Cervical discectomy without fusion cost-effective strategy

Cervical discectomy without fusion cost-effective strategy

(HealthDay)—Anterior cervical discectomy without fusion (ACD) may be the most effective and cost-effective alternative for the treatment of one-level cervical disc disease, according to research published in the Dec. 1 issue of Spine.

Daniel J. Lewis, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a literature search to identify articles comparing anterior cervical discectomy with (with autograft, allograft, or spacers), ACD, and cervical disc replacement (CDR) for the treatment of one-level cervical . Pooled analysis was conducted to assess the incidence of various outcomes, including index-level and adjacent-level reoperation. Expected costs and outcomes in quality-adjusted life years for a typical adult patient with one-level cervical radiculopathy were also assessed.

The researchers found that, five years postoperatively, who had undergone ACD alone had significantly (P < 0.001) more quality-adjusted life years (4.885) compared to those receiving other treatments. The lowest societal costs ($16,558) were also seen with patients receiving ACD (P < 0.001).

"ACD is a cost-effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and CDR in patients with single-level disease," the authors write.

Explore further

Few studies assess value of cervical degenerative disc Sx

More information: Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)
Journal information: Spine

Copyright © 2014 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Citation: Cervical discectomy without fusion cost-effective strategy (2014, December 14) retrieved 15 June 2021 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-12-cervical-discectomy-fusion-cost-effective-strategy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments