Tag: Minimum clinically important difference

Posted on

A Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between Open Transforaminal and Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions

lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Neurosurgery 78:585–595, 2016

Direct cost comparisons between minimally invasive spine surgeries and the open options are rare.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs associated with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and to calculate the thresholds for minimum clinically important difference and minimum cost-effective difference for patient-reported outcome measures at the 2-year follow-up.

METHODS: Forty-five patients who underwent single-level TLIF and 29 patients who underwent single-level stand-alone LLIF were included in the comparison. All costs from diagnosis through the 2-year follow-up were available from a comprehensive single-center data bank within a unified hospital system. Payment provided for all spine-related medical resource use from the time of diagnosis through 2 years was recorded. A 0% discount rate was applied. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EuroQol-5D collected in an unbiased manner. Difference in total cost per QALY gained for LLIF minus that for TLIF was assessed as the estimate of the ICER from a US perspective.

RESULTS: Significant improvements were observed at the 2-year follow-up for both TLIF and LLIF with the Short Form-36 physical component summary, Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale back pain and leg pain scores, and EuroQol-5D. ICER calculations revealed similar mean cumulative QALYs gained at the 2-year interval (0.67 for TLIF and 0.60 for LLIF; P = .33). Median total costs of care after TLIF and LLIF were $44 068 and $45 574, respectively (P = .96). Minimum cost-effective difference thresholds with an anchor of ,$50 000 per QALY were higher than minimum clinically important difference thresholds for all patient-reported outcome measures. Total mean cost and EuroQol-5D were statistically equivalent between the 2 treatment groups.

CONCLUSION: TLIF and LLIF produced equivalent 2-year patient outcomes at an equivalent cost-effectiveness profile.

Posted on

Outcome After Suboccipital Decompression for Chiari Malformation I in Adults

Assessment_of_1_Year_Outcomes_and

Neurosurgery 73:569–581, 2013

To date, there has been no study to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of suboccipital craniectomy (SOC) for Chiari malformation I (CMI) using validated patient-reported outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and minimum clinically important difference thresholds of SOC for the treatment of adult patients with CMI using patientreported outcome metrics.

METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing first-time SOC and C1 laminectomy for CMI at a single institution were followed up for 1 year. Baseline and 1-year postoperative pain, disability, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and return to work were assessed. Minimum clinically important difference thresholds were calculated with 2 anchors: the Health Transition Index and North American Spine Society satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS: The severity of headaches improved in 37 patients (74%). Improvement in syrinx size was seen in 12 patients (63%) and myelopathy in 12 patients (60%). All patientreported outcomes showed significant improvement 1 year postoperatively (P,.05). Of the 38 patients (76%) employed preoperatively, 29 (76%) returned to work postoperatively at a median time of 6 weeks (interquartile range, 4-12 weeks). Minimum clinically important difference thresholds after SOC for CMI were 4.4 points for numeric rating scale for headache, 0.7 points for numeric rating scale for neck pain, 13.8 percentage points for Headache Disability Index, 14.2 percentage points for Neck Disability Index, 7.0 points for Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary, 6.1 points for Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary, 4.5 points for Zung depression, 1.7 points for modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, and 0.34 quality-adjusted life-years for Euro-Qol-5D.

CONCLUSION: Surgical management of CMI in adults via SOC provides significant and sustained improvement in pain, disability, general health, and quality of life as assessed by patient-reported outcomes. This patient-centered assessment suggests that suboccipital decompression for CMI in adults is an effective treatment strategy.

Posted on

Microvascular Decompression for Classic Trigeminal Neuralgia

MVD vascular compression

Neurosurgery 72:749–754, 2013

Outcomes studies use patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements to assess treatment effectiveness, but can lack direct clinical meaning. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) calculation provides a point estimate of the critical threshold needed to achieve clinically relevant treatment effectiveness. MCID remains uninvestigated for microvascular decompression (MVD), a common surgical procedure for trigeminal neuralgia. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine MCID for the most commonly used PRO measures of pain after MVD: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Barrow Neurological Institute Pain Scale (BNI-PS).

METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients with classic trigeminal neuralgia who decided to undergo MVD by a single surgeon were prospectively assessed with VAS and BNI-PS preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Three anchors were used to assign each patient’s outcome. We then used 3 well-established, anchor-based methods to calculate MCID.

RESULTS: Patients experienced significant improvement in both VAS (9.9 vs 2.0, P < .001) and BNI-PS (5.0 vs 1.9, P < .001) after MVD. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was greater for BNI-PS than for VAS for all 3 anchors, indicating that BNI-PS is probably better suited for calculating MCID. The 3 MCID calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each of the PROs (VAS: 1.40-8.87, BNI-PS: 0.95-3.26).

CONCLUSION: MVD-specific MCID is highly variable based on calculation technique. Some of these calculations appear to either overestimate or underestimate the patients’ preoperative expectations. When the different MCID methods are averaged, the results are clinically appropriate and consistent with preoperative expectations. The average MCID for VAS is 6.25 and for BNI-PS is 2.44.

Proudly powered by WordPress