Spine-Related Health Care Utilization and Costs Following Orthobiologic Injection Versus Lumbar Surgery for Degenerative Spine Conditions.

Background: Lumbar fusion and decompression procedures are widely used for degenerative spine conditions but are associated with substantial health care costs and variable outcomes. Orthobiologic treatments, including platelet rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), have emerged as less invasive options for select patients who meet surgical criteria. However, concerns remain that orthobiologic care may delay rather than avert surgery, potentially increasing downstream utilization and costs. Comparative evidence on real world utilization and costs is limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational study using linked commercial insurance claims and a national orthobiologic treatment registry. Adults with lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) who met criteria for lumbar fusion or laminectomy, foraminotomy, discectomy, and facetectomy (LFDF) procedures, and who received PRP injection (with or without BMAC) or surgery between 2016 and 2023 were included. Two comparisons were evaluated: PRP versus lumbar fusion and PRP versus lumbar decompression procedures. Propensity score matching was used to balance cohorts on demographic characteristics, comorbidities, spine related diagnoses, prior health care use, and severity proxies. Outcomes included spine-related health care resource use and aggregate costs at 12 and 24 months, with exploratory analyses at 36 and 48 months. Costs were estimated using multiple approaches, including Medicare based estimates and commercial payer methods. Results: After matching, 133 patients receiving PRP were compared with 2,560 patients undergoing fusion, and 198 patients receiving PRP were compared with 3,960 patients undergoing LFDF. Rates of subsequent spine surgery following PRP were low and below cell suppression thresholds through 24 months, with similar findings in exploratory longer-term analyses. Compared with surgical cohorts, patients receiving PRP had lower rates of postoperative imaging, home health services, and outpatient visits, with no consistent differences in opioid use, magnetic resonance imaging, or physical therapy. At 12 and 24 months, mean aggregate costs were significantly higher for fusion and LFDF cohorts across most costing methods. Cost differences were largest for fusion comparisons and were driven primarily by index procedure costs and higher reoperation and imaging rates in surgical cohorts. Findings were generally consistent across sensitivity and exploratory analyses. Conclusions: Among select patients with degenerative spine conditions who meet surgical criteria, PRP was associated with lower health care utilization and substantially lower costs compared with lumbar fusion or LFDF, without evidence of increased progression to surgery. These findings support consideration of orthobiologic options for appropriately selected patients when surgery is not the only viable treatment option. Limitations include selection bias, absence of patient reported outcomes, and claims-based severity measures.