Costs of cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: an analysis of the Blue Health Intelligence database for acute and long-term costs and complications - Spinal DISC Center | Kris Radcliff, MD | New Jersey
Dr. Kris Radcliff specializes in simplifying the management of complex spine conditions and traumatic spine injuries, focusing exclusively on spine surgery, with particular expertise in the area of artificial disc replacement. Dr. Radcliff is highly experienced, having performed more than 10,000 spine surgeries. He combines conservative decision-making judgment with state-of-the-art and minimally invasive surgical techniques, endoscopic spine surgery, and artificial disc replacement.
Dr. Kris Radcliff, Kris Radcliff MD, Kris Radcliff, spinal disc center, spinal disc center new jersey, artificial disc replacement, artificial disc replacement specialist, endoscopic spine surgeon, endoscopic spine surgeon new jersey, new jersey spine surgeon, best spine surgeon in new jersey, minimally invasive spine surgery, MISS New Jersey, cervical spine surgery, cervical lamino-foraminatomy, cervical radiculopathy, artificial cervical disc replacement, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, posterior cervical discectomy and fusion, lumbar microdiscectomy, lumbar laminectomy, minimally invasive tlif, ALIF, kyphoplasty, SI joint fusion, facet joint injections, treatment for neck pain, treatment for back pain, treatment for cervical myelopathy, treatment for cervical radiculopathy, treatment for cervical stenosis, treatment for compression fractures, treatment for degenerative disc disease, treatment for herniated disc, treatment for sciatica, treatment for si joint disorders, treatment for spinal stenosis
16756
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16756,single-format-standard,bridge-core-3.3,wp-schema-pro-2.7.23,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-theme-ver-30.8.2,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_bottom,qode_advanced_footer_responsive_1000,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-7.9,vc_responsive,elementor-default,elementor-kit-16783
 

Costs of cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: an analysis of the Blue Health Intelligence database for acute and long-term costs and complications

Kris Radcliff, Jeff Zigler, Jack Zigler: Costs of cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: an analysis of the Blue Health Intelligence database for acute and long-term costs and complications. In: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 521–529, 2015, ISSN: 1528-1159.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collective administrative data.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the reoperation rates, adverse event rate, as well as the direct and follow-on costs of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in a "real-world" population of patients with single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Until very recently, there was a paucity of human clinical data to demonstrate that CDA lowers the rate of adjacent segment disease over ACDF.

METHODS: This was a retrospective, matched cohort analysis of a prospectively collected database of costs and outcomes for patients aged 18 to 60 years, who were continuously enrolled in a Blue Cross Plan contributing data to a claims database. Inclusion criteria were as follows: all patients who were treated surgically with either CDA or ACDF between January 2008 and December 2009, with single-level cervical pathology and claims reflecting at least 6 weeks of nonsurgical preoperative care without claims history of prior surgery.

RESULTS: There were 6635 ACDF patients and 327 CDA patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence of comorbidities or mean follow-up time (ACDF 25.7 mo vs. CDA 26.1 mo) between groups. By 36 months postoperatively, the reoperation rate was significantly increased in the ACDF group (10.5%) versus the CDA group (5.7%) (hazard ratio, P = 0.0214). The index surgery and 90-day global window costs were significantly lower in the CDA groups. At final follow-up, there was a statistically significant reduction in total costs paid by insurer in CDA patients (CDA $34,979 vs. ACDF $39,820).

CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent CDA for single-level degenerative disease had lower readmission rates, lower reoperation rates, and reduced index and total costs than those treated with ACDF. CDA was effective in reducing the monthly cost of care compared with ACDF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

BibTeX (Download)

@article{pmid25868092,
title = {Costs of cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: an analysis of the Blue Health Intelligence database for acute and long-term costs and complications},
author = {Kris Radcliff and Jeff Zigler and Jack Zigler},
doi = {10.1097/BRS.0000000000000822},
issn = {1528-1159},
year  = {2015},
date = {2015-04-01},
urldate = {2015-04-01},
journal = {Spine (Phila Pa 1976)},
volume = {40},
number = {8},
pages = {521--529},
abstract = {STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collective administrative data.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the reoperation rates, adverse event rate, as well as the direct and follow-on costs of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in a "real-world" population of patients with single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Until very recently, there was a paucity of human clinical data to demonstrate that CDA lowers the rate of adjacent segment disease over ACDF.

METHODS: This was a retrospective, matched cohort analysis of a prospectively collected database of costs and outcomes for patients aged 18 to 60 years, who were continuously enrolled in a Blue Cross Plan contributing data to a claims database. Inclusion criteria were as follows: all patients who were treated surgically with either CDA or ACDF between January 2008 and December 2009, with single-level cervical pathology and claims reflecting at least 6 weeks of nonsurgical preoperative care without claims history of prior surgery.

RESULTS: There were 6635 ACDF patients and 327 CDA patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence of comorbidities or mean follow-up time (ACDF 25.7 mo vs. CDA 26.1 mo) between groups. By 36 months postoperatively, the reoperation rate was significantly increased in the ACDF group (10.5%) versus the CDA group (5.7%) (hazard ratio, P = 0.0214). The index surgery and 90-day global window costs were significantly lower in the CDA groups. At final follow-up, there was a statistically significant reduction in total costs paid by insurer in CDA patients (CDA $34,979 vs. ACDF $39,820).

CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent CDA for single-level degenerative disease had lower readmission rates, lower reoperation rates, and reduced index and total costs than those treated with ACDF. CDA was effective in reducing the monthly cost of care compared with ACDF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.