Treatment of cervical radiculopathy: A review of the evolution and economics

Jared Ament; Tejas Karnati; Edwin Kulubya; Kee D Kim; J. Johnson

doi:10.4103/sni.sni_441_17

Treatment of cervical radiculopathy: A review of the evolution and economics

Jared Ament, Tejas Karnati, Edwin Kulubya, Kee D Kim, J. Johnson

Neurological Surgery

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: The surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy has centered around anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Alternatively, the posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy/microdiscectomy (PCF/PCM), which results in comparable outcomes and is more cost-effective, has been underutilized. Methods: Here, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases. Results: There were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY. Conclusion: PCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	35
Journal	Surgical Neurology International
Volume	9
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.4103/sni.sni_441_17
State	Published - Jan 1 2018

Keywords

Cervical degenerative disc disease
cervical disc herniation
cost-effectiveness
posterior approach
posterior cervical microdiscectomy
quality of life

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Surgery
Clinical Neurology

Access to Document

10.4103/sni.sni_441_17

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Treatment of cervical radiculopathy: A review of the evolution and economics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Ament, J., Karnati, T., Kulubya, E., Kim, K. D., & Johnson, J. (2018). Treatment of cervical radiculopathy: A review of the evolution and economics. Surgical Neurology International, 9(1), [35]. https://doi.org/10.4103/sni.sni_441_17

@article{59aaea13933b485a971d5f51b5f9b9fe,

title = "Treatment of cervical radiculopathy: A review of the evolution and economics",

abstract = "Background: The surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy has centered around anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Alternatively, the posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy/microdiscectomy (PCF/PCM), which results in comparable outcomes and is more cost-effective, has been underutilized. Methods: Here, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases. Results: There were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY. Conclusion: PCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.",

keywords = "Cervical degenerative disc disease, cervical disc herniation, cost-effectiveness, posterior approach, posterior cervical microdiscectomy, quality of life",

author = "Jared Ament and Tejas Karnati and Edwin Kulubya and Kim, {Kee D} and J. Johnson",

year = "2018",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.4103/sni.sni_441_17",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "9",

journal = "Surgical Neurology International",

issn = "2152-7806",

publisher = "Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment of cervical radiculopathy

T2 - A review of the evolution and economics

AU - Ament, Jared

AU - Karnati, Tejas

AU - Kulubya, Edwin

AU - Kim, Kee D

AU - Johnson, J.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background: The surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy has centered around anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Alternatively, the posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy/microdiscectomy (PCF/PCM), which results in comparable outcomes and is more cost-effective, has been underutilized. Methods: Here, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases. Results: There were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY. Conclusion: PCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.

AB - Background: The surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy has centered around anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Alternatively, the posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy/microdiscectomy (PCF/PCM), which results in comparable outcomes and is more cost-effective, has been underutilized. Methods: Here, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases. Results: There were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY. Conclusion: PCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.

KW - Cervical degenerative disc disease

KW - cervical disc herniation

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - posterior approach

KW - posterior cervical microdiscectomy

KW - quality of life

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043503028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043503028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/sni.sni_441_17

DO - 10.4103/sni.sni_441_17

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85043503028

VL - 9

JO - Surgical Neurology International

JF - Surgical Neurology International

SN - 2152-7806

IS - 1

M1 - 35

ER -