Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Long-lasting low back pain is an increasing problem, and for some patients surgery is the final option for improvement. Several techniques for spinal fusion are available and the optimal technique remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared to posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) from the societal perspective.

Methods

100 Patients were randomized to TLIF or PLF (51/49) and followed for 2 years. Cost data were acquired from national registers, and outcomes were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index and SF-6D questionnaires. Conventional cost-effectiveness methodology was employed to estimate net benefit and to illustrate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The statistical analysis was based on means and bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Results

Results showed no statistically significant difference in either cost or effects although a tendency for the TLIF regimen being more costly on bed days (€2,554) and production loss (€1,915) was observed. The probability that TLIF would be cost-effective did not exceed 30 % for any threshold of willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis was conducted and supported the statistical model for handling of missing data.

Conclusion

TLIF does not seem to be a relevant alternative to PLF from a socioeconomic, societal point of view.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion AF, Reis S, Staal JB, Ursin H, Zanoli G (2006) European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J 15(supplement 2):192–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Høy K, Bünger C, Neidermann B, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Li H, Andersen T (2013) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbardisorders: a randomized clinical trail with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J

  3. Potter BK, Freeman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(4):337–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(5):567–571

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hee HT, Castro FP, Majd ME, Holt RT, Myers L (2001) Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 14(6):533–540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Soegaard R, Christensen FB (2006) Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno 2005. Eur Spine J 15:1165–1173

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Søgaard R, Fritzell P (2011) Economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Musculoskelet Rev 6(3):199–204

    Google Scholar 

  8. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A (2004) Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves—facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 13(5):405–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Statens Serum Institut. (2013) The National Health Insurance Service Register. Available from: http://www.ssi.dk/Sundhedsdataogit/Registre/Sygesikringsregister.aspx

  11. Statens Serum Institut. (2013) The National Patient Register

  12. Statens Serum Institut. (2012) Tariffs in 2012

  13. Statistics Denmark (2013) Disposable income by region, gender, age and income range [cited 24th May 2013]. Available from: http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/selectvarval/define.asp?PLanguage=0&subword=tabsel&MainTable=INDKP6&PXSId=146749&tablestyle=&ST=SD&buttons=0

  14. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2001(21):271–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25(22):2940–2952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to bootstrap, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Schofferman J, Slosar P, Reynolds J, Goldthwaite N, Koestler MA (2001) prospective randomized comparison of 270 degrees fusions to 360 degrees fusions(circumferential fusions). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(10):E207–E212

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 29(4):421–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 of the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 330(7502):1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Søgaard R, Bünger C, Christiansen T, Høy K, Eiskjaer SP, Christensen FB (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 (Phila Pa 1976) 32(22):2405–2414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Freeman BJ, Steele NA, Sach TH, Hegarty J, Soegaard R (2007) ISSLS prize winner: cost-effectiveness of two forms of circumferential lumbar fusion: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(25):2891–2897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nielsen PR, Andreasen J, Asmussen M, Tønnesen H (2008) Costs and quality of life for prehabilitation and early rehabilitation after surgery of the lumbar spine. BMC Health Serv Res 8:209

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson LG, Hellum C, Nygaard ØP, Storheim K, Brox JI, Rossvoll I, Leivseth G, Grotle M (2013) Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the Oswestry Disability Index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Søgaard R, Christensen FB, Videbaek TS, Bünger C, Christiansen T (2009) Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Value Health 12(4):606–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Oestergaard LG, Christensen FB, Nielsen CV, Bünger CE, Fruensgaard S, Søgaard R (2013) Early versus late initiation of rehabilitation after lumbar spinal fusion: economic evaluation alongside a RCT. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(23):1979–1985

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jakob Hjort, data manager at Public Health and Quality Improvement, central Denmark Region, for letting us use his Stata syntax for counting weeks of inability to participate in the labor force. This study was funded by a grant from the Danish Strategic Research Council for the project CESpine, with the objective of investigating cost-effectiveness in spine surgery.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Applied Health Services Research, University of Southern Denmark, J. B. Winsløw Vej 9.B, 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    A. Christensen

  2. Spine Section, Department of Orthopedics E, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus C, Denmark

    K. Høy, C. Bünger, P. Helmig, E. S. Hansen & T. Andersen

  3. Public Health and Quality Improvement, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus N, Denmark

    R. Søgaard

  4. Institute of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    R. Søgaard

Authors
  1. A. Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Høy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Bünger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Helmig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. S. Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T. Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. Søgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Christensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Christensen, A., Høy, K., Bünger, C. et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 23, 1137–1143 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3238-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3238-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation