Budget Impact Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A European Hospital Perspective.

IF 2.1 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-01-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S445141
Roberto Bassani, Thibaut Galvain, Suzanne Battaglia, Hendramoorthy Maheswaran, George Wright, Ankita Kambli, Alessandra Piemontese
{"title":"Budget Impact Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A European Hospital Perspective.","authors":"Roberto Bassani, Thibaut Galvain, Suzanne Battaglia, Hendramoorthy Maheswaran, George Wright, Ankita Kambli, Alessandra Piemontese","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S445141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>When traditional therapies fail to provide relief from debilitating lower back pain, surgeries such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be required. This budget impact analysis (BIA) compared minimally-invasive (MI)-TLIF versus open (O)-TLIF for single-level fusion from an Italian hospital perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The BIA compared costs of 100 MI-TLIF and 100 O-TLIF procedures from an Italian hospital perspective over a one-year time horizon. The base case included costs for length of hospital stay (LOS), blood loss, and sterilizing surgical trays. The scenario analysis also included operating room (OR) time and complication costs. Base case inputs were from the Miller et al meta-analysis; scenario analysis inputs were from the Hammad et al meta-analysis. The device costs for MI-TLIF and O-TLIF procedures were from Italian tender prices for Viper Prime™ System and Expedium™ Spine System, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Base case deterministic analysis results showed cost savings of €207,370 for MI-TLIF compared with O-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€215,277), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), and surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), whereas device costs were lower for O-TLIF (€53,020). The probabilistic result was similar, with MI-TLIF resulting in savings of €211,026 (95% credible interval [CR]: €208,725 - €213,327). All 1000 base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs were cost saving. Deterministic scenario analysis results showed cost savings of €166,719 for MI-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€190,813), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), and complications (€2076), whereas O-TLIF costs were lower for OR time (€18,263) and devices used (€53,020).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the increase incremental cost for medical device innovation and OR time, this study demonstrates the economic savings of MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF from a European hospital perspective. The findings will be useful to policy and hospital decision makers in assessing purchasing, funding and reimbursement decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10802124/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S445141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: When traditional therapies fail to provide relief from debilitating lower back pain, surgeries such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be required. This budget impact analysis (BIA) compared minimally-invasive (MI)-TLIF versus open (O)-TLIF for single-level fusion from an Italian hospital perspective.

Methods: The BIA compared costs of 100 MI-TLIF and 100 O-TLIF procedures from an Italian hospital perspective over a one-year time horizon. The base case included costs for length of hospital stay (LOS), blood loss, and sterilizing surgical trays. The scenario analysis also included operating room (OR) time and complication costs. Base case inputs were from the Miller et al meta-analysis; scenario analysis inputs were from the Hammad et al meta-analysis. The device costs for MI-TLIF and O-TLIF procedures were from Italian tender prices for Viper Prime™ System and Expedium™ Spine System, respectively.

Results: Base case deterministic analysis results showed cost savings of €207,370 for MI-TLIF compared with O-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€215,277), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), and surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), whereas device costs were lower for O-TLIF (€53,020). The probabilistic result was similar, with MI-TLIF resulting in savings of €211,026 (95% credible interval [CR]: €208,725 - €213,327). All 1000 base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs were cost saving. Deterministic scenario analysis results showed cost savings of €166,719 for MI-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€190,813), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), and complications (€2076), whereas O-TLIF costs were lower for OR time (€18,263) and devices used (€53,020).

Conclusion: Despite the increase incremental cost for medical device innovation and OR time, this study demonstrates the economic savings of MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF from a European hospital perspective. The findings will be useful to policy and hospital decision makers in assessing purchasing, funding and reimbursement decisions.

微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的预算影响分析:欧洲医院的视角。
目的:当传统疗法无法缓解令人衰弱的下背部疼痛时,可能需要进行经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)等手术。本预算影响分析(BIA)从意大利医院的角度出发,比较了微创(MI)-TLIF 与开放(O)-TLIF 单层次融合术:该预算影响分析从意大利医院的角度比较了 100 例 MI-TTLIF 和 100 例 O-TTLIF 手术在一年时间内的成本。基础分析包括住院时间(LOS)、失血量和手术托盘消毒的成本。情景分析还包括手术室(OR)时间和并发症成本。基础病例输入数据来自 Miller 等人的荟萃分析;情景分析输入数据来自 Hammad 等人的荟萃分析。MI-TLIF 和 O-TLIF 手术的器械成本分别来自 Viper Prime™ 系统和 Expedium™ 脊柱系统的意大利招标价格:基础病例确定性分析结果显示,与 O-TLIF 相比,MI-TLIF 可节约成本 207,370 欧元。MI-TLIF 的 LOS(215,277 欧元)、失血输血(16,881 欧元)和手术托盘消毒(28,232 欧元)成本较低,而 O-TLIF 的设备成本较低(53,020 欧元)。概率结果类似,MI-TLIF 可节省 211026 欧元(95% 可信区间 [CR]:208725 - 213327 欧元)。所有 1000 个基本病例的概率灵敏度分析运行均可节省费用。确定性方案分析结果显示,MI-TLIF 可节省成本 166,719 欧元。MI-TLIF在LOS(190,813欧元)、失血输血(16,881欧元)、手术盘消毒(28,232欧元)和并发症(2076欧元)方面的成本较低,而O-TLIF在手术室时间(18,263欧元)和所用设备(53,020欧元)方面的成本较低:结论:尽管医疗器械创新和手术时间的成本增加,但从欧洲医院的角度来看,这项研究表明 MI-TLIF 比 O-TLIF 节约了经济成本。研究结果将有助于政策制定者和医院决策者评估采购、资金和报销决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
16 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信