ALERT: This system is being upgraded on Tuesday December 12. It will not be available
for use for several hours that day while the upgrade is in progress. Deposits to DukeSpace
will be disabled on Monday December 11, so no new items are to be added to the repository
while the upgrade is in progress. Everything should be back to normal by the end of
day, December 12.
Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity: Comparison of Posterior-only versus Antero-posterior Approach.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT:Considerable debate exists regarding the optimal surgical approach
for adult spinal deformity (ASD). It remains unclear which approach, posterior-only
or combined anterior-posterior (AP), is more cost-effective. Our goal is to determine
the 2-year cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for each approach. PURPOSE:To
compare the 2-year cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for ASD between the posterior-only
approach and combined AP approach. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective economic analysis of
a prospective, multicenter database PATIENT SAMPLE: From a prospective, multicenter
surgical database of ASD, patients undergoing 5 or more level fusions through a posterior-only
or AP approach were identified and compared. METHODS:QALYs gained were determined
using baseline, 1-year, and 2-year post-operative Short Form 6D. Cost was calculated
from actual, direct hospital costs including any subsequent readmission or revision.
Cost-effectiveness was determined using cost/QALY gained. RESULTS:The AP approach
showed significantly higher index cost than the posterior-only approach ($84,329 vs
$64,281). This margin decreased at 2-year follow-up with total costs of $89,824 and
$73,904, respectively. QALYs gained at two years were similar with 0.21 and 0.17 in
the posterior-only and the AP approaches, respectively. The cost/QALY at two years
after surgery was significantly higher in the AP approach ($525,080) than in the posterior-only
approach ($351,086). CONCLUSIONS:We assessed 2-year cost-effectiveness for the surgical
treatment through posterior-only and AP approaches. The posterior-only approach is
less expensive both for the index surgery and at 2-year follow-up. The QALY gained
at 2-years was similar between the two approaches. Thus, posterior-only approach was
more cost-effective than the AP approach under our study parameters. However, both
approaches were not cost-effective at 2-year follow-up.
Type
Journal articlePermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/20580Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1016/j.spinee.2020.03.018Publication Info
Ogura, Yoji; Gum, Jeffrey L; Hostin, Richard A; Robinson, Chessie; Ames, Christopher
P; Glassman, Steven D; ... International Spine Study Group (ISSG) (2020). Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity: Comparison of
Posterior-only versus Antero-posterior Approach. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society. 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.03.018. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/20580.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Christopher Ignatius Shaffrey
Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery
I have more than 25 years of experience treating patients of all ages with spinal
disorders. I have had an interest in the management of spinal disorders since starting
my medical education. I performed residencies in both orthopaedic surgery and neurosurgery
to gain a comprehensive understanding of the entire range of spinal disorders. My
goal has been to find innovative ways to manage the range of spinal conditions, straightforward
to complex. I have a focus on managing patients with complex s

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info