Search

Background: Given the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to activities of daily living and cost, it is critical to fully understand the health care economic impact of enabling technologies. The use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM) during spine surgery has long been controversial. Questions pertaining to utility, medico-legal considerations, and cost-effectiveness continue to be unresolved. The purpose of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness by assessing quality-of-life due to adverse events averted, decreased postoperative pain, decreased revision rates, and improved patient reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: The study patient population was extracted from a large multicenter database collected by a single, national IOM provider. Over 50,000 patient charts were abstracted and included in this analysis. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the second panel on cost-effectiveness health and medicine. Health-related utility was derived from questionnaire answers and expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for IOM. A value under the commonly accepted United States-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. Scenario (including litigation), probabilistic (PSA), and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration. Results: The primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2-years following index surgery. On average, index surgery for patients with IOM costs are approximately $1,547 greater than non-IOM cases. The base case assumed an inpatient Medicare population however multiple outpatient and payer scenarios were assessed in the sensitivity analysis. From a health system perspective IOM is cost-effective, yielding better utilities but at a higher cost than the non-IOM strategy (ICER $60,734 per QALY). From a societal perspective the IOM strategy was dominant, suggesting that better outcomes were achieved at less cost. Except for an entirely privately insured population, alternative scenarios such as, outpatient and a 50:50 Medicare/privately insured population sample also demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Notably, IOM benefits were unable to overcome the sheer costs associated many litigation scenarios, but the data was severely limited. In the 5,000 iteration PSA, at a WTP of $100,000, 74% of simulations using IOM were cost-effective. Conclusions: The use of IOM in spine surgery is cost-effective in most scenarios examined. In the emerging and rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and the health care system.