• Simona Vertuani, Jonas Nilsson, Benny Borgman, Giorgio Buseghin, Catherine Leonard, Roberto Assietti, and Nasir A Quraishi.
• OptumInsight, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: simona.vertuani@optum.com.
• Value Health. 2015 Sep 1; 18 (6): 810-6.

ObjectiveEvaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open surgery (OS) techniques for one- or two-level lumbar spinal fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal conditions in the United Kingdom and Italy.MethodsA health economic model was developed on the basis of results from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of MIS compared with OS for lumbar spinal fusion. The analysis was conducted from a health care payer perspective. Parameters included in the model were surgery, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, postoperative complications, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.ResultsMIS was the dominant strategy compared with OS (i.e., yielding both cost savings and improved HRQOL). Cost savings were driven mainly by shorter length of hospital stay, reduced blood loss, and fewer complications such as surgical site infection. The total cost saving per procedure was €973 for Italy and €1666 for the United Kingdom, with an improvement of 0.04 quality-adjusted life-year over 2 years in HRQOL. One-way sensitivity analyses and predefined scenario(s) analyses confirmed the robustness of the model.ConclusionsMIS is a less expensive and a more effective treatment compared with OS for spinal lumbar fusion in both Italy and the United Kingdom. Lower downstream costs and increased HRQOL in the MIS group compensate for potential higher upfront costs of MIS implants and surgery equipment.Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.

35 keywords...

hide…