Cost-effectiveness evaluation of an RCT in rehabilitation after lumbar spinal fusion: a low-cost, behavioural approach is cost-effective over individual exercise therapy.

Recently, Christensen et al. reported the clinical effects of a low-cost rehabilitation program equally efficient to a relatively intensive program of individual, physiotherapist-guided exercise therapy. Yet, the low-cost approach is not fully supported as an optimal strategy until a full-scale economic evaluation, including extra-hospital effects such as service utilization in the primary health care sector and return-to-work, is conducted. The objective of this study was to conduct such evaluation i.e. investigate the cost-effectiveness of (1) a low-cost rehabilitation regimen with a behavioural element and (2) a regimen of individual exercise therapy, both in comparison with usual practice, from a health economic, societal perspective. Study design was a cost-effectiveness evaluation of an RCT with a 2-year follow-up. Ninety patients having had posterolateral or circumferential fusion (indicated by chronic low back pain and localized pathology) were randomized 3 months after their spinal fusion. Validated pain- and disability index scales were applied at baseline and at 2 years postoperative. Costs were measured in a full-scale societal perspective. The probability of the behavioural approach being cost-effective was close to 1 given pain as the prioritized effect measure, and 0.8 to 0.6 (dependent on willingness to pay per effect unit) given disability as the prioritized effect measure. The probability of the exercise therapy approach being cost-effective was modest due to inferior effectiveness. Results proved robust to relevant sensitivity analysis although a differentiated cost-effectiveness ratio between males and females was suspected. In conclusion, a simple behavioural extension, of setting up group meetings for patients, to a regimen with a strict physiotherapeutic focus was found cost-effective, whereas the cost-effectiveness of increasing frequency and guidance of a traditional physiotherapeutic regimen was unlikely in present trial setting.

Importance of the back-café concept to rehabilitation after lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized clinical study with a 2-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, clinical study with a 2-year follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the effect of three different rehabilitation strategies for lumbar spinal fusion patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Fifteen percent to 40% of lumbar spinal fusion patients are not expected to improve significantly over a 2-year period. Optimization of present forms of rehabilitation could possibly further improve the outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1996 and 1999, 90 patients who had undergone lumbar spinal fusion were 3 months after surgery randomized to one of three different rehabilitation groups. Video group participants watched a video of exercises for training and were subsequently and only once provided instruction regarding their use. The back-café group was provided the same program as the video group, but as a supplement met with a back-café with other fusion-operated patients three times over an 8-week period. The training group was provided physical therapy training twice weekly for 8 weeks. Functional outcome was evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery by use of the low back pain rating scale and a questionnaire covering daily functions, work status, and a patient's contact with the primary sector. RESULTS: By 2-year follow-up, the back-café and video groups had less pain compared with the training group (P < 0.03). The back-café group was better at performing daily functions such as carrying bags of market items (P < 0.01), getting up from a chair (P < 0.01), and ascending staircases (P < 0.01) compared with the video and training groups. More in the back-café group resumed working after surgery compared with the two other groups (P < 0.04). The video group had significantly more contacts with general practitioners, physical therapists, and so on compared with the back-café and training groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The patients in the back-café group were significantly better at accomplishing a succession of daily tasks compared with the video and training groups 2 years after lumbar spinal fusion. At the 2-year follow-up the training group had a significant pain problem compared with the video and back-café groups. The video group had significantly more treatment demands outside the hospital system. This study demonstrates the relevance of the inclusion of coping schemes and questions the role of intensive exercises in a rehabilitation program for spinal fusion patients.