Microdiscectomy is the most commonly performed spine surgery in the world. Due to its technical simplicity and low complication rate, this was the first spine surgical procedure transitioning for one-day surgery. However, the economic assessment of this outpatient transition was never performed and the question on the real impact in the burden of spine care remains. This economic study aims to access the cost-utility of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy when compared with the inpatient procedure. To do so, a cost-utility study was performed, adopting the hospital perspective. Direct medical costs were retrieved from the assessment of 20 patients undergoing outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy and 20 undergoing inpatient lumbar microdiscectomy, from a in a Portuguese NHS hospital. Utilities were calculated with quality-adjusted life-years were derived from Oswestry Disability Index values (ODI). ODI was assessed prospectively in outpatients in pre and 3- and 6-month post-operative evaluations. Inpatient ODI data were estimated from a meta-analysis. both probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated. A willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of €60000/QALY gained with inpatient procedure was defined. Out results showed that inpatient procedure was cost-saving in all models tested. At 3-month assessment ICER ranged from €135753 to €345755/QALY, higher than the predefined WTP. At 6-month costs were lower and utilities were higher in outpatient, overpowering the inpatient procedure. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that in 65% to 73% of simulations outpatient was the better option. The savings with outpatient were about 55% of inpatient values, with similar utility scores. No 30-day readmissions were recorded in either group. The mean admission time in inpatient group was 2.5 days. Since there is an overall agreement among spine surgeons that an uncomplicated inpatient MD would only need a one-day admission, an analysis reducing inpatient admission time for one day was also performed and outpatient remained cost-effective. In conclusion, as the first economic study on cost-utility of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy, this study showed a significant reduction in costs, with a similar clinical outcome, proving this outpatient transition as cost-effective

Funding. This report presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). NEF is a Senior NIHR Investigator and was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). KK was supported by a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lectureship award. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the Health Technology Assessment programme or the Department of Health. Background and Purpose. Stratified care (SC) has previously been found to be a cost-effective approach for primary care LBP patients. The SCOPiC trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a modified SC model combining prognostic and clinical characteristics to allocate sciatica patients into one of three groups (with matched care pathways) versus non-stratified, usual care (UC). Methods. Cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12-months. Resource use and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) data were obtained from postal questionnaires, mean costs and QALYs were calculated for each trial arm along with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The base case analysis was by intention-to-treat, and performed from NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective. Sensitivity analyses included healthcare provider and societal perspectives, as well as analyses for each of the three patient groups. Results. 476 patients were randomised (238 per arm). Mean NHS/PSS costs (SD) recorded were £663.58 for SC and £617.37 for UC. Mean QALYs (SD) were 0.659 (0.173) for SC and 0.671 (0.168) for UC; the adjusted mean difference in QALYs was −0.011 (−0.035, 0.013). In this base-case analysis, the chance of SC being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY was only 19%. Similarly, low probabilities of effectiveness were observed in all sensitivity analyses. The chance of SC being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 ranged from 18% to 52% for each of the three patient groups. Conclusions. Overall, the SC model that we tested for sciatica in primary care was not a cost-effective option compared to usual, non-stratified care. No sources of funding. No conflicts of interest

To determine the cost-effectiveness of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement (LTDR) with circumferential spinal fusion surgery.

Cost utility analysis.

We prospectively reviewed a cohort of 32 consecutive patients who underwent LTDR between 2004 and 2008 with a mean follow-up for 3.75 years. Identical data was compared to a similar group of patients (n=37) who underwent fusion in our institution.

Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale, quality of life (SF-36) and NHS resource use. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. QALY gains were estimated from SF-36 data using standard algorithms.

There was no significant intergroup difference in the ODI, VAS and SF-36 pre and post-op. Both treatments produced statistically significant and equivalent improvements in mean health state utility at the 24-month follow-up (0.078 for LTDR, 0.087 for fusion). Costs were significantly lower with LTDR than with fusion due to a shorter mean procedure time (193.6 vs 377.4 minutes) and shorter length of stay (5.8 vs 7 days). The mean cost difference was £2,878 per patient. At 2 years, the cost per QALY gain of the lower-cost option (LTDR) was £48,892 although the cost effectiveness ratio would fall to below £30,000 if it is assumed that the patient benefits of LTDR last for at least 4 years.

Both treatments led to significant improvements in patient outcomes which were sustained for at least 24 months. Costs were lower with LTDR which is effective and a more cost-effective alternative.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness IDET relative to circumferential lumbar fusion with femoral ring allograft (FRA).

Cost-effectiveness analysis

Patient-level data were available for patients with discogenic low back pain treated with FRA (n=37) in a randomized trial of FRA vs. titanium cage, and for patients recruited to a separate study evaluating the use of IDET (n=85). Patients were followed-up for 24 months.

Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale, quality of life (SF-36), radiographic evaluations, and NHS resource use. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

Both treatments produced statistically significant improvements in pain, disability and quality of life at the 24-month follow-up. Costs were significantly lower with IDET due to a shorter mean procedure time (377.4 minutes vs. 49.9 minutes) and length of stay (7 days vs. 1.2 days). The mean incremental cost of IDET was -£3,713 per patient; the mean incremental QALY gain was 0.03. At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY the probability that IDET is cost-effective is 1, and the net health benefit is 0.21 QALY per patient treated.

Both treatments led to significant improvements in patient outcomes which were sustained for at least 24 months. Costs were lower with IDET, and for appropriate patients IDET is an effective and cost-effective treatment alternative.

Ethics approval: Ethics committee COREC

This cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by the York Health Economics Consortium at the University of York, and was funded by Smith & Nephew. Smith & Nephew had no financial or other involvement in the collection or analysis of the data on which the CEA is based.

Purpose and background. To explore the cost-utility of implementing stratified care for low back pain (LBP) in general practice, compared with usual care, within patient risk subgroups (low, medium and high risk of persistent disabling pain determined by the STarT Back tool). Methods. Adopting a cost-utility framework alongside a prospective, sequential comparison of separate patient cohorts (922 patients in total) with six-month follow-up, the base case analysis estimated the incremental LBP-related healthcare cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) by risk subgroup. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses examined alternative approaches (a complete case analysis, the incorporation of non-LBP-related healthcare use and estimation of societal costs relating to work absence). Results. Stratified care was a dominant treatment strategy compared with usual care for patients at high risk, with mean healthcare cost savings of £124 and an incremental QALY estimate of 0.023. The likelihood that stratified care provides a cost-effective use of resources for patients at low and medium risk is no greater than 60% irrespective of a decision makers' willingness-to-pay for additional QALYs. Patients at medium and high risk of persistent disability in paid employment at six-month follow-up reported, on average, six fewer days of LBP-related work absence in the stratified care cohort compared with usual care (associated societal cost savings per employed patient of £736 and £652, respectively). Conclusions. At the observed level of adherence to screening tool recommendations for matched treatments, stratified care for LBP is cost-effective for patients at high risk of persistent disabling LBP. This abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: The Health Foundation

Background and Purpose. The STarT Back approach comprises subgrouping of LBP patients according to risk of persistent LBP-related disability, and matches patients to appropriate treatments. In a clinical trial and implementation study, this stratified care approach was clinically and cost-effective compared to usual non-stratified care. However, the long-term cost- effectiveness is unknown, and could be established with decision modelling. A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations in LBP found shortcomings with existing models, including inadequate characterisation of the condition in health states and absence of long-term modelling. This study conceptualises the first decision model of this stratified care approach for LBP management, and assesses long-term cost-effectiveness. Methods. A cost-utility analysis from the NHS perspective compared stratified care with usual care, in patients consulting in primary care with non-specific LBP. A Markov state-transition model was constructed where long-term patient prognosis over ten years was dependent upon physical function achieved at twelve months. Consultation with experts helped define condition health states, inform the long-term modelling, and choice of sensitivity analyses. Results. Preliminary base-case results indicate this model of stratified care is cost-effective over a ten-year time horizon, delivering 0.10 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost-saving of £100.27 per patient. Sensitivity analyses indicate the approach is likely to be cost-effective in all scenarios, and cost-saving in most, although sensitive to assumptions regarding long-term patient prognosis. Analysis from the societal perspective improved the associated cost-savings. Conclusion. It is likely that implementation of this stratified care model will help reduce unnecessary healthcare usage, whilst improving patient quality of life. No conflicts of interest. Funding: Research stipend for JAH by the Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University