Dataset Information

Final Long-Term Reporting from a Randomized Controlled IDE Trial for Lumbar Artificial Discs in Single-Level Degenerative Disc Disease: 7-Year Results.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study compared 7-year safety and efficacy outcomes of activL and ProDisc-L lumbar total disc replacements in patients with symptomatic, single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). The objectives are to report 7-year outcomes of the trial, evaluate the outcomes for patients lost to follow-up, and determine whether early outcomes predict long-term outcomes.

Methods

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption study. Eligible patients with symptomatic, single-level lumbar DDD had failed ≥6 months of nonsurgical management. Patients (N = 283) were randomized to receive activL (n = 218) or ProDisc-L (n = 65). At 7 years, data were available from 206 patients (activL, 160; ProDisc-L, 46). Logistic regression models were fit to predict 7-year outcomes for patients lost to follow-up after 2 years.

Results

At 7 years, the activL group was noninferior to the ProDisc-L group on the primary composite endpoint (P = .0369). Both groups showed significant reductions in back/leg pain severity and improvements in disability index and quality-of-life relative to baseline (P < .0001). In both groups, opioid use was significantly reduced at 7 years (0%) relative to baseline (P < .01), and the overall reoperation rates were low (4.6%). activL patients showed a significantly better range of motion (ROM) for flexion-extension rotation than ProDisc-L patients (P = .0334). A significantly higher proportion of activL patients did not report serious adverse events (activL, 62%; ProDisc-L, 43%; P = .011). Predictive modeling indicated that >70% of patients (depending on outcome) lost to follow-up after 2 years would show clinically significant improvement at 7 years if improvements were achieved at 2 years.

Conclusions

The benefits of activL and ProDisc-L are maintained after 7 years, with significant improvements from baseline observed in pain, function, and opioid use. activL is more effective at preserving ROM than ProDisc-L and has a more favorable safety profile. Improvements in other primary and secondary outcomes were similar between both disc designs.

Level of evidence

SUBMITTER: Radcliff K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8375685 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion.ObjectiveCost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years.MethodsData were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate.ResultsThe cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34?377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was -$165?103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50?000 per QALY in all scenarios (-$225?816 per QALY to $22?071 per QALY).ConclusionThis study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality.AbbreviationsACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusionAWP, average wholesale priceCE, cost-effectivenessCEA, cost-effectiveness analysisCPT, Current Procedural TerminologycTDR, cervical total disc replacementCUA, cost-utility analysisDDD, degenerative disc diseaseDRG, diagnosis-related groupFDA, US Food and Drug AdministrationICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratioIDE, Investigational Device ExemptionNDI, neck disability indexQALY, quality-adjusted life yearsRCT, randomized controlled trialRTW, return-to-workSF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health SurveyVAS, visual analog scaleWTP, willingness-to-pay.

Project description:ObjectiveReimbursement trends for common procedures have persistently declined over the past 2 decades. Spinal instrumentational and fusion procedures are increasingly utilized and have increased in clinical complexity, yet longitudinal inflation-adjusted data for Medicare reimbursements of these procedures have not been evaluated.MethodsThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was used to extract Medicare reimbursements for the 5 most common spinal procedures and associated instrumentations from 2000-2020. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes include 22551, 22600, 22633, 63030, and 63047 as well as instrumentation CPT codes 22840 and 22842-6. The nominal values were adjusted for inflation according to the latest consumer price index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; reported as 2020 USD) and used to calculate average annual percent changes and compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) in reimbursements.ResultsAfter inflation adjustment, the physician fee reimbursement decreased by 11.05% ± 8.46% (mean ± s.d., from $2,009.89 in 2011 to $1,787.85 in 2020) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), 28.38% ± 8.42% (from $1,889.38 in 2000 to $1,353.14 in 2020) for posterior cervical fusion, 7.85% ± 8.20% (from $2,111.20 in 2012 to $1,945.49 in 2020) for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), 28.17% ± 13.88% (from $1,421.78 in 2000 to $1,021.22 in 2020) for lower back disc surgery, and 31.88% ± 8.22% (from $1,700.38 in 2000 to $1,158.25 in 2020) for lumbar laminectomy. Instrumentation reimbursements showed an average decrease of 33.43% ± 8.4% over this period. Average CAGR was -1.7% ± .41% for procedures and -2.02% ± .14% for instrumentation.ConclusionOur analysis reveals a persistent decline in reimbursement rates of the most common spine procedures and instrumentation since the year 2000. If unaddressed, this trend can serve as a substantial disincentive for physicians to perform these procedures and can significantly limit access to spinal care at the population level.