Cost comparison of patients with 3-level artificial total lumbar disc replacements versus 360° fusion at 3 contiguous lumbar vertebral levels: an analysis of compassionate use at 1 site of the US investigational device exemption clinical trial

BACKGROUND We sought to evaluate the difference between hospital service costs of 2 treatment options for patients diagnosed with 3-level degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the lumbar spine. In this retrospective analysis, itemized billing records of hospital stay for patients with 3-level DDD treated with artificial disc replacement (ADR) were compared with those treated with circumferential fusion (standard of care). METHODS Sequential 3-level DDD patients treated with either ADR (ProDisc-L; Synthes, West Chester, Pennsylvania) or circumferential fusion during the period from January 2004 to October 2005 were included. Surgeries were performed at the same hospital for all patients. The ADR-treated patients were participating in the investigational device exemption clinical trial as part of the compassionate-use arm. Patients treated with fusion at the same institution during this same time interval were evaluated. Itemized billing records were collected at least 1 year after the index surgery. Costs according to hospital service categories were compared between ADR-treated and fusion-treated patients by use of analysis of variance and multivariate statistical techniques. RESULTS There were 43 consecutive patients treated for 3-level DDD between January 2004 and October 2005. Of these, 21 underwent 3-level ADR and 22 had a 3-level fusion procedure. There was a mean of 3 fewer hospital days for patients treated with ADR (4.77 ± 1.11 days) than for those treated with fusion (8.00 ± 1.82 days) (P < .0001). The cost of hospital services for ADR-treated patients was 49% less excluding instrumentation costs and 54% less when accounting for instrumentation. The pattern of cost was similar when workers' compensation patients were analyzed separately. CONCLUSIONS ADR-treated 3-level patients benefited from significantly lower costs from their in-hospital stay compared with those treated by fusion. Hospital service costs were 49% (54% when instrumentation was included in the costs) less for ADR patients than for fusion patients.