What Is the Evidence Surrounding the Cost-Effectiveness of Osteobiologic Use in ACDF Surgery? A Systematic Review of the Literature

• Published in: Global Spine Journal Vol. 14; no. 2_suppl; pp. 163 - 172
• Main Authors: Demetriades, Andreas K., Mavrovounis, Georgios, Deml, Moritz C., Soe, Kyaw Min, Buser, Zorica, Meisel, Hans Jörg
• Format: Book Review Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.02.2024; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Cost analysis; Literature reviews; Observational studies; Systematic review; Topic 10; costs; anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; osteobiologics; ACDF; BMP
• ISSN: 2192-5682; 2192-5690
• DOI: 10.1177/21925682221148139

Study design This study constitutes a systematic review of the literature. Objective The aim of this study was to identify and present all available studies that report on the costs of osteobiologics used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods The literature was systematically reviewed to identify studies with specific inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials and observational studies, (2) in adult patients, (3) with herniated disc(s) or degenerative cervical spine disease, (4) reporting on either direct or indirect costs of using specific osteobiologics in an ACDF operation. (5) Only studies in English were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the MINORS and RoB 2.0 tools. Results Overall, 14 articles were included; one randomized controlled trial and 13 observational studies. The most commonly used osteobiologics other than autograft/iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) were allograft and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP). None of the studies was reported to be industry-supported. There was considerable heterogeneity on the reported costs. Overall, most studies reported on surgery-related costs, such as anesthesia, operating room, surgical materials and surgeon’s fee. Only two studies, both using allograft, reported the exact cost of the osteobiologic used (450 GBP, $700). Some of the studies reported on the cost of care during hospitalization for the surgical operation, such as radiology studies, emergency room costs, cardiologic evaluation, laboratory studies, pharmacy costs, and room costs. Only a few studies reported on the cost of follow-up, reoperation, and physical therapy and rehabilitation. Conclusion Based on the data of this current systematic review, no recommendations can be made regarding the cost-effectiveness of using osteobiologics in ACDF. Given the high costs of osteobiologics, this remains a topic of importance. The design of future studies on the subject should include cost effectiveness.