{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,31]],"date-time":"2026-03-31T19:49:51Z","timestamp":1774986591137,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":45,"publisher":"Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)","issue":"5","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["SPI"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,5]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>OBJECTIVE<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 7-year cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. A change in the spending trajectory for spine care is to be achieved, in part, through the selection of interventions that have been proven effective yet cost less than other options. This analysis complements and builds upon findings from other cost-effectiveness evaluations of CTDR through the use of long-term, patient-level data from a randomized study.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>METHODS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>This was a 7-year health economic evaluation comparing CTDR versus ACDF from the US commercial payer perspective. Prospectively collected health care resource utilization and treatment effects (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were obtained from individual patient-level adverse event reports and SF-36 data, respectively, from the randomized, multicenter ProDisc-C total disc replacement investigational device exemption (IDE) study and post-approval study. Statistical distributions for unit costs were derived from a commercial claims database and applied using Monte Carlo simulation. Patient-level costs and effects were modeled via multivariate probabilistic analysis. Confidence intervals for 7-year costs, effects, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were obtained using the nonparametric percentile method from results of 10,000 bootstrap simulations. The robustness of results was assessed through scenario analysis and within a parametric regression model controlling for baseline variables.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>RESULTS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>Seven-year follow-up data were available for more than 70% of the 209 randomized patients. In the base-case analysis, CTDR resulted in mean per-patient cost savings of $12,789 (95% CI $5362\u2013$20,856) and per-patient QALY gains of 0.16 (95% CI \u22120.073 to 0.39) compared with ACDF over 7 years. CTDR was more effective and less costly in 90.8% of probabilistic simulations. CTDR was cost-effective in 99.8% of sensitivity analysis simulations and generated a mean incremental NMB of $20,679 (95% CI $6053\u2013$35,377) per patient at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000\/QALY.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>CONCLUSIONS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>Based on this modeling evaluation, CTDR was found to be more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. These results are robust across a range of scenarios and perspectives and are intended to support value-based decision making.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3171\/2015.10.spine15505","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,1,29]],"date-time":"2016-01-29T15:03:22Z","timestamp":1454079802000},"page":"760-768","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":32,"title":["Seven-year cost-effectiveness of ProDisc-C total disc replacement: results from investigational device exemption and post-approval studies"],"prefix":"10.3171","volume":"24","author":[{"given":"Kris","family":"Radcliff","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey;"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Jason","family":"Lerner","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Evidence Based Medicine,"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Chao","family":"Yang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Medical Affairs, and"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Thierry","family":"Bernard","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Biostatistics and Data Management, DePuy Synthes Spine, West Chester, Pennsylvania; and"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Jack E.","family":"Zigler","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Spine Surgery, Texas Back Institute, Plano, Texas"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1754","reference":[{"issue":"22 Suppl","key":"b1-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S85","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31826d6628","article-title":"Kinematics of the cervical adjacent segments after disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"37","author":"Anderson","year":"2012"},{"key":"b2-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E1593","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31821cfd47","article-title":"Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion: a comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion","volume":"36","author":"Auerbach","year":"2011"},{"issue":"3","key":"b3-spine15505","series-title":"Neurosurg Focus","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E10","DOI":"10.3171\/2009.6.FOCUS09128","article-title":"History of cervical disc arthroplasty","volume":"27","author":"Baaj","year":"2009"},{"key":"b4-spine15505","series-title":"Int J Technol Assess Health Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"112","DOI":"10.3171\/2009.6.FOCUS09128","article-title":"Uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Probabilistic uncertainty analysis and stochastic league tables","volume":"18","author":"Baltussen","year":"2002"},{"key":"b5-spine15505","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"841","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-009-1017-6","article-title":"Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up","volume":"18","author":"Beaurain","year":"2009"},{"key":"b6-spine15505","series-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"CD009173","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000562","article-title":"Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease","volume":"9","author":"Boselie","year":"2012"},{"issue":"6","key":"b7-spine15505","series-title":"Neurosurg Focus","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E5","DOI":"10.3171\/2010.3.FOCUS1032","article-title":"A systematic review of randomized trials on the effect of cervical disc arthroplasty on reducing adjacent-level degeneration","volume":"28","author":"Botelho","year":"2010"},{"key":"b8-spine15505","series-title":"J Health Econ","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"271","DOI":"10.1016\/S0167-6296(01)00130-8","article-title":"The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36","volume":"21","author":"Brazier","year":"2002"},{"key":"b9-spine15505","series-title":"Med Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"851","DOI":"10.1097\/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d","article-title":"The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12","volume":"42","author":"Brazier","year":"2004"},{"key":"b10-spine15505","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3171\/2010.3.SPINE09513"},{"key":"b11-spine15505","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"308","DOI":"10.3171\/2014.6.SPINE13996","article-title":"Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial","volume":"13","author":"Burkus","year":"2010"},{"key":"b12-spine15505","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"516","DOI":"10.3171\/2012.9.SPINE12555","article-title":"Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial","volume":"21","author":"Burkus","year":"2014"},{"key":"b13-spine15505","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"36","DOI":"10.3171\/2011.5.SPINE10769","article-title":"Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site","volume":"18","author":"Coric","year":"2013"},{"key":"b14-spine15505","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"348","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3182797592","article-title":"Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article","volume":"15","author":"Coric","year":"2011"},{"key":"b15-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"711","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0043407","article-title":"Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial","volume":"38","author":"Delamarter","year":"2013"},{"key":"b16-spine15505","series-title":"PLoS One","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e43407","DOI":"10.1586\/14737167.8.2.165","article-title":"Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for single-level cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"7","author":"Fallah","year":"2012"},{"key":"b17-spine15505","series-title":"Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"165","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31826cb2d6","article-title":"Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold","volume":"8","author":"Grosse","year":"2008"},{"issue":"22 Suppl","key":"b18-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S96","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31818ee263","article-title":"Adjacent segment pathology following cervical motion-sparing procedures or devices compared with fusion surgery: a systematic review","volume":"37","author":"Harrod","year":"2012"},{"key":"b19-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"101","DOI":"10.1002\/hec.678","article-title":"Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial","volume":"34","author":"Heller","year":"2009"},{"key":"b20-spine15505","series-title":"Health Econ","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"415","DOI":"10.1186\/1472-6963-6-68","article-title":"Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis","volume":"11","author":"Hoch","year":"2002"},{"key":"b21-spine15505","series-title":"BMC Health Serv Res","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"68","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2010.08.014","article-title":"Using the net benefit regression framework to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of external loop recorders versus Holter monitoring for ambulatory monitoring of \u201ccommunity acquired\u201d syncope","volume":"6","author":"Hoch","year":"2006"},{"key":"b22-spine15505","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1043","DOI":"10.1017\/S0003055401000235","article-title":"Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials","volume":"10","author":"Jawahar","year":"2010"},{"key":"b23-spine15505","series-title":"Am Polit Sci Rev","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"49","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31826d60fb","article-title":"Analyzing incomplete political science data: an alternative algorithm for multiple imputation","volume":"95","author":"King","year":"2001"},{"issue":"22 Suppl","key":"b24-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S52","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000113","article-title":"Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology in the cervical spine: a systematic review","volume":"37","author":"Lawrence","year":"2012"},{"key":"b25-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"249","DOI":"10.1007\/s00402-014-2125-2","article-title":"Utilization trends of cervical artificial disc replacement after FDA approval compared with anterior cervical fusion: adoption of new technology","volume":"39","author":"Lu","year":"2014"},{"key":"b26-spine15505","series-title":"Arch Orthop Trauma Surg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"155","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000562","article-title":"Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies","volume":"135","author":"Luo","year":"2015"},{"key":"b27-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1924","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0031-1298610","article-title":"The 5-year cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc replacement: a Markov analysis","volume":"39","author":"McAnany","year":"2014"},{"issue":"S1","key":"b28-spine15505","series-title":"Evid Based Spine Care J","first-page":"59","article-title":"Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing long-term follow-up results from two FDA trials","volume":"3","author":"Mummaneni","year":"2012"},{"key":"b29-spine15505","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"275","DOI":"10.1191\/0962280202sm304ra","article-title":"Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease","volume":"9","author":"Murrey","year":"2009"},{"key":"b30-spine15505","series-title":"Stat Methods Med Res","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"455","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e31823ba071","article-title":"Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods","volume":"11","author":"O'Brien","year":"2002"},{"key":"b31-spine15505","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"141","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.d1548","article-title":"Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors","volume":"26","author":"Park","year":"2013"},{"key":"b32-spine15505","series-title":"BMJ","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"d1548","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000174507.45083.98","article-title":"Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting","volume":"342","author":"Petrou","year":"2011"},{"issue":"16 Suppl","key":"b33-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S23","DOI":"10.3171\/2014.1.SPINE13718","article-title":"Treatment of the painful motion segment: cervical arthroplasty","volume":"30","author":"Pracyk","year":"2005"},{"key":"b34-spine15505","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"475","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jocn.2013.03.002","article-title":"Health state utility of patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cervical disc arthroplasty","volume":"20","author":"Qureshi","year":"2014"},{"key":"b35-spine15505","series-title":"J Clin Neurosci","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1723","DOI":"10.3171\/2013.8.SPINE12623","article-title":"Utilization trends of cervical artificial disc replacement during the FDA investigational device exemption clinical trials compared to anterior cervical fusion","volume":"20","author":"Qureshi","year":"2013"},{"key":"b36-spine15505","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"546","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000822","article-title":"Cost-effectiveness analysis: comparing single-level cervical disc replacement and single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article","volume":"19","author":"Qureshi","year":"2013"},{"key":"b37-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"521","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200406010-00022","article-title":"Costs of cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: an analysis of the Blue Health Intelligence database for acute and long-term costs and complications","volume":"40","author":"Radcliff","year":"2015"},{"key":"b38-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E221","DOI":"10.3171\/spi.2005.3.6.0417","article-title":"Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study","volume":"29","author":"Reitman","year":"2004"},{"key":"b39-spine15505","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"417","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.J.00476","article-title":"Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study","volume":"3","author":"Robertson","year":"2005"},{"key":"b40-spine15505","series-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1684","DOI":"10.3171\/2011.6.SPINE10623","article-title":"Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial","volume":"93","author":"Sasso","year":"2011"},{"key":"b41-spine15505","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"216","DOI":"10.1136\/ard.2009.117150","article-title":"Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials","volume":"16","author":"Upadhyaya","year":"2012"},{"issue":"Suppl 1","key":"b42-spine15505","series-title":"Ann Rheum Dis","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"i89","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijsp.2013.05.001","article-title":"The value of productivity: human-capital versus friction-cost method","volume":"69","author":"van den Hout","year":"2010"},{"key":"b43-spine15505","series-title":"Int J Spine Surg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e58","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.1996.03540150055031","article-title":"Cost-utility analysis modeling at 2-year followup for cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A single-center contribution to the randomized controlled trial","volume":"7","author":"Warren","year":"2013"},{"key":"b44-spine15505","series-title":"JAMA","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1253","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e318278eb38","article-title":"Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine","volume":"276","author":"Weinstein","year":"1996"},{"key":"b45-spine15505","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"203","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31826d6628","article-title":"ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study","volume":"38","author":"Zigler","year":"2013"}],"container-title":["Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/24\/5\/article-p760.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/24\/5\/article-p760.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/24\/5\/article-p760.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,15]],"date-time":"2023-04-15T21:59:02Z","timestamp":1681595942000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/24\/5\/article-p760.xml"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2016,5]]},"references-count":45,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2015.10.spine15505","relation":{},"ISSN":["1547-5654"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1547-5654","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2016,5]]}}}