MIS is a less expensive and a more effective treatment compared with OS for spinal lumbar fusion in both Italy and the United Kingdom. Lower downstream costs and increased HRQOL in the MIS group compensate for potential higher upfront costs of MIS implants and surgery equipment.

Recombinant human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is licensed in Europe for open tibia fractures treated with unreamed nails. However, there is limited data available on the specific use of rhBMP-2 in combination with unreamed nails for open tibia fractures. The intention of the current study was to evaluate the medical and health-economic effects of rhBMP-2 in Gustilo-Anderson grade III open tibia fractures treated with unreamed nails based on individual patient data from two previously published studies. Linear regression analysis was performed on raw data of 90 patients that were either treated by standard of care with soft tissue management and unreamed nailing (SOC group) (n=50) or with rhBMP-2 in addition to soft tissue management and unreamed nailing (rhBMP-2 group) (n=40). For all types of revision, a significant lower percentage of patients (27.5%) of the rhBMP-2 group had to be revised compared to 48% of the patients of the SOC group (p=0.04). When only invasive secondary interventions such as bone grafting and nail exchange were considered, there was also a statistically significant reduction in the rhBMP-2 group with a revision rate of 10.0% (4 of 40 patients) compared to the SOC group with a revision rate of 28.0% (14 of 50 patients) (p=0.01). Mean fracture healing time of 228 days in the rhBMP-2 compared to 266 days in the SOC group was not statistically significant (p=0.24). Health-economic analysis based on a societal perspective with calculation of overall treatment costs after initial surgery and including productivity losses revealed savings of €6,239 per patient for Germany and €4,752 for the UK in favour of rhBMP-2 which was mainly driven by reduction of productivity losses. In conclusion, rhBMP-2 reduces secondary interventions in patients with grade III open tibia fractures treated with an unreamed nail and its use leads to financial savings for Germany and the UK from a societal perspective.

BackgroundChronic low back pain is a common health problem for adult workers and causes an enormous economic burden. With the improvement of minimally invasive surgical techniques (MIS) in spinal fusion and the development of fusion devices, more lumbar operations are today being performed through a less invasive technique. When compared with open surgeries (OS), MIS has demonstrated better clinical outcomes including operation time, blood loss, complication rates and length of hospital stay. The aim of this review was to identify and summarize evidence on the time to return to work and the duration of post-operation narcotic use for patients who had lumbar spinal fusion operations using MIS and OS techniques.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed including studies identified from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, and the Centre for Review and Dissemination (CRD) (January 2004–April 2014) for publications reporting on time to return to work and post-operation narcotic use after MIS or OS lumbar spinal fusion surgeries.ResultsOut of a total of 36 included studies, 28 reported on the time to return to work and 17 on the narcotic use after MIS or OS. Four studies described the time to return to work directly comparing MIS and OS. Three studies, from the US, directly compared the duration of narcotic use between MIS- transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and OS-TLIF. In addition to the time to return to work, 23 studies reported on the rate of return to work and the employment rate before and after surgery, and two Swedish studies presented sick leave data.ConclusionsThere is a gap of good quality data describing the time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion operations using MIS or OS techniques. However, the current systematic literature review indicates that patients who have lumbar spinal fusion operations, with the MIS procedure, generally return to work after surgery more quickly and require less post-operation narcotics for pain control compared to patients who have OS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2398-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dibotermin alfa compared with autologous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) for patients undergoing single level lumbar interbody spinal fusion in a UK hospital setting. Methods:An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of six randomized controlled clinical trials and two single arm trials compared dibotermin alfa on an absorbable collagen implantation matrix (ACIM) (n ¼ 456) and ICBG (n ¼ 244) on resource use, re-operation rates, and SF-6D (Short form 6-dimension) health utility (total N ¼ 700). Failure-related second surgery, operating time, post-operative hospital stay, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the IPD meta-analysis were included as inputs in an economic evaluation undertaken to assess the cost-effectiveness of dibotermin alfa/ACIM versus ICBG for patients undergoing single level lumbar interbody spinal fusion. A four year time horizon and the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective was adopted in the base case, with sensitivity analyses performed to gauge parameter uncertainty. Results:In the base case analysis, patients treated using dibotermin alfa/ACIM (12 mg pack) accrued 0.055 incremental QALYs at an incremental cost of £737, compared with patients treated with ICBG. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £13,523, indicating that at a willingness-topay threshold of £20,000, dibotermin alfa/ACIM is a cost-effective intervention relative to ICBG from the NHS and PSS perspective. Conclusions:In a UK hospital setting, dibotermin alfa/ACIM is a cost-effective substitute for ICBG for patients who require lumbar interbody arthrodesis.

No abstract