3节段人工全腰椎间盘置换术与连续3节段360°融合术患者的成本比较:美国研究性器械豁免临床试验1个地点的同情使用分析

Frank A. Buttacavoli MD, Rick B. Delamarter MD, Linda E.A. Kanim MA
{"title":"3节段人工全腰椎间盘置换术与连续3节段360°融合术患者的成本比较:美国研究性器械豁免临床试验1个地点的同情使用分析","authors":"Frank A. Buttacavoli MD,&nbsp;Rick B. Delamarter MD,&nbsp;Linda E.A. Kanim MA","doi":"10.1016/j.esas.2010.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>We sought to evaluate the difference between hospital service costs of 2 treatment options for patients diagnosed with 3-level degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the lumbar spine. In this retrospective analysis, itemized billing records of hospital stay for patients with 3-level DDD treated with artificial disc replacement (ADR) were compared with those treated with circumferential fusion (standard of care).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Sequential 3-level DDD patients treated with either ADR (ProDisc-L; Synthes, West Chester, Pennsylvania) or circumferential fusion during the period from January 2004 to October 2005 were included. Surgeries were performed at the same hospital for all patients. The ADR-treated patients were participating in the investigational device exemption clinical trial as part of the compassionate-use arm. Patients treated with fusion at the same institution during this same time interval were evaluated. Itemized billing records were collected at least 1 year after the index surgery. Costs according to hospital service categories were compared between ADR-treated and fusion-treated patients by use of analysis of variance and multivariate statistical techniques.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 43 consecutive patients treated for 3-level DDD between January 2004 and October 2005. Of these, 21 underwent 3-level ADR and 22 had a 3-level fusion procedure. There was a mean of 3 fewer hospital days for patients treated with ADR (4.77 ± 1.11 days) than for those treated with fusion (8.00 ± 1.82 days) (<em>P</em> &lt; .0001). The cost of hospital services for ADR-treated patients was 49% less excluding instrumentation costs and 54% less when accounting for instrumentation. The pattern of cost was similar when workers' compensation patients were analyzed separately.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>ADR-treated 3-level patients benefited from significantly lower costs from their in-hospital stay compared with those treated by fusion. Hospital service costs were 49% (54% when instrumentation was included in the costs) less for ADR patients than for fusion patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":88695,"journal":{"name":"SAS journal","volume":"4 4","pages":"Pages 107-114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.esas.2010.07.002","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost comparison of patients with 3-level artificial total lumbar disc replacements versus 360° fusion at 3 contiguous lumbar vertebral levels: an analysis of compassionate use at 1 site of the US investigational device exemption clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"Frank A. Buttacavoli MD,&nbsp;Rick B. Delamarter MD,&nbsp;Linda E.A. Kanim MA\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.esas.2010.07.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>We sought to evaluate the difference between hospital service costs of 2 treatment options for patients diagnosed with 3-level degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the lumbar spine. In this retrospective analysis, itemized billing records of hospital stay for patients with 3-level DDD treated with artificial disc replacement (ADR) were compared with those treated with circumferential fusion (standard of care).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Sequential 3-level DDD patients treated with either ADR (ProDisc-L; Synthes, West Chester, Pennsylvania) or circumferential fusion during the period from January 2004 to October 2005 were included. Surgeries were performed at the same hospital for all patients. The ADR-treated patients were participating in the investigational device exemption clinical trial as part of the compassionate-use arm. Patients treated with fusion at the same institution during this same time interval were evaluated. Itemized billing records were collected at least 1 year after the index surgery. Costs according to hospital service categories were compared between ADR-treated and fusion-treated patients by use of analysis of variance and multivariate statistical techniques.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 43 consecutive patients treated for 3-level DDD between January 2004 and October 2005. Of these, 21 underwent 3-level ADR and 22 had a 3-level fusion procedure. There was a mean of 3 fewer hospital days for patients treated with ADR (4.77 ± 1.11 days) than for those treated with fusion (8.00 ± 1.82 days) (<em>P</em> &lt; .0001). The cost of hospital services for ADR-treated patients was 49% less excluding instrumentation costs and 54% less when accounting for instrumentation. The pattern of cost was similar when workers' compensation patients were analyzed separately.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>ADR-treated 3-level patients benefited from significantly lower costs from their in-hospital stay compared with those treated by fusion. Hospital service costs were 49% (54% when instrumentation was included in the costs) less for ADR patients than for fusion patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88695,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SAS journal\",\"volume\":\"4 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 107-114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.esas.2010.07.002\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SAS journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935981010000496\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAS journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935981010000496","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

背景:我们试图评估诊断为腰椎3级退变性椎间盘病(DDD)患者的两种治疗方案的医院服务费用差异。在这项回顾性分析中,我们比较了采用人工椎间盘置换术(ADR)治疗的3级DDD患者与采用周向融合术(标准治疗)治疗的患者的住院账单记录。方法序贯3级DDD患者分别采用ADR (ProDisc-L;包括2004年1月至2005年10月期间的Synthes, West Chester, Pennsylvania)或周向聚变。所有病人的手术都在同一家医院进行。不良反应治疗的患者参加了试验性器械豁免临床试验,作为同情使用组的一部分。在同一时间间隔在同一机构接受融合治疗的患者进行评估。在索引手术后至少1年收集分项计费记录。采用方差分析和多变量统计技术比较不良反应治疗和融合治疗患者按医院服务类别的费用。结果2004年1月至2005年10月共收治3级DDD患者43例。其中21例发生3级不良反应,22例行3级融合手术。不良反应组(4.77±1.11天)比融合组(8.00±1.82天)平均少住院3天(P <。)。不包括仪器费用,不良反应患者的医院服务费用减少了49%,考虑仪器费用时减少了54%。单独分析工伤赔偿患者的成本模式相似。结论与融合治疗相比,sadr治疗的3级患者住院费用明显降低。与融合患者相比,不良反应患者的医院服务成本低49%(当器械纳入成本时为54%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cost comparison of patients with 3-level artificial total lumbar disc replacements versus 360° fusion at 3 contiguous lumbar vertebral levels: an analysis of compassionate use at 1 site of the US investigational device exemption clinical trial

Background

We sought to evaluate the difference between hospital service costs of 2 treatment options for patients diagnosed with 3-level degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the lumbar spine. In this retrospective analysis, itemized billing records of hospital stay for patients with 3-level DDD treated with artificial disc replacement (ADR) were compared with those treated with circumferential fusion (standard of care).

Methods

Sequential 3-level DDD patients treated with either ADR (ProDisc-L; Synthes, West Chester, Pennsylvania) or circumferential fusion during the period from January 2004 to October 2005 were included. Surgeries were performed at the same hospital for all patients. The ADR-treated patients were participating in the investigational device exemption clinical trial as part of the compassionate-use arm. Patients treated with fusion at the same institution during this same time interval were evaluated. Itemized billing records were collected at least 1 year after the index surgery. Costs according to hospital service categories were compared between ADR-treated and fusion-treated patients by use of analysis of variance and multivariate statistical techniques.

Results

There were 43 consecutive patients treated for 3-level DDD between January 2004 and October 2005. Of these, 21 underwent 3-level ADR and 22 had a 3-level fusion procedure. There was a mean of 3 fewer hospital days for patients treated with ADR (4.77 ± 1.11 days) than for those treated with fusion (8.00 ± 1.82 days) (P < .0001). The cost of hospital services for ADR-treated patients was 49% less excluding instrumentation costs and 54% less when accounting for instrumentation. The pattern of cost was similar when workers' compensation patients were analyzed separately.

Conclusions

ADR-treated 3-level patients benefited from significantly lower costs from their in-hospital stay compared with those treated by fusion. Hospital service costs were 49% (54% when instrumentation was included in the costs) less for ADR patients than for fusion patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Preclinical and clinical experience with a viscoelastic total disc replacement Kineflex lumbar artificial disc versus Charité lumbar total disc replacement for the treatment of degenerative disc disease: A randomized non-inferiority trial with minimum of 2 years' follow-up Vertebral augmentation treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures with the Kiva VCF Treatment System Effects of preoperative education on spinal surgery patients An attempt at clinically defining and assessing minimally invasive surgery compared with traditional “open” spinal surgery
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1