ABSTRACT
Objective@#Moyamoya disease (MMD) is a vasculopathy of the internal carotid arteries with ischemic and hemorrhagic sequelae. Surgical revascularization confers upfront peri-procedural risk and costs in exchange for long-term protective benefit against hemorrhagic disease. The authors present a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of surgical versus non-surgical management of MMD. @*Methods@#A Markov Model was used to simulate a 41-year-old suffering a transient ischemic attack (TIA) secondary to MMD and now faced with operative versus nonoperative treatment options. Health utilities, costs, and outcome probabilities were obtained from the CEA registry and the published literature. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio which compared the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of surgical and nonsurgical treatments. Base-case, one-way sensitivity, two-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed with a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. @*Results@#The base case model yielded 3.81 QALYs with a cost of $99,500 for surgery, and 3.76 QALYs with a cost of $106,500 for nonsurgical management. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated the greatest sensitivity in assumptions to cost of surgery and cost of admission for hemorrhagic stroke, and probabilities of stroke with no surgery, stroke after surgery, poor surgical outcome, and death after surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that surgical revascularization was the cost-effective strategy in over 87.4% of simulations. @*Conclusions@#Considering both direct and indirect costs and the postoperative QALY, surgery is considerably more cost-effective than non-surgical management for adults with MMD.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#Moyamoya disease (MMD) is a vasculopathy of the internal carotid arteries with ischemic and hemorrhagic sequelae. Surgical revascularization confers upfront peri-procedural risk and costs in exchange for long-term protective benefit against hemorrhagic disease. The authors present a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of surgical versus non-surgical management of MMD. @*Methods@#A Markov Model was used to simulate a 41-year-old suffering a transient ischemic attack (TIA) secondary to MMD and now faced with operative versus nonoperative treatment options. Health utilities, costs, and outcome probabilities were obtained from the CEA registry and the published literature. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio which compared the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of surgical and nonsurgical treatments. Base-case, one-way sensitivity, two-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed with a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. @*Results@#The base case model yielded 3.81 QALYs with a cost of $99,500 for surgery, and 3.76 QALYs with a cost of $106,500 for nonsurgical management. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated the greatest sensitivity in assumptions to cost of surgery and cost of admission for hemorrhagic stroke, and probabilities of stroke with no surgery, stroke after surgery, poor surgical outcome, and death after surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that surgical revascularization was the cost-effective strategy in over 87.4% of simulations. @*Conclusions@#Considering both direct and indirect costs and the postoperative QALY, surgery is considerably more cost-effective than non-surgical management for adults with MMD.
ABSTRACT
In this retrospective review study, the authors systematically reviewed the literature to elucidate the efficacy and complications associated with decompression and interspinous devices (ISDs) used in surgeries for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). LSS is a debilitating condition that affects the lumbar spinal cord and spinal nerve roots. However, a comprehensive report on the relative efficacy and complication rate of ISDs as they compare to traditional decompression procedures is currently lacking. The PubMed database was queried to identify clinical studies that exclusively investigated decompression, those that exclusively investigated ISDs, and those that compared decompression with ISDs. Only prospective cohort studies, case series, and randomized controlled trials that evaluated outcomes using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopedic Association scores were included. A random-effects model was established to assess the difference between preoperative and the 1–2-year postoperative VAS scores between ISD surgery and lumbar decompression. This study included 40 papers that matched our criteria. Twenty-five decompression-exclusive clinical trials with 3,386 patients and a mean age of 68.7 years (range, 31–88 years) reported a 2.2% incidence rate of dural tears and a 2.6% incidence rate of postoperative infections. Eight ISD-exclusive clinical trials with 1,496 patients and a mean age of 65.1 (range, 19–89 years) reported a 5.3% incidence rate of postoperative leg pain and a 3.7% incidence rate of spinous process fractures. Seven studies that compared ISDs and decompression in 624 patients found a reoperation rate of 8.3% in ISD patients vs. 3.9% in decompression patients; they also reported dural tears in 0.32% of ISD patients vs. 5.2% in decompression patients. A meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials found that the differences in preoperative and postoperative VAS scores between the two groups were not significant. Both decompression and ISD interventions are unique surgical interventions with different therapeutic efficacies and complications. The collected studies do not consistently demonstrate superiority of either procedure over the other but understanding the differences between the two techniques can help tailor treatment regimens for patients with LSS.