Cargando…

Cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective

PURPOSE: Traditional growing rod (TGR) for early-onset scoliosis (EOS) is effective but requires repeated invasive surgical lengthenings under general anesthesia. Magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) is lengthened noninvasively using a hand-held magnetic external remote controller in a physici...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Polly, David W, Ackerman, Stacey J, Schneider, Karen, Pawelek, Jeff B, Akbarnia, Behrooz A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5028096/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27695352
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S113633
_version_ 1782454335557337088
author Polly, David W
Ackerman, Stacey J
Schneider, Karen
Pawelek, Jeff B
Akbarnia, Behrooz A
author_facet Polly, David W
Ackerman, Stacey J
Schneider, Karen
Pawelek, Jeff B
Akbarnia, Behrooz A
author_sort Polly, David W
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Traditional growing rod (TGR) for early-onset scoliosis (EOS) is effective but requires repeated invasive surgical lengthenings under general anesthesia. Magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) is lengthened noninvasively using a hand-held magnetic external remote controller in a physician office; however, the MCGR implant is expensive, and the cumulative cost savings have not been well studied. We compared direct medical costs of MCGR and TGR for EOS from the US integrated health care delivery system perspective. We hypothesized that over time, the MCGR implant cost will be offset by eliminating repeated TGR surgical lengthenings. METHODS: For both TGR and MCGR, the economic model estimated the cumulative costs for initial implantation, lengthenings, revisions due to device failure, surgical-site infections, device exchanges (at 3.8 years), and final fusion, over a 6-year episode of care. Model parameters were estimated from published literature, a multicenter EOS database of US institutions, and interviews. Costs were discounted at 3.0% annually and represent 2015 US dollars. RESULTS: Of 1,000 simulated patients over 6 years, MCGR was associated with an estimated 270 fewer deep surgical-site infections and 197 fewer revisions due to device failure compared with TGR. MCGR was projected to cost an additional $61 per patient over the 6-year episode of care compared with TGR. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were sensitive to changes in the percentage of MCGR dual rod use, months between TGR lengthenings, percentage of hospital inpatient (vs outpatient) TGR lengthenings, and MCGR implant cost. CONCLUSION: Cost neutrality of MCGR to TGR was achieved over the 6-year episode of care by eliminating repeated TGR surgical lengthenings. To our knowledge, this is the first cost analysis comparing MCGR to TGR – from the US provider perspective – which demonstrates the efficient provision of care with MCGR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5028096
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50280962016-09-30 Cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective Polly, David W Ackerman, Stacey J Schneider, Karen Pawelek, Jeff B Akbarnia, Behrooz A Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Original Research PURPOSE: Traditional growing rod (TGR) for early-onset scoliosis (EOS) is effective but requires repeated invasive surgical lengthenings under general anesthesia. Magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) is lengthened noninvasively using a hand-held magnetic external remote controller in a physician office; however, the MCGR implant is expensive, and the cumulative cost savings have not been well studied. We compared direct medical costs of MCGR and TGR for EOS from the US integrated health care delivery system perspective. We hypothesized that over time, the MCGR implant cost will be offset by eliminating repeated TGR surgical lengthenings. METHODS: For both TGR and MCGR, the economic model estimated the cumulative costs for initial implantation, lengthenings, revisions due to device failure, surgical-site infections, device exchanges (at 3.8 years), and final fusion, over a 6-year episode of care. Model parameters were estimated from published literature, a multicenter EOS database of US institutions, and interviews. Costs were discounted at 3.0% annually and represent 2015 US dollars. RESULTS: Of 1,000 simulated patients over 6 years, MCGR was associated with an estimated 270 fewer deep surgical-site infections and 197 fewer revisions due to device failure compared with TGR. MCGR was projected to cost an additional $61 per patient over the 6-year episode of care compared with TGR. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were sensitive to changes in the percentage of MCGR dual rod use, months between TGR lengthenings, percentage of hospital inpatient (vs outpatient) TGR lengthenings, and MCGR implant cost. CONCLUSION: Cost neutrality of MCGR to TGR was achieved over the 6-year episode of care by eliminating repeated TGR surgical lengthenings. To our knowledge, this is the first cost analysis comparing MCGR to TGR – from the US provider perspective – which demonstrates the efficient provision of care with MCGR. Dove Medical Press 2016-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5028096/ /pubmed/27695352 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S113633 Text en © 2016 Polly Jr et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Polly, David W
Ackerman, Stacey J
Schneider, Karen
Pawelek, Jeff B
Akbarnia, Behrooz A
Cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective
title Cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective
title_full Cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective
title_fullStr Cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective
title_full_unstemmed Cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective
title_short Cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective
title_sort cost analysis of magnetically controlled growing rods compared with traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the us: an integrated health care delivery system perspective
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5028096/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27695352
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S113633
work_keys_str_mv AT pollydavidw costanalysisofmagneticallycontrolledgrowingrodscomparedwithtraditionalgrowingrodsforearlyonsetscoliosisintheusanintegratedhealthcaredeliverysystemperspective
AT ackermanstaceyj costanalysisofmagneticallycontrolledgrowingrodscomparedwithtraditionalgrowingrodsforearlyonsetscoliosisintheusanintegratedhealthcaredeliverysystemperspective
AT schneiderkaren costanalysisofmagneticallycontrolledgrowingrodscomparedwithtraditionalgrowingrodsforearlyonsetscoliosisintheusanintegratedhealthcaredeliverysystemperspective
AT pawelekjeffb costanalysisofmagneticallycontrolledgrowingrodscomparedwithtraditionalgrowingrodsforearlyonsetscoliosisintheusanintegratedhealthcaredeliverysystemperspective
AT akbarniabehrooza costanalysisofmagneticallycontrolledgrowingrodscomparedwithtraditionalgrowingrodsforearlyonsetscoliosisintheusanintegratedhealthcaredeliverysystemperspective