Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 14;16(4):612-624.
doi: 10.14444/8297. Online ahead of print.

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery

Kelechi Eseonu  1 , Uche Oduoza  2 , Mohamed Monem  3 , Mohamed Tahir  2
Affiliations

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery

Kelechi Eseonu et al. Int J Spine Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has benefits over open surgery for lumbar decompression and/or fusion. Published literature on its cost-effectiveness vs open techniques is mixed.

Objective: Systematically review the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open lumbar spinal surgical decompression, fusion, or discectomy using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Methods: A systematic electronic search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and a manual search from the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) database and National Health Service economic evaluation database was conducted. Studies that included adult populations undergoing surgery for degenerative changes in the lumbar spine (stenosis, radiculopathy, and spondylolisthesis) and reported outcomes of costing analysis, CEA, or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were included.

Results: A total of 17 studies were included. Three studies assessed outcomes of MIS vs open discectomy. All 3 reported statistically significant lower total costs in the MIS, compared with the open group, with similar reported gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Two studies reported cost differences in MIS vs open laminectomy, with significantly lower total costs attributed to the MIS group. Twelve studies reported findings on the relative direct costs of MIS vs open lumbar fusion. Among those, 3 of the 4 studies comparing single-level MIS-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and open TLIF reported lower total costs associated with MIS procedures. Six studies reported cost evaluation of single- and 2-level TLIF procedures. Lower total costs were found in the MIS group compared with the open fusion group in all studies except for the subgroup analysis of 2-level fusions in a single study. Three of these 6 studies reported cost-effectiveness (cost/QALY). MIS fusion was found to be more cost-effective than open fusion in all 3 studies.

Conclusion: The studies reviewed were of poor to moderate methodological quality. Generally, studies reported a reduced cost associated with MIS vs open surgery and suggested better cost-effectiveness, particularly in MIS vs open single- and 2-level TLIF procedure. Most studies had a high risk of bias. Therefore, this review was unable to conclusively recommend MIS over open surgery from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Clinical relevance: The incidence of spinal decompressive and fusion surgey and financial constraints on healthcare services continue to increase. This study aims to identify the cost and clinical effectiveness of common approaches to spinal surgery.

Level of evidence: 3a.

Keywords: QALY; QUALY; cost; cost-effectiveness; cost-minimization; cost-utility; discectomy; lumbar spine; minimal access surgery; minimally invasive; quality-adjusted life year; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection flow chart of the results of systematic literature review for identification of included studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
UK health care spending as a percentage of gross domestic product.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Number of clinical-effectiveness studies in the lumbar spine indexed per year in PubMed (1992–current).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Harrop JS, Hilibrand A, Mihalovich KE, Dettori JR, Chapman J. Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S75-85. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000545 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tosteson ANA, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. . Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(12):845–853. 10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00003 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nerland US, Jakola AS, Solheim O, et al. . Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study. BMJ. 2015;350:h1603. 10.1136/bmj.h1603 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dewing CB, Provencher MT, Riffenburgh RH, Kerr S, Manos RE. The outcomes of lumbar microdiscectomy in a young, active population: correlation by herniation type and level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(1):33–38. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a42 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kepler CK, Wilkinson SM, Radcliff KE, et al. . Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review. Spine J. 2012;12(8):676–690. 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.05.011 - DOI - PubMed