Skip to main content

A cost-effectiveness comparisons of adult spinal deformity surgery in the United States and Japan

Abstract

Purpose

Information about the cost-effectiveness of surgical procedures for adult spinal deformity (ASD) is critical for providing appropriate treatments for these patients. The purposes of this study were to compare the direct cost and cost-effectiveness of surgery for ASD in the United States (US) and Japan (JP).

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 76 US and 76 JP patients receiving surgery for ASD with ≥2-year follow-up was identified. Data analysis included preoperative and postoperative demographic, radiographic, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and direct cost for surgery. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined using cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The cost/QALY was calculated from the 2-year cost and HRQOL data.

Results

JP exhibited worse baseline spinopelvic alignment than the US (pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis: 35.4° vs 22.7°, p < 0.01). The US had more three-column osteotomies (50 vs 16%), and shorter hospital stay (7.9 vs 22.7 days) (p < 0.05). The US demonstrated worse postoperative ODI (41.3 vs. 33.9%) and greater revision surgery rate (40 vs 10%) (p < 0.05). Due to the high initial cost and revision frequency, the US had greater total cost ($92,133 vs. $49,647) and cost/QALY ($511,840 vs. $225,668) at 2-year follow-up (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Retrospective analysis comparing the direct costs and cost-effectiveness of ASD surgery in the US vs JP demonstrated that the total direct costs and cost/QALY were substantially higher in the US than JP. Variations in patient cohort, healthcare costs, revision frequencies, and HRQOL improvement influenced the cost/QALY differential between these countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Diebo BG, Gammal I, Ha Y et al (2017) Role of ethnicity in alignment compensation: propensity matched analysis of differential compensatory mechanism recruitment patterns for sagittal malalignment in 288 ASD Patients from Japan, Korea and United States. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 42(4):E234–E240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Terran J, Schwab F, Shaffrey CI et al (2013) The SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: assessment and clinical correlations based on a prospective operative and nonoperative cohort. Neurosurgery 73(4):559–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith JS, Lafage V, Shaffrey CI et al (2016) Outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity: a prospective, multicenter, propensity-matched cohort assessment with minimum 2-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 78(6):851–861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Soroceanu A, Burton DC, Oren JH et al (2016) Medical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery: incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 41(22):1718–1723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Cheh G et al (2007) Adult spinal deformity surgery: complications and outcomes in patients over age 60. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 32(20):2238–2244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Puvanesarajah V, Shen FH, Cancienne JM et al (2016) Risk factors for revision surgery following primary adult spinal deformity surgery in patients 65 years and older. J Neurosurg Spine 25(4):486–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Worley N, Marascalchi B, Jalai CM et al (2016) Predictors of inpatient morbidity and mortality in adult spinal deformity surgery. Eur Spine J 25(3):819–827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Scheer JK, Lafage V, Smith JS et al (2014) Impact of age on the likelihood of reaching a minimum clinically important difference in 374 three-column spinal osteotomies: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 20(3):306–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organization. (2012) The World Health Report 2000—health systems: improving performance. World Health Organization. Health Service Delivery Profiles-Japan

  10. World Bank (2015) Purchasing power parities and the real size of world economies: a comprehensive report of the 2011 international comparison program. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Berven S et al (2010) Changes in radiographic and clinical outcomes with primary treatment adult spinal deformity surgeries from two years to three- to five-years followup. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(20):1849–1854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Weinstein MC, Torrance G (2009) QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 12(Suppl 1):S5–S9 (Erratum in: Value Health 13(8):1065)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E et al (2010) Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 20(3):332–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, McDonough CM et al (2009) Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the Oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(19):2085–2089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fischer CR, Terran J, Lonner B et al (2014) Factors predicting cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity surgery at 2 years. Spine Deform (United States) 2(5):415–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (2010) National health expenditures summary (Report). 2010-09-27

  17. Barton C, Noshchenko A, Patel V et al (2015) Risk factors for rod fracture after posterior correction of adult spinal deformity with osteotomy: a retrospective case-series. Scoliosis 10:30

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith JS, Shaffrey E, Klineberg E et al (2014) Prospective multicenter assessment of risk factors for rod fracture following surgery for adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine 21(6):994–1003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yagi M, Cunningham E, King A et al (2013) Long term clinical and radiographic outcomes of pedicle subtraction osteotomy for fixed sagittal imbalance: does level of proximal fusion affect the outcome? -Minimum 5 years follow-up-. Spine Deform 1:123–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ishii M, Iwasaki M, Ohwada T et al (2013) Postoperative deep surgical-site infection after instrumented spinal surgery: a multicenter study. Global Spine J 3(2):95–102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Pull ter Gunne AF, Mohamed AS, Skolasky RL et al (2010) The presentation, incidence, etiology, and treatment of surgical site infections after spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(13):1323–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Adogwa O, Elsamadicy AA, Han J et al (2016) Drivers of 30-day re-admission in elderly patients (>65 years old) after spine surgery: an analysis of 500 consecutive spine surgery patients. World Neurosurg S1878–8750(16):30556-3

    Google Scholar 

  23. Muramatsu N, Liang J (1999) Hospital length of stay in the United States and Japan: a case study of myocardial infarction patients. Int J Health Serv 29(1):189–209

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Diebo BG, Passias PG, Marascalchi BJ et al (2015) Primary versus revision surgery in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a nationwide study on 10,912 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(21):1674–1680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Glassman SD, Schwab FJ, Bridwell KH et al (2007) The selection of operative versus nonoperative treatment in patients with adult scoliosis. Spine 32:93–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Edejer TT, Baltussen R, Adam T et al (2003) WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  27. Paulus MC, Kalantar SB, Radcliff K (2014) Cost and value of spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(5):388–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bourghli A, Boissiere L, Larrieu D et al (2017) Lack of improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores 6 months after surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) predicts high revision rate in the second postoperative year. Eur Spine J (Epub ahead of print)

  29. McCarthy I, O’Brien M, Ames C et al (2014) Incremental cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity surgery: observed quality-adjusted life years with surgery compared with predicted quality-adjusted life years without surgery. Neurosurg Focus 36(5):E3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kota Watanabe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This study was approved by the institutional review board.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yagi, M., Ames, C.P., Keefe, M. et al. A cost-effectiveness comparisons of adult spinal deformity surgery in the United States and Japan. Eur Spine J 27, 678–684 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5274-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5274-5

Keywords

  • Adult spinal deformity
  • Cost
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • QALY
  • Complication