Hallas J (1997) The Danish prescription registries. Dan Med Bull 44:445–448
Hagg O, Fritzell P, Ekselius L, Nordwall A (2003) Predictors of outcome in fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. A report from the Swedish lumbar spine study. Eur Spine J 12:22–33
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, van Roijen L (1995) The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 14:171–189
Lawlis GF, Cuencas R, Selby D, McCoy CE (1989) The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior. Spine 14:511–516
Mosbech J, Jorgensen J, Madsen M, Rostgaard K, Thornberg K, Poulsen TD (1995) The national patient registry. Evaluation of data quality. Ugeskr Laeger 157:3741–3745
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, London
Olivarius ND, Hollnagel H, Krasnik A, Pedersen PA, Thorsen H (1998) The Danish National Health Service Register. A tool for primary health care research. Dan Med Bull 44:449–453
Ozguler A, Gueguen A, Leclerc A, Landre MF, Piciotti M, Le GS et al. (2002) Using the dallas pain questionnaire to classify individuals with low back pain in a working population. Spine 27:1783–1789
Rice DP, Cooper BS (1967) The economic value of human life. Am J Public Health Nations Health 57:1954–1966
Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J (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 330:1239–1245
Soegaard R, Christensen FB, Christiansen T, Bunger C (2006) Costs and effects in lumbar spinal fusion. A follow-up study in 136 consecutive patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J (Epub ahead of print) Jul 27, 2006
Stinnett AA, Mullahy J (1998) Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 18:S68–S80
Trief PM, Grant W, Fredrickson B (2000) A prospective study of psychological predictors of lumbar surgery outcome. Spine 25:2616–2621
Trief PM, Ploutz-Snyder R, Fredrickson BE (2006) Emotional health predicts pain and function after fusion: a prospective multicenter study. Spine 31:823–830
Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R, Hansen ES, Hoy K, Helmig P et al (2006) Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 31:2875–2880
Wetzel FT, McCracken L, Robbins RA, Lahey DM, Carnegie M, Phillips FM (2001) Temporal stability of the minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI) in patients undergoing lumbar fusion: a poor predictor of surgical outcome. Am J Orthop 30:469–474
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Absolute regression equations on NHB determinants are given in Table 3.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Soegaard, R., Bünger, C.E., Christiansen, T. et al. Determinants of cost-effectiveness in lumbar spinal fusion using the net benefit framework: a 2-year follow-up study among 695 patients. Eur Spine J 16, 1822–1831 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0378-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0378-y