Dhiraj Patel, Matthew Lippel, David J. Lunardini, R. Monsey, Chason Ziino
{"title":"补充维生素D是腰椎后外侧融合术后一种具有成本效益的干预措施:一项系统综述","authors":"Dhiraj Patel, Matthew Lippel, David J. Lunardini, R. Monsey, Chason Ziino","doi":"10.1097/BCO.0000000000001188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study investigated the role of preoperative supplementation of 25(OH)D, a precursor of the active form of vitamin D, as a cost-effective strategy to decrease pseudarthrosis rates and overall healthcare burden after posterolateral fusion (PLF). Previous literature has emphasized the importance of vitamin D in bone health maintenance, spinal health, and outcomes in spinal fusion. Inadequate preoperative 25(OH)D levels may increase pseudarthrosis rates after PLF. Thus, a cost-estimation model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of both selective and nonselective 25(OH)D supplementation in PLF. Methods: Prevalence and cost data were obtained from published literature through systematic reviews. Cost of serum 25(OH)D assay and supplementation were obtained from public-use data. Mean, lower, and upper bounds of 1-year cost-savings were calculated for both supplementation scenarios. Results: Preoperative 25(OH)D screening and subsequent selective 25(OH)D supplementation was calculated to result in a mean cost-savings of $10,978,440 ($9,969,394 to $11,987,485) per 10,000 PLF cases. Nonselective 25(OH)D supplementation of all PLF patients was calculated to result in a mean cost-savings of $11,213,318 ($10,204,272 to $12,222,363) per 10,000 cases. Univariate adjustment projects that selective supplementation is a cost-effective strategy in clinical contexts where revision PLF costs exceed $781.89 and prevalence of 25(OH)D deficiency ≥0.612%. Nonselective supplementation is cost-effective in clinical scenarios where revision PLF cost ≥$198.09 and prevalence of 25(OH)D deficiency ≥0.1645%. Conclusions: This cost-predictive model promotes the role of preoperative 25(OH)D supplementation as a cost-effective mechanism to reduce overall healthcare burden after PLF. Nonselective supplementation appears to be more cost-effective than selective supplementation, likely due to the relatively lower cost of 25(OH)D supplementation compared with serum assays. Level of Evidence: Level III","PeriodicalId":10732,"journal":{"name":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","volume":"34 1","pages":"9 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vitamin D supplementation is a cost-effective intervention after posterolateral lumbar fusion: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Dhiraj Patel, Matthew Lippel, David J. Lunardini, R. Monsey, Chason Ziino\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BCO.0000000000001188\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: This study investigated the role of preoperative supplementation of 25(OH)D, a precursor of the active form of vitamin D, as a cost-effective strategy to decrease pseudarthrosis rates and overall healthcare burden after posterolateral fusion (PLF). Previous literature has emphasized the importance of vitamin D in bone health maintenance, spinal health, and outcomes in spinal fusion. Inadequate preoperative 25(OH)D levels may increase pseudarthrosis rates after PLF. Thus, a cost-estimation model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of both selective and nonselective 25(OH)D supplementation in PLF. Methods: Prevalence and cost data were obtained from published literature through systematic reviews. Cost of serum 25(OH)D assay and supplementation were obtained from public-use data. Mean, lower, and upper bounds of 1-year cost-savings were calculated for both supplementation scenarios. Results: Preoperative 25(OH)D screening and subsequent selective 25(OH)D supplementation was calculated to result in a mean cost-savings of $10,978,440 ($9,969,394 to $11,987,485) per 10,000 PLF cases. Nonselective 25(OH)D supplementation of all PLF patients was calculated to result in a mean cost-savings of $11,213,318 ($10,204,272 to $12,222,363) per 10,000 cases. Univariate adjustment projects that selective supplementation is a cost-effective strategy in clinical contexts where revision PLF costs exceed $781.89 and prevalence of 25(OH)D deficiency ≥0.612%. Nonselective supplementation is cost-effective in clinical scenarios where revision PLF cost ≥$198.09 and prevalence of 25(OH)D deficiency ≥0.1645%. Conclusions: This cost-predictive model promotes the role of preoperative 25(OH)D supplementation as a cost-effective mechanism to reduce overall healthcare burden after PLF. Nonselective supplementation appears to be more cost-effective than selective supplementation, likely due to the relatively lower cost of 25(OH)D supplementation compared with serum assays. Level of Evidence: Level III\",\"PeriodicalId\":10732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"9 - 15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000001188\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000001188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Vitamin D supplementation is a cost-effective intervention after posterolateral lumbar fusion: a systematic review
Background: This study investigated the role of preoperative supplementation of 25(OH)D, a precursor of the active form of vitamin D, as a cost-effective strategy to decrease pseudarthrosis rates and overall healthcare burden after posterolateral fusion (PLF). Previous literature has emphasized the importance of vitamin D in bone health maintenance, spinal health, and outcomes in spinal fusion. Inadequate preoperative 25(OH)D levels may increase pseudarthrosis rates after PLF. Thus, a cost-estimation model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of both selective and nonselective 25(OH)D supplementation in PLF. Methods: Prevalence and cost data were obtained from published literature through systematic reviews. Cost of serum 25(OH)D assay and supplementation were obtained from public-use data. Mean, lower, and upper bounds of 1-year cost-savings were calculated for both supplementation scenarios. Results: Preoperative 25(OH)D screening and subsequent selective 25(OH)D supplementation was calculated to result in a mean cost-savings of $10,978,440 ($9,969,394 to $11,987,485) per 10,000 PLF cases. Nonselective 25(OH)D supplementation of all PLF patients was calculated to result in a mean cost-savings of $11,213,318 ($10,204,272 to $12,222,363) per 10,000 cases. Univariate adjustment projects that selective supplementation is a cost-effective strategy in clinical contexts where revision PLF costs exceed $781.89 and prevalence of 25(OH)D deficiency ≥0.612%. Nonselective supplementation is cost-effective in clinical scenarios where revision PLF cost ≥$198.09 and prevalence of 25(OH)D deficiency ≥0.1645%. Conclusions: This cost-predictive model promotes the role of preoperative 25(OH)D supplementation as a cost-effective mechanism to reduce overall healthcare burden after PLF. Nonselective supplementation appears to be more cost-effective than selective supplementation, likely due to the relatively lower cost of 25(OH)D supplementation compared with serum assays. Level of Evidence: Level III
期刊介绍:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Current Orthopaedic Practice is a peer-reviewed, general orthopaedic journal that translates clinical research into best practices for diagnosing, treating, and managing musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical research, invited special focus reviews and general reviews, as well as original articles on innovations in practice, case reports, point/counterpoint, and diagnostic imaging.