Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.

Q1 Medicine
{"title":"Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical degenerative disc disease is a multifactorial condition that begins with deterioration of the intervertebral disc and results in further degeneration within the spine involving the facet joints and ligaments. This health technology assessment examined the effectiveness, safety, durability, and cost-effectiveness of cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) versus fusion for treating cervical degenerative disc disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence comparing C-ADR with fusion. We assessed the risk of bias in each study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic review of the economic literature and assessed the cost-effectiveness of C-ADR compared with fusion. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding C-ADR in Ontario over the next 5 years. To contextualize the potential value of C-ADR, we spoke with people with cervical degenerative disc disease.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies of C-ADR for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease and two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease satisfied the criterion of statistical noninferiority compared with fusion on the primary outcome of 2-year overall treatment success (GRADE: Moderate). In two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease, C-ADR was statistically superior to fusion surgery for the same primary outcome (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was also noninferior to fusion for perioperative outcomes (e.g., operative time, blood loss), patient satisfaction, and health-related quality of life (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was superior to fusion for recovery and return to work, had higher technical success, and had lower rates of re-operation at the index site (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR also maintained motion at the index-treated cervical level (GRADE: Moderate), but evidence was insufficient to determine if adjacent-level surgery rates differed between C-ADR and fusion. Current evidence is also insufficient to determine the long-term durability of C-ADR.The primary economic analysis shows that C-ADR is likely to be cost-effective compared with fusion for both one-level ($11,607/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and two-level ($16,782/QALY) degeneration. Various sensitivity and scenario analyses confirm the robustness of the results. The current uptake for one-level and two-level C-ADR in Ontario is about 8% of the total eligible. For one-level involvement, the estimated net budget impact increases from $7,243 (18 procedures) in the first year to $395,623 (196 procedures) in the fifth year following public funding, for a total budget impact over 5 years of $916,326. For two-level involvement, the corresponding values are $5,460 (7 procedures) in the first year and $283,689 (76 procedures) in the fifth year, for an estimated total budget impact of $705,628 over 5 years.People with cervical degenerative disc disease reported that symptoms of pain and numbness can have a negative impact on their quality of life. People with whom we spoke had tried a variety of treatments with minor success; surgery was perceived as the most effective and permanent solution. Those who had undergone C-ADR spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For carefully selected patients with cervical degenerative disc disease, C-ADR provides patient-important and statistically significant reductions in pain and disability. Further, unlike fusion, C-ADR allows people to maintain relatively normal cervical spine motion.Compared with fusion, C-ADR appears to represent good value for money for adults with one-level cervical degenerative disc disease ($11,607/QALY) and for adults with two-level disease ($16,782/QALY). In Ontario, publicly funding C-ADR could result in total additional costs of $916,326 for one-level procedures and $705,628 for two-level procedures over the next 5 years.People with whom we spoke who had undergone C-ADR surgery spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"19 3","pages":"1-223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394883/pdf/ohtas-19-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cervical degenerative disc disease is a multifactorial condition that begins with deterioration of the intervertebral disc and results in further degeneration within the spine involving the facet joints and ligaments. This health technology assessment examined the effectiveness, safety, durability, and cost-effectiveness of cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) versus fusion for treating cervical degenerative disc disease.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence comparing C-ADR with fusion. We assessed the risk of bias in each study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic review of the economic literature and assessed the cost-effectiveness of C-ADR compared with fusion. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding C-ADR in Ontario over the next 5 years. To contextualize the potential value of C-ADR, we spoke with people with cervical degenerative disc disease.

Results: Eight studies of C-ADR for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease and two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease satisfied the criterion of statistical noninferiority compared with fusion on the primary outcome of 2-year overall treatment success (GRADE: Moderate). In two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease, C-ADR was statistically superior to fusion surgery for the same primary outcome (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was also noninferior to fusion for perioperative outcomes (e.g., operative time, blood loss), patient satisfaction, and health-related quality of life (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was superior to fusion for recovery and return to work, had higher technical success, and had lower rates of re-operation at the index site (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR also maintained motion at the index-treated cervical level (GRADE: Moderate), but evidence was insufficient to determine if adjacent-level surgery rates differed between C-ADR and fusion. Current evidence is also insufficient to determine the long-term durability of C-ADR.The primary economic analysis shows that C-ADR is likely to be cost-effective compared with fusion for both one-level ($11,607/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and two-level ($16,782/QALY) degeneration. Various sensitivity and scenario analyses confirm the robustness of the results. The current uptake for one-level and two-level C-ADR in Ontario is about 8% of the total eligible. For one-level involvement, the estimated net budget impact increases from $7,243 (18 procedures) in the first year to $395,623 (196 procedures) in the fifth year following public funding, for a total budget impact over 5 years of $916,326. For two-level involvement, the corresponding values are $5,460 (7 procedures) in the first year and $283,689 (76 procedures) in the fifth year, for an estimated total budget impact of $705,628 over 5 years.People with cervical degenerative disc disease reported that symptoms of pain and numbness can have a negative impact on their quality of life. People with whom we spoke had tried a variety of treatments with minor success; surgery was perceived as the most effective and permanent solution. Those who had undergone C-ADR spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.

Conclusions: For carefully selected patients with cervical degenerative disc disease, C-ADR provides patient-important and statistically significant reductions in pain and disability. Further, unlike fusion, C-ADR allows people to maintain relatively normal cervical spine motion.Compared with fusion, C-ADR appears to represent good value for money for adults with one-level cervical degenerative disc disease ($11,607/QALY) and for adults with two-level disease ($16,782/QALY). In Ontario, publicly funding C-ADR could result in total additional costs of $916,326 for one-level procedures and $705,628 for two-level procedures over the next 5 years.People with whom we spoke who had undergone C-ADR surgery spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

颈椎人工椎间盘置换术与融合治疗颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病:一项健康技术评估。
背景:颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病是一种多因素疾病,始于椎间盘退化,并导致脊柱内涉及小关节和韧带的进一步退化。这项健康技术评估检查了宫颈人工椎间盘置换术(C-ADR)与融合治疗宫颈退行性椎间盘疾病的有效性、安全性、耐用性和成本效益。方法:我们对C-ADR和融合的临床证据进行了系统的文献检索。我们根据建议评估、发展和评估分级(GRADE)工作组标准评估了每项研究中的偏倚风险和证据质量。我们对经济文献进行了系统回顾,并评估了C-ADR与融合的成本效益。我们还估计了安大略省未来5年公共资助C-ADR的预算影响。为了了解C-ADR的潜在价值,我们采访了患有颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病的患者。结果:8项针对一级颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病的C-ADR研究和2项针对两级疾病的C-ADR研究在2年总体治疗成功的主要结果(等级:中等)方面满足了与融合相比的统计学非劣效性标准。在两项针对两级疾病的C-ADR研究中,在相同的主要结果方面,C-ADR在统计学上优于融合手术(等级:中等)。C-ADR在围手术期结果(如手术时间、失血)、患者满意度和健康相关生活质量方面也不劣于融合(等级:中等)。C-ADR在恢复和重返工作岗位方面优于融合,技术成功率更高,在指标部位的再手术率更低(等级:中等)。C-ADR也保持了指数治疗的宫颈水平(等级:中等)的运动,但证据不足以确定C-ADR和融合之间相邻水平的手术率是否不同。目前的证据也不足以确定C-ADR的长期耐久性。初步经济分析表明,与融合相比,C-ADR在一级(11607美元/质量调整生命年[QALY])和两级(16782美元/QALY)退化方面可能具有成本效益。各种敏感性和情景分析证实了结果的稳健性。安大略省目前接受的一级和两级C-ADR约占合格总数的8%。对于一级参与,估计的净预算影响从公共资助后第一年的7243美元(18个程序)增加到第五年的395623美元(196个程序),5年的总预算影响为916326美元。对于两级参与,第一年的相应价值为5460美元(7个程序),第五年为283689美元(76个程序)。5年内估计总预算影响为705628美元。患有颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病的人报告说,疼痛和麻木的症状会对他们的生活质量产生负面影响。与我们交谈过的人尝试了各种治疗方法,但收效甚微;手术被认为是最有效和永久的解决方案。那些接受过C-ADR的人积极评价它对他们的生活质量和术后活动颈部的能力的影响。安大略省C-ADR的有限可用性被视为接受这种治疗的障碍。结论:对于精心选择的颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病患者,C-ADR为患者提供了重要且具有统计学意义的疼痛和残疾减轻。此外,与融合不同,C-ADR允许人们保持相对正常的颈椎运动。与融合相比,C-ADR似乎对患有一级颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病的成年人(11607/QALY美元)和患有两级疾病的成人(16782/QALY)具有良好的性价比。在安大略省,在未来5年内,公共资助C-ADR可能导致一级程序的总额外成本为916326美元,两级程序的额外成本为705628美元。与我们交谈过的接受C-ADR手术的人积极评价了它对他们的生活质量和手术后移动颈部的能力的影响。安大略省C-ADR的有限可用性被视为接受这种治疗的障碍。
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
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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