A comparative study of a nerve block therapy with and without a deeply inserted acupotomy applied to hyeopcheok points for lumbosacral radiculopathy: Safety, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness (a randomized controlled, two-arm, parallel study, pilot study, assessor-blind).

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of lumbosacral radiculopathy is estimated to be approximately 3% to 5% in patient populations. Lumbosacral radiculopathy is largely caused by a complex interaction between biomechanical and biochemical factors. Nerve block therapy (NBT) mainly treats lumbosacral radiculopathy by improving the biochemical factors, whereas acupotomy mainly focuses on improving the biomechanical factors. Therefore, it is thought that synergistic effects may be obtained for the treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy when both NBT and acupotomy are combined. However, no study in China and Korea, where acupotomy is majorly provided, has reported the effects of such a combination treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the concurrent use of a deeply inserted acupotomy and NBT for the treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an open-label, parallel, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial, which will include 50 patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy. After patients voluntarily agree to participate in the study, they will be screened, and will undergo necessary examinations and tests according to the protocol. Those who satisfy the selection criteria will be randomly assigned to either the NBT + acupotomy or NBT groups in a 1:1 ratio. Both groups will undergo 2 NBTs once every 2 weeks from 1 week after the screening test. The treatment group will receive additional acupotomy twice a week for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint is the Oswestry Disability Index, whereas the secondary endpoints are the Numeral Rating Scale, European Quality of Life 5-dimension, McGill pain Questionnaire, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, safety assessment, and economic feasibility evaluation. The measurements will be made at 0, 2, 4, and 8 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has received complete ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Catholic Kwandong University International St. Mary's Hospital (IS20OISE0085). We intend to submit the results of the trial to a peer-reviewed journal and/or conferences.

Comparison of transversus abdominis plane catheters with thoracic epidurals for cost and length of stay in open colorectal surgeries: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia has long been a common method of postoperative analgesia for major open abdominal surgeries and is frequently used within enhanced recovery after surgery programs. An alternative postoperative analgesia method is the single shot transversus abdominis plane block, which has shown promising outcomes with respect to total length of stay, cost, pain scores, and decreased opioid usage. However, far less is known regarding continuous transversus abdominis plane analgesia using catheters. We evaluated the total cost-effectiveness of transversus abdominis plane catheter analgesia compared to thoracic epidural analgesia for patients undergoing open colorectal surgeries within the enhanced recovery after surgery program at our institution. METHODS: This cohort study included patients booked under the colorectal surgery enhanced recovery after surgery program from November 2016 through March 2018 who received either bilateral transversus abdominis plane catheters (n = 52) or thoracic epidural analgesia (n = 24). RESULTS: There was no difference in total direct cost (p = 0.660) and indirect cost (p = 0.220), and median length of stay (p = 0.664) in the transversus abdominis plane catheter group compared to the thoracic epidural group. Additionally, the transversus abdominis plane catheter group received significantly less morphine equivalents compared to the thoracic epidural group (p = 0.008) and had a lower mean body mass index (p = 0.019). There was no significant difference between the two groups for age (p = 0.820), or sex (p = 0.330). CONCLUSIONS: Transversus abdominis plane catheter analgesia is not associated with increased cost or longer hospital stays when compared to thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing open colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery program. Furthermore, transversus abdominis plane catheter analgesia led to decreased opioid consumption while maintaining similar pain scores, suggesting similar pain control between the two modalities.

Economic impact of anaesthesia methods used in hand surgery: Global costs and operating room's throughput.

PURPOSE: Recently, local anaesthesia has become popular among hand surgeons. We hypothesized that using the "wide awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet" (WALANT) approach would result in lower global costs and in an increase in the operating room (OR)'s efficiency. METHODS: All cases of carpal tunnel (CTR) and trigger finger releases (TFR) performed over 2016 and 2017 were divided into four groups, following which the anaesthesia method was used. Total OR occupation time, surgical time and the "all but surgery" time were analysed. A common minimum bill per anaesthesia was generated. RESULTS: WALANT or local anaesthesia and tourniquet increase the OR's throughput by having shorter operation room occupation times than other methods (17.5-33%). Costs of the two procedures are reduced by 21-31% when using local anaesthesia methods. CONCLUSION: Preferring those techniques for CTR and TFR has a notable beneficial impact on the costs and on the OR's efficiency. This effect is more evident on short surgical procedures. LOE: Level of evidence III, economic analysis.

Characterizing the providers of and reimbursement for chronic migraine chemodenervation among the Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize reimbursement trends and providers for chronic migraine (CM) chemodenervation treatment within the Medicare population since the introduction of the migraine-specific CPT code in 2013. METHODS: We describe trends in procedure volume and total allowed charge on cross-sectional data obtained from 2013 to 2018 Medicare Part B National Summary files. We also utilized the 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data to analyze higher volume providers (>10 procedures) of this treatment modality. RESULTS: The total number of CM chemodenervation treatments rose from 37,863 in 2013 to 135,023 in 2018 in a near-linear pattern (r = 0.999) and total allowed charges rose from ~$5,217,712 to $19,166,160 (r = 0.999). The majority of high-volume providers were neurologists (78.4%; 1060 of 1352), but a substantial proportion were advanced practice providers (APPs) (10.2%; 138 of 1352). Of the physicians, neurologists performed a higher mean number of procedures per physician compared to non-neurologists (59.6 [95% CI: 56.6-62.6] vs. 45.4 [95% CI: 41.0-50.0], p < 0.001). When comparing physicians and APPs, APPs were paid significantly less ($146.5 [95% CI: $145.6-$147.5] vs. $119.7 [95% CI: $117.6-$121.8], p < 0.001). As a percent of the number of total beneficiaries in each state, the percent of Medicare patients receiving ≥1 CM chemodenervation treatment from a high-volume provider in 2017 ranged from 0.024% (24 patients of 98,033 beneficiaries) in Wyoming to 0.135% (997 of 736,521) in Arizona, with six states falling outside of this range. CONCLUSION: Chemodenervation is an increasingly popular treatment for CM among neurologists and other providers, but the reason for this increase is unclear. There is substantial geographic variation in its use.

National Trends in Neuromodulation for Urinary Incontinence Among Insured Adult Women and Men, 2004-2013: The Urologic Diseases in America Project.

OBJECTIVE: To examine US trends in neuromodulation for urinary incontinence (UI) treatment from 2004 to 2013. METHODS: This study utilized 2 data sources: the Optum© de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database for privately insured adults aged 18-64 years with a UI diagnosis (N≈40,000 women and men annually) and the Medicare 5% Sample for beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with a UI diagnosis (N≈65,000 women and men annually). We created annual cross-sectional cohorts and assessed prevalence of UI-related neuromodulation procedures among men and women separately from 2004 to 2013. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by age, race/ethnicity, and geographic region. RESULTS: Nearly all neuromodulation procedures occurred in outpatient settings. Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) procedures for UI in both women and men grew steadily from 2004 to 2013, with more procedures performed in women than men. Among women with UI, SNM prevalence grew from 0.1%-0.2% in 2004 to 0.5%-0.6% in 2013. Posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) experienced growth from 2011 to 2013. Chemodenervation of the bladder with onabotulinumtoxinA (BTX) combined with other injectable procedures (including urethral bulking) remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: From 2004 to 2013, SNM procedures remained relatively uncommon but increased consistently. PTNS experienced growth starting in 2011 when PTNS-specific insurance claims became available. BTX trends remain unclear; future studies should assess it separately from other injectable procedures. Neuromodulation has a growing role in UI treatment, and ongoing trends will be important to examine.

The Effect of Erector Spinae Plane Block on Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Anesthesia: Analysis of Opioid Consumption, Sevoflurane Consumption, and Cost.

Background: Erector spinae plane (ESP) block has been increasingly suggested for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) as a part of multimodal analgesia in many studies. However, there is not any study that investigated the perioperative effects of ESP block on anesthetic agent consumption and cost of LC anesthesia. This is the first study that evaluates the effect of ESP block in terms of cost-effectiveness, intraoperative consumption of inhalation agents, and perioperative consumption of opioids. Materials and Methods: In this prospective observational study, 81 patients who underwent LC were included. Patients were divided into two groups: In Group ESP (n = 39) bilateral ultrasound-guided ESP block was performed in preoperative period and in Group non-ESP (n = 42) ESP block was not performed. After standard general anesthesia protocol, anesthesia was maintained with 2% sevoflurane in 50% air and 50% oxygen with controlled ventilation in both groups. All patients were monitored with electrocardiography, noninvasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, end-tidal carbon dioxide, and bispectral index. The consumption of sevoflurane and opioids in the intraoperative and postoperative 24 hours was recorded. The costs of drugs were determined by multiplying total consumed amounts with unit prices. Results: The costs and the consumed amounts of remifentanyl, sevoflurane, and tramadol were significantly higher in non-ESP group in the perioperative period (respectively, P < .001, P = .01, and P < .001). Conclusions: ESP block for LC decreased the consumed amount and cost of inhaled agents and opioids in the perioperative period.

Comparison of peribulbar block and general anaesthesia in mechanical vitrectomy: a prospective observational study. / Comparación de bloqueo peribulbar y anestesia general en vitrectomía mecánica: estudio observacional prospectivo.

INTRODUCTION: Vitrectomy surgery is a common procedure for the treatment of several types of ophthalmologic conditions. It can be performed under regional anaesthesia with peribulbar block (PB) or general anaesthesia (GA). There are no evidence-based recommendations on the optimal anaesthesia strategy for this procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the advantages of PB and GA for vitrectomy surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted on adults submitted for mechanical vitrectomy between January 2017 and December 2017. Demographic and perioperative data were collected, namely ASA physical status, median arterial pressure, heart rate, postoperative opioid consumption, postoperative nausea and vomiting, times of induction, surgery, recovery, and hospital stay and costs considering medication and material needed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.25, with chi-square, Fisher and Mann-Whitney U tests, according to the type of variables analysed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We included 179 patients submitted for mechanical vitrectomy: 91 (51%) with PB and 88 (49%) under GA. Patients submitted to PB were older (69.0 vs. 64.5 years, p=.006) and presented with higher ASA physical status (p=.001). For haemodynamic outcomes, patients submitted to PB presented with less variation of median arterial pressure (-3.0 vs. -13.5mmHg, p=.000) and with no significant differences in heart rate (-2.0 vs. -3.0 bpm, p=.825). In the postoperative period, the PB group presented with decreased need of postoperative analgesia (0.0 vs. 5.0, p=.026) and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (1.0 vs. 12.0, p=.001). Times related to anaesthesia and surgery were better in PB group, with shorter induction time (10.0 vs. 11.0min, p=.000), surgery time (56.5 vs. 62.0min, p=.001), recovery time (10.0 vs. 75.5min, p=.000), and hospital stay (2.0 vs. 3.0 days, p=.000). When analysing costs, PB was less expensive than GA (4.65 vs. 12.09 euros, p=.021) CONCLUSION: PB is a reliable and safe alternative to GA for patients undergoing mechanical vitrectomy, permitting good anaesthesia and akinesia conditions during surgery, better haemodynamic stability, and less postoperative complications, especially in older patients and those with more comorbidities.

Peripheral nerve block versus systemic analgesia in dogs undergoing tibial plateau levelling osteotomy: Analgesic efficacy and pharmacoeconomics comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative effects and pharmacoeconomics of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) versus fentanyl target-controlled infusion (fTCI) in dogs undergoing tibial plateau levelling osteotomy (TPLO). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical study. ANIMALS: A total of 39 dogs undergoing unilateral TPLO. METHODS: After acepromazine and methadone, anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. Dogs were allocated to group fTCI [target plasma concentration (TPC) 1 ng mL-1] or group PNB (nerve stimulator-guided femoral-sciatic block using 0.2 and 0.1 mL kg-1 of levobupivacaine 0.5%, respectively). If nociceptive response occurred, isoflurane was increased by 0.1%, and TPC was increased by 0.5 ng mL-1 in group fTCI; a fentanyl bolus (1 µg kg-1) was administered in group PNB. During the first 24 postoperative hours, methadone (0.2 mg kg-1) was administered intramuscularly according to the Short Form Glasgow Composite Pain Scale, or if pain was equal to 5/24 or 4/20 for two consecutive assessments, or if the dog was non-weight bearing. The area under the curve (AUC) of pain scores, cumulative postoperative methadone requirement, food intake and pharmacoeconomic implications were calculated. RESULTS: Incidence of bradycardia (p = 0.025), nociceptive response to surgery (p = 0.041) and AUC of pain scores (p < 0.0001) were greater in group fTCI. Postoperatively, 16/19 (84.2%) and eight/20 (40%) dogs in groups fTCI and PNB, respectively, were given at least one dose of methadone (p = 0.0079). Food intake was greater in group PNB (p = 0.049). Although total cost was not different (p = 0.083), PNB was more cost-effective in dogs weighing >15 kg. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Compared with group fTCI, incidence of bradycardia, nociceptive response to surgery, postoperative pain scores, cumulative methadone requirement were lower, and food intake was greater in group PNB, with an economic advantage in dogs weighing >15 kg.

Financial impact of ultrasound-guided lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve blocks with electrostimulation for tibial plateau leveling osteotomy surgery in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the anesthesia cost from ultrasound-guided lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve blocks confirmed with electrostimulation for unilateral tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) surgery in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial. ANIMALS: A group of 20 dogs weighing 33.9 ± 6.0 kg (mean ± standard deviation). METHODS: All dogs were administered hydromorphone and atropine, propofol for induction of anesthesia and isoflurane for maintenance. Hydromorphone and carprofen were administered for recovery. The dogs were randomly assigned to one of two groups, lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve blocks with ropivacaine [regional anesthesia (RA)] or sham blocks with saline [control (CON)]. Fentanyl was administered for rescue analgesia intraoperatively and postoperatively. The cost to manage anesthesia was divided into fixed and variable costs using the micro-costing method. The variable costs were compared using Student's t test or Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The fixed anesthesia costs were equal between groups at US$354.00 per case. The variable anesthesia cost range was US$27.90-100.10 for RA and US$21.00-180.50 for CON. Overall, cost per dog in CON was from -US$6.9 to US$80.4 compared with RA. For 160 TPLO cases per year, hospital cost when RA is performed decreased the cost by $12,864 per year up to increased cost by $1104 per year, depending on the requirements for systemic drugs and incidence/severity of anesthesia complications. The estimated fee charge per case for service necessary to reimburse the cost of a new ultrasound (US$25,000.00) and nerve locator (US$925.00) over their life span of 6 and 10 years, respectively, is US$26.62. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ultrasound-guided lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve blocks with electrostimulation confirmation can increase the anesthesia cost through use of specific equipment. However, in most cases, the anesthesia cost decreased as a result of decreased costs for pain management and treatment of complications.

Periprostatic nerve block alone versus combined with perineal pudendal nerve block or intrarectal local anesthesia during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost of combinations of perineal pudendal nerve block + periprostatic nerve block and intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block with the standard technique (periprostatic nerve block). METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized prospective controlled trial. Patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen values (prostate-specific antigen ≥4 ng/mL) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings were included in the study. Patients with anorectal diseases, chronic prostatitis, previous history of prostate biopsy and anorectal surgery were excluded from the study. A total of 148 patients (group 1 [periprostatic nerve block], n = 48; group 2 [intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block], n = 51; group 3 [perineal pudendal nerve block + periprostatic nerve block], n = 49) were included in the final analysis. Pain during insertion and manipulation of the transrectal ultrasound probe was recorded as visual analog scale 1, pain during penetration of the biopsy needle into the prostate and sampling was recorded as visual analog scale 2, and pain during the entire procedure recorded as visual analog scale 3. RESULTS: The mean visual analog scale 1 score was significantly lower in group 3, when compared with group 1 and group 2 (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the mean visual analog scale 2 score. The mean visual analog scale 3 score was significantly lower in group 3 when compared with other groups (P < 0.001). The total cost for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in the intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block group was significantly higher than the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of perineal pudendal nerve block and periprostatic nerve block provides more effective pain control than intrarectal local anesthesia plus periprostatic nerve block and periprostatic nerve block alone, with similar complication rates and without increasing cost.

Cooled radiofrequency ablation of the genicular nerves for chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on trial data.

BACKGROUND: For patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, long-term symptomatic relief may improve quality of life. Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) has demonstrated significant improvements in pain, physical function and health-related quality of life compared with conservative therapy with intra-articular steroid (IAS) injections. This study aimed to establish the cost-effectiveness of CRFA compared with IAS for managing moderate to severe osteoarthritis-related knee pain, from the US Medicare system perspective. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing efficacy data (Oxford Knee Scores) from a randomized, crossover trial on CRFA (NCT02343003), which compared CRFA with IAS out to 6 and 12 months, and with IAS patients who subsequently crossed over to receive CRFA after 6 months. Outcomes included health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), costs and cost-effectiveness (expressed as cost per QALY gained). QALYs were estimated by mapping Oxford Knee Scores to the EQ-5D generic utility measure using a validated algorithm. Secondary analyses explored differences in the settings of care and procedures used in-trial versus real-world clinical practice. RESULTS: CRFA resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.091 at an incremental cost of $1711, equating to a cost of US$18,773 per QALY gained over a 6-month time horizon versus IAS. Over a 12-month time horizon, the incremental QALY gain was 0.229 at the same incremental cost, equating to a cost of US$7462 per QALY gained versus IAS. Real-world cost assumptions resulted in modest increases in the cost per QALY gained to a maximum of US$21,166 and US$8296 at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that findings were robust to variations in efficacy and cost parameters. CONCLUSIONS: CRFA is a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with osteoarthritis-related knee pain, compared with the US$100,000/QALY threshold typically used in the US.

Medial Branch Block Versus Vertebroplasty for 1-Level Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fracture: 2-Year Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) and medial branch block (MBB) are used to treat osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCF). We compared the clinical outcomes, radiologic changes, and economic results of MBB with those of VP in treating osteoporotic VCFs. METHODS: A total of 164 patients with 1-level osteoporotic VCF were reviewed retrospectively. The clinical outcomes were measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). To compare economic costs between groups, total hospital costs at the last follow-up day were calculated. RESULTS: The patients were divided into 2 groups: 72 patients in the conservative group treated by MBB (MBB group) and 92 patients in the group who underwent VP (VP group). The VAS and ODI scores improved significantly within postoperative week 1 in the VP group compared with the MBB group. However, the VAS and ODI scores did not differ between the groups after 1 postoperative year. After 2 years of follow-up, 14 new fractures occurred in the VP group and 3 in the MBB group. The improvement in compression ratio was statistically greater in the VP group than in the MBB group. However, after 2 years the radiologic changes between groups did not differ statistically. After the final follow-up visits, the hospital costs were significantly lower in the MBB group. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years of follow-up, VP and MBB both had similar efficacy in terms of pain relief and radiologic changes. MBB was more cost effective than VP. Thus, MBB alone can be a possible alternative to VP in patients with 1-level osteoporotic VCFs.

The cost-effectiveness of epidural, patient-controlled intravenous opioid analgesia, or transversus abdominis plane infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative pain management.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia (IVPCA), epidural analgesia and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) infiltrations are frequently used postoperative pain management modalities. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of epidural, IVPCA, and TAP infiltrations with liposomal bupivacaine for analgesia in the first 72 h postoperatively in patients undergoing major lower abdominal surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: We obtained data on major lower-abdominal surgeries performed under general anesthesia on adult patients between January 2012 and July 2014. INTERVENTIONS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was comparing the use of epidural, IVPCA, and TAP infiltrations with liposomal bupivacaine for analgesia in the first 72 h postoperatively. MEASUREMENTS: A decision analytic model was used to estimate the health outcomes for patients undergoing major lower abdominal surgery. The primary outcome was time-weighted pain from 0 to 72 h after surgery, as measured by numerical rating scale pain scores. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the hospital as the party responsible for most costs related to surgery. MAIN RESULTS: From the base case analysis, IVPCA was the optimal strategy regarding cost and effect. TAP with LB, however, was only narrowly dominated, while epidural was clearly dominated. From the sensitivity analysis at willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $150, IV PCA and TAP infiltration were each the optimal strategy for approximately 50% of the iterations. At WTP of $10,000, epidural was only the optimal strategy in 10% of the iterations. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in the literature to compare the cost-effectiveness of epidural, IVPCA, and TAP infiltrations with LB. Within reasonable WTP values, there is little differentiation in cost-effectiveness between IVPCA and TAP infiltration with LB. Epidural does not become a cost-effective strategy even at much higher WTP values.

Nerve root block versus surgery (NERVES) for the treatment of radicular pain secondary to a prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect over 3% of the UK population at any time and is often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID). Although the duration and severity of symptoms can vary, pain persisting beyond 6 weeks is unlikely to recover spontaneously and may require investigation and treatment. Currently, there is no specific care pathway for sciatica in the National Health Service (NHS), and no direct comparison exists between surgical microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). The NERVES (NErve Root block VErsus Surgery) trial aims to address this by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical microdiscectomy and TFESI to treat sciatica secondary to a PID. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 163 patients were recruited from NHS out-patient clinics across the UK and randomised to either microdiscectomy or TFESI. Adult patients (aged 16-65 years) with sciatic pain endured for between 6 weeks and 12 months are eligible if their symptoms have not been improved by at least one form of conservative (non-operative) treatment and they are willing to provide consent. Patients will be excluded if they present with neurological deficit or have had previous surgery at the same level. The primary outcome is patient-reported disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks post randomisation and secondary outcomes include disability and pain scales using numerical pain ratings, modified Roland-Morris and Core Outcome Measures Index at 12-weekly intervals, and patient satisfaction at 54 weeks. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L and self-report cost data at 12-weekly intervals and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Adverse event data will be collected. Analysis will follow the principle of intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: NERVES is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy to local anaesthetic and steroid administered via TFESI. The results of this research may facilitate the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy for patients with sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN04820368 . Registered on 5 June 2014. EudraCT EudraCT2014-002751-25. Registered on 8 October 2014.

Cost Implications of Varying the Surgical Technique, Surgical Setting, and Anesthesia Type for Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery.

PURPOSE: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is a common surgical procedure, representing a financial burden to the health care system. The purpose of this study was to test whether the choice of CTR technique (open carpal tunnel release [OCTR] vs endoscopic carpal tunnel release [ECTR]), surgical setting (operating room vs procedure room [PR]), and anesthetic type (local, monitored anesthesia care [MAC], Bier block, general) affected costs or payments. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing isolated unilateral CTR between July 2014, and October 2017, at a single academic medical center were identified. Patients undergoing ECTR converted to OCTR, revision surgery, or additional procedures were excluded. Using our institution's information technology value tools, we calculated total direct costs (TDCs), total combined payment (TCP), hospital payment, surgeon payment, and anesthesia payment for each surgical encounter. Cost data were normalized using each participant's surgical encounter cost divided by the average cost in the data set and compared across 8 groups (defined by surgery type, operation location, and anesthesia type). RESULTS: Of 479 included patients, the mean age was 55.3 ± 16.1 years, and 68% were female. Payer mix included commercial (45%), Medicare (37%), Medicaid (13%), workers' compensation (2%), self-pay (1%), and other (3%) insurance types. The TDC and TCP both differed significantly between each CTR group, and OCTR in the PR under local anesthesia was the lowest. The OCTR/local/operating room, OCTR/MAC/operating room, and ECTR/operating room, were associated with 6.3-fold, 11.0-fold, and 12.4-16.6-fold greater TDC than OCTR/local/PR, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Performing OCTR under local anesthetic in the PR setting significantly minimizes direct surgical encounter costs relative to other surgical methods (ECTR), anesthetic methods (Bier block, MAC, general), and surgical settings (operating room). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study identifies modifiable factors that may lead to cost reductions for CTR surgery.

Lumbar Dorsal Root Ganglion Block as a Prognostic Tool Before Pulsed Radiofrequency: A Randomized, Prospective, and Comparative Study on Cost-Effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: In the study, we discuss the predictive value and cost-effectiveness of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) blocks before using dorsal root ganglion pulsed radiofrequency (DRG-PRF) in the treatment of low back pain. METHODS: The study comprised 60 patients with low back pain who were randomly assigned into 2 groups. Patients in group 1 were screened using DRG block before DRG-PRF treatment for responders. Patients in group 2 underwent DRG-PRF treatment without DRG block. Successful outcome was defined as patient satisfaction, improvement in numerical rating scale, and medication use reduction. RESULTS: In group 1 (n = 30), 24 patients demonstrated good response to DRG block, and 20 patients had successful outcome at 6 months after DRG-PRF therapy. In group 2 (n = 30), 25 of the patients had successful outcome at 6 months after DRG-PRF therapy. The mean medical costs were NT$ 19,245 and NT$ 16,375 for each successful case in groups 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative cost-effectiveness study, the application of diagnostic DRG blocks before DRG-PRF did not have a significant impact on patient satisfaction, pain index score, or pain medication reduction. Furthermore, the application of diagnostic DRG blocks resulted in overall greater medical costs. These findings suggest that DRG-PRF without screening by DRG block is more cost-effective and less invasive.

Medication, equipment, and supply costs for common interventions providing extended post-surgical analgesia following total knee arthroplasty in US hospitals.

AIMS: To estimate the cost to hospitals of materials (i.e. medications, equipment, and supplies) required to administer common interventions for post-surgical analgesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including single-injection peripheral nerve block (sPNB), continuous peripheral nerve block (cPNB), periarticular infiltration of multi-drug cocktails, continuous epidural analgesia, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA), and local infiltration of bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension (BLIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis was conducted using a mixed methods approach combining published literature, publicly available data sources, and administrative data, to first identify the materials required to administer these interventions, and then estimate the cost to the hospital of those materials. Medication costs were estimated primarily using the Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WAC), the cost of reusable equipment was obtained from published sources, and costs for disposable supplies were obtained from the US Government Services Administration (GSA) database. Where uncertainty existed about the technique used when administering these interventions, costs were calculated for multiple scenarios reflecting different assumptions. RESULTS: The total cost of materials (i.e. medications, equipment, and supplies) required to provide post-surgical analgesia was $41.88 for sPNB with bupivacaine; $756.57 for cFNB with ropivacaine; $16.38 for periarticular infiltration with bupivacaine, morphine, methylprednisolone, and cefuroxime; $453.84 for continuous epidural analgesia with fentanyl and ropivacaine; $178.94 for IV PCA with morphine; and $319.00 for BLIS. LIMITATIONS: This analysis did not consider the cost of healthcare providers required to administer these interventions. In addition, this analysis focused on the cost of materials and, therefore, did not consider aspects of relative efficacy or safety, or how the choice of intervention for post-surgical analgesia might impact outcomes such as length of stay, re-admissions, discharge status, adverse events, or total hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided an estimate of the costs to hospitals for materials required to administer commonly used interventions for post-surgical analgesia after TKA.

Cost Utility Analysis of Cervical Therapeutic Medial Branch Blocks in Managing Chronic Neck Pain.

Background: Controlled diagnostic studies have established the prevalence of cervical facet joint pain to range from 36% to 67% based on the criterion standard of ≥ 80% pain relief. Treatment of cervical facet joint pain has been described with Level II evidence of effectiveness for therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy and with no significant evidence for intraarticular injections. However, there have not been any cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis studies performed in managing chronic neck pain with or without headaches with cervical facet joint interventions. Study Design: Cost utility analysis based on the results of a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of cervical therapeutic medial branch blocks in managing chronic neck pain. Objectives: To assess cost utility of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks in managing chronic neck pain. Methods: A randomized trial was conducted in a specialty referral private practice interventional pain management center in the United States. This trial assessed the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks with or without steroids for an established diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain by means of controlled diagnostic blocks. Cost utility analysis was performed with direct payment data for the procedures for a total of 120 patients over a period of 2 years from this trial based on reimbursement rates of 2016. The payment data provided direct procedural costs without inclusion of drug treatments. An additional 40% was added to procedural costs with multiplication of a factor of 1.67 to provide estimated total costs including direct and indirect costs, based on highly regarded surgical literature. Outcome measures included significant improvement defined as at least a 50% improvement with reduction in pain and disability status with a combined 50% or more reduction in pain in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. Results: The results showed direct procedural costs per one-year improvement in quality adjusted life year (QALY) of United States Dollar (USD) of $2,552, and overall costs of USD $4,261. Overall, each patient on average received 5.7 ± 2.2 procedures over a period of 2 years. Average significant improvement per procedure was 15.6 ± 12.3 weeks and average significant improvement in 2 years per patient was 86.0 ± 24.6 weeks. Limitations: The limitations of this cost utility analysis are that data are based on a single center evaluation. Only costs of therapeutic interventional procedures and physician visits were included, with extrapolation of indirect costs. Conclusion: The cost utility analysis of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks in the treatment of chronic neck pain non-responsive to conservative management demonstrated clinical effectiveness and cost utility at USD $4,261 per one year of QALY.

Cost analysis of percutaneous fixation of hand fractures in the main operating room versus the ambulatory setting.

PURPOSE: To date, there have been no studies identifying the cost differential for performing closed reduction internal fixation (CRIF) of hand fractures in the operating room (OR) versus an ambulatory setting. Our goal was to analyse the cost and efficiency of performing CRIF in these two settings and to investigate current practice trends in Canada. METHODS: A detailed analysis of the costs involved both directly and indirectly in the CRIF of a hand fracture was conducted. Hospital records were used to calculate efficiency. A survey was distributed to practicing plastic surgeons across Canada regarding their current practice of managing hand fractures. RESULTS: In an eight-hour surgical block we are able to perform five CRIF in the OR versus eight in an ambulatory setting. The costs of performing a CRIF in the OR under local anaesthetic, not including surgeon compensation, is $461.27 Canadian (CAD) compared to $115.59 CAD in the ambulatory setting, a 299% increase. The use of a regional block increases the cost to $665.49 CAD, a 476% increase. The main barrier to performing CRIFs in an outpatient setting is the absence of equipment necessary to perform these cases effectively, based on survey results. CONCLUSION: The use of the OR for CRIF of hand fractures is associated with a significant increase in cost and hospital resources with decreased efficiency. For appropriately selected hand fractures, CRIF in an ambulatory setting is less costly and more efficient compared to the OR and resources should be allocated to facilitate CRIF in this setting.