RESUMO
PURPOSE: For cervical nerve root compression, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) or posterior foraminotomy (posterior surgery) are safe and effective options. Posterior surgery might have a more beneficial economic profile compared to anterior surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyse if posterior surgery is cost-effective compared to anterior surgery. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed as part of a multicentre, noninferiority randomised clinical trial (Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-effectiveness Trial) with a follow-up of 2 years. Primary outcomes were cost-effectiveness based on arm pain (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0-100)) and cost-utility (quality adjusted life years (QALYs)). Missing values were estimated with multiple imputations and bootstrap simulations were used to obtain confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In total, 265 patients were randomised and 243 included in the analyses. The pooled mean decrease in VAS arm at 2-year follow-up was 44.2 in the posterior and 40.0 in the anterior group (mean difference, 4.2; 95% CI, - 4.7 to 12.9). Pooled mean QALYs were 1.58 (posterior) and 1.56 (anterior) (mean difference, 0.02; 95% CI, - 0.05 to 0.08). Societal costs were 28,046 for posterior and 30,086 for the anterior group, with lower health care costs for posterior (12,248) versus anterior (16,055). Bootstrapped results demonstrated similar effectiveness between groups with in general lower costs associated with posterior surgery. CONCLUSION: In patients with cervical radiculopathy, arm pain and QALYs were similar between posterior and anterior surgery. Posterior surgery was associated with lower costs and is therefore likely to be cost-effective compared with anterior surgery.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Cervical radiculopathy due to discogenic or spondylotic stenosis of the neuroforamen can be surgically treated by an anterior discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or a posterior foraminotomy (FOR). Most surgeons prefer ACDF, although there are indications that FOR is as effective as ACDF, has a lower complication rate and is less expensive. A head-to-head comparison of the 2 surgical techniques in a randomised controlled trial has not yet been performed. The study objectives of the Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-Effectiveness Trial (FACET) study are to compare clinical outcomes, complication rates and cost-effectiveness of FOR to ACDF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FACET study is a prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in 7 medical centres in the Netherlands. The follow-up period is 2â years. The main inclusion criterion is a radiculopathy of the C4, C5, C6 or C7 nerve root, due to a single-level isolated cervical foraminal stenosis caused by a soft disc and/or osteophytic component, requiring operative decompression. A sample size of 308 patients is required to test the hypothesis of clinical non-inferiority of FOR versus ACDF. Primary outcomes are: 'operative success', the measured decrease in radiculopathy assessed by the visual analogue scale and 'patient success', assessed by the modified Odom's criteria. Secondary outcomes are: Work Ability Index (single-item WAI), quality of life (EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 level Survey, EQ-5D-5L), Neck Disability Index (NDI) and complications. An economic evaluation will assess cost-effectiveness. In addition, a budget impact analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen. Results of this study will be disseminated through national and international papers. The participants and relevant patient support groups will be informed about the results of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5536, pre-results.
