Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 2, 2025
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model
Published on: October 5, 2009
The Variability and Contributions to Cost of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Constructs
Matthew H Lindsey1, Grace X Xiong1, Aditya V Karhade1
1Harvard Combined Orthopaedic Residency Program, Harvard Medical School.
Study Design:
This was a retrospective cohort study.
Objective:
To characterize the variability in cost for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) constructs and to identify key predictors of procedural cost.
Summary Of Background Data:
ACDF is commonly performed for surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Numerous biomechanical constructs and graft/biological options are available, with most demonstrating relatively equivalent clinical results. Despite the substantial focus on value in spine care, the differences and contributions to procedural cost in ACDF have not been well defined.
Materials And Methods:
We evaluated the records of patients who underwent a single level ACDF from 2016 to 2020 at 4 hospitals in a major metropolitan area. We abstracted demographics, insurance status, operative time, diagnosis, surgeon, institution, and components of procedural costs. Costs based on construct were compared using multivariable adjusted analyses using negative binomial regression. The primary outcome measures were cost differences between ACDF techniques.
Results:
Two hundred sixty-four patients were included, with procedures by 13 surgeons across 4 institutions. The total procedural cost for ACDF had a mean of US$2317 with wide variation (range, US$967-US$7370). Multivariable analysis revealed body mass index and use of polyether ether ketone to be correlated with increased cost while carbon fiber and autograft correlated with decreased cost. When comparing standalone device constructs to cases with anterior instrumentation (plate/screws), the total cost was significantly higher in the plate/screw group (US$2686±US$921 vs. US$1466±US$878, P <0.001).
Conclusions:
We encountered wide variation in procedural costs associated with ACDF, including as much as an 8-fold difference in the cost of constructs. The most important drivers included instrumentation type and implant materials. Here, we identify potential targets of opportunity for health care organizations that are looking to reduce variance in procedural expenditures to improve health care savings associated with the performance of ACDF.
