liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up:  
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Falun Hospital, Falun, Sweden.
Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences.
LIME/MMC, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Stockholm Spine Center, Upplands Väsby, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: European spine journal, ISSN 0940-6719, E-ISSN 1432-0932, Vol. 20, no 7, 1001-1011 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

When low back pain becomes chronic, surgery is sometimes performed. The gold standard today is lumbar fusion (FUS), using a variety of procedures. Total disc replacement (TDR) aimed at motion preservation is increasing in popularity. This randomized controlled health economic study assesses the cost-effectiveness of TDR (Charité/Prodisc/Maverick) compared with instrumented FUS (posterior lumbar fusion (PLF)/posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Social and healthcare perspectives after two years are reported. In all, 152 patients were randomized to either TDR (n=80) or FUS (n=72). Cost to society, (total mean cost/patient, Swedish kronor=SEK, standard deviation) for TDR was SEK 599,560 (400,272), and for FUS SEK 685,919 (422,903) (ns). TDR was significantly less costly from a healthcare perspective, SEK 22,996 (43,055- -1,202). Number of days on sick leave among those who returned to work was 185 (146) in the TDR group, and 252 (189) in the FUS group (ns). Using EQ-5D, the total gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over two years was 0.41 units for TDR and 0.40 units for FUS (ns). Based on EQ-5D, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of using TDR instead of FUS was difficult to analyze due to the “non-difference” in treatment outcome, which is why cost/QALY could not be defined. Using cost-effectiveness probabilistic analysis, the net benefit with CI) was found to be SEK 91,359 (-73,643 – 249,114) (ns).

Conclusion: It is not possible to state whether TDR or FUS is more cost-effective after two years. Since disc replacement and lumbar fusion are based on different conceptual approaches, it is important to follow these results over time.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer , 2011. Vol. 20, no 7, 1001-1011 p.
Keyword [en]
Disc prosthesis; Lumbar fusion; Cost-effectiveness; Cost-utility; Health economic evaluation
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-54289DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1607-3ISI: 000292746500002OAI: diva2:302555
Available from: 2010-03-08 Created: 2010-03-08 Last updated: 2011-08-10
In thesis
1. On Total Disc Replacement
Open this publication in new window or tab >>On Total Disc Replacement
2010 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Low back pain consumes a large part of the community’s resources dedicated to health care and sick leave. Back disorders also negatively affect the individual leading to pain suffering, decreased quality-of-life and disability. Chronic low back pain (CLBP) due to degenerative disc disease (DDD) is today often treated with fusion when conservative treatment has failed and symptoms are severe. This treatment is as successful as arthroplasty is for hip arthritis in restoring the patient’s quality of life and reducing disability. Even so, there are some problems with this treatment, one of these being recurrent CLBP from an adjacent segment (ASD) after primarily successful surgery. This has led to the development of alternative surgical treatments and devices that maintain or restore mobility, in order to reduce the risk for ASD. Of these new devices, the most frequently used are the disc prostheses used in Total Disc Replacement (TDR).

This thesis is based on four studies comparing total disc replacement with posterior fusion. The studies are all based on a material of 152 patients with DDD in one or two segments, aged 20-55 years that were randomly treated with either posterior fusion or TDR.

The first study concerned clinical outcome and complications. Follow-up was 100% at both one and two years. It revealed that both treatment groups had a clear benefit from treatment and that patients with TDR were better in almost all outcome scores at one-year follow-up. Fusion patients continued to improve during the second year. At two-year follow-up there was a remaining difference in favour of TDR for back pain. 73% in the TDR group and 63% in the fusion group were much better or totally pain-free (n.s.), while twice as many patients in the TDR group were totally pain free (30%) compared to the fusion group (15%).

Time of surgery and total time in hospital were shorter in the TDR group.

There was no difference in complications and reoperations, except that seventeen of the patients in the fusion group were re-operated for removal of their implants.

The second study concerned sex life and sexual function. TDR is performed via an anterior approach, an approach that has been used for a long time for various procedures on the lumbar spine. A frequent complication reported in males when this approach is used is persistent retrograde ejaculation. The TDR group in this material was operated via an extra-peritoneal approach to the retroperitoneal space, and there were no cases of persistent retrograde ejaculation. There was a surprisingly high frequency of men in the fusion group reporting deterioration in ability to have an orgasm postoperatively.

Preoperative sex life was severely hampered in the majority of patients in the entire material, but sex life underwent a marked improvement in both treatment groups by the two-year follow-up that correlated with reduction in back pain.

The third study was on mobility in the lumbar spinal segments, where X-rays were taken in full extension and flexion prior to surgery and at two-year follow-up. Analysis of the films showed that 78% of the patients in the fusion group reached the surgical goal (non-mobility) and that 89% of the TDR patients maintained mobility.

Preoperative disc height was lower than in a normative database in both groups, and remained lower in the fusion group, while it became higher in the TDR group. Mobility in the operated segment increased in the TDR group postoperatively. Mobility at the rest of the lumbar spine increased in both treatment groups. Mobility in adjacent segments was within the norm postoperatively, but slightly larger in the fusion group.

In the fourth study the health economics of TDR vs Fusion was analysed. The hospital costs for the procedure were higher for patients in the fusion group compared to the TDR group, and the TDR patients were on sick-leave two months less.

In all, these studies showed that the results in the TDR group were as good as in the fusion group. Patients are more likely to be totally pain-free when treated with TDR compared to fusion. Treatment with this new procedure seems justified in selected patients at least in the short-term perspective. Long-term follow-up is underway and results will be published in due course.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2010. 70 p.
Linköping University Medical Dissertations, ISSN 0345-0082 ; 1168
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-54290 (URN)978-91-7393-439-8 (ISBN)
Public defence
2010-03-26, Aulan, Psykiatribyggnaden, Löwenströmska Sjukhuset, Upplands Väsby, 13:00 (English)
Available from: 2010-03-08 Created: 2010-03-08 Last updated: 2010-05-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Berg, SvanteTropp, Hans
By organisation
Orthopaedics and Sports MedicineFaculty of Health SciencesDepartment of Orthopaedics Linköping
In the same journal
European spine journal
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 48 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link