Back to Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 13

Cost-Utility Analysis of Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering versus Spinal Fusion in Idiopathic Scoliosis from a US Integrated Healthcare Delivery System Perspective

Authors Polly DW, Larson AN, Samdani AF, Rawlinson W, Brechka H, Porteous A, Marsh W, Ditto R

Received 25 November 2020

Accepted for publication 23 February 2021

Published 15 March 2021 Volume 2021:13 Pages 175—190


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Giorgio Lorenzo Colombo

David W Polly,1 A Noelle Larson,2 Amer F Samdani,3 William Rawlinson,4 Hannah Brechka,4 Alex Porteous,4 William Marsh,4 Richard Ditto5

1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 3Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 4Costello Medical Consulting Ltd, Cambridge, UK; 5Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA

Correspondence: David W Polly Tel +1 612-273-7951
Fax +1 612-273-7959
Email [email protected]

Purpose: Anterior vertebral body tethering (VBT) is a non-fusion, minimally invasive, growth-modulating procedure with some early positive clinical outcomes reported in pediatric patients with idiopathic scoliosis (IS). VBT offers potential health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits over spinal fusion in allowing patients to retain a greater range of motion after surgery. We conducted an early cost-utility analysis (CUA) to compare VBT with fusion as a first-choice surgical treatment for skeletally immature patients (age > 10 years) with moderate to severe IS, who have failed nonoperative management, from a US integrated healthcare delivery system perspective.
Patients and Methods: The CUA uses a Markov state transition model, capturing a 15-year period following index surgery. Transition probabilities, including revision risk and subsequent fusion, were based on published surgical outcomes and an ongoing VBT observational study (NCT02897453). Patients were assigned utilities derived from published patient-reported outcomes (PROs; SRS-22r mapped to EQ-5D) following fusion and the above VBT study. Index and revision procedure costs were included. Probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) were performed.
Results: VBT was associated with higher costs but also higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than fusion (incremental costs: $45,546; QALYs gained: 0.54). The subsequent incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for VBT vs fusion was $84,391/QALY gained. Mean PSA results were similar to the base case, indicating that results were generally robust to uncertainty. The DSA indicated that results were most sensitive to variations in utility values.
Conclusion: This is the first CUA comparing VBT with fusion in pediatric patients with IS and suggests that VBT may be a cost-effective alternative to fusion in the US, given recommended willingness-to-pay thresholds ($100,000–$150,000). The results rely on HRQoL benefits for VBT compared with fusion. For improved model accuracy, further analyses with longer-term PROs for VBT, and comparative effectiveness studies, would be needed.

Keywords: idiopathic scoliosis, cost-effective analysis, spinal fusion, vertebral body tethering, pediatric

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]