Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer.
Parker, Scott L; Anderson, Louise H; Nelson, Teresa; Patel, Vikas V.
Afiliación
  • Parker SL; Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville TN.
  • Anderson LH; Technomics Research, Minneapolis MN.
  • Nelson T; Technomics Research, Minneapolis MN.
  • Patel VV; University of Colorado Hospital, Denver CO.
Int J Spine Surg ; 9: 28, 2015.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26273546
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a painful and debilitating condition resulting in healthcare costs totaling tens of billions of dollars annually. Initial treatment consists of conservative care modalities such as physical therapy, NSAIDs, opioids, and steroid injections. Patients refractory to these therapies can undergo decompressive surgery, which has good long-term efficacy but is more traumatic and can be associated with high post-operative adverse event (AE) rates. Interspinous spacers have been developed to offer a less-invasive alternative. The objective of this study was to compare the costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained of conservative care (CC) and decompressive surgery (DS) to a new minimally-invasive interspinous spacer.

METHODS:

A Markov model was developed evaluating 3 strategies of care for lumbar spinal stenosis. If initial therapies failed, the model moved patients to more invasive therapies. Data from the Superion FDA clinical trial, a prospective spinal registry, and the literature were used to populate the model. Direct medical care costs were modeled from 2014 Medicare reimbursements for healthcare services. QALYs came from the SF-12 PCS and MCS components. The analysis used a 2-year time horizon with a 3% discount rate.

RESULTS:

CC had the lowest cost at $10,540, while Spacers and DS were nearly identical at about $13,950. CC also had the lowest QALY increase (0.06), while Spacers and DS were again nearly identical (.28). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for Spacers compared to CC was $16,300 and for DS was $15,200.

CONCLUSIONS:

Both the Spacer and DS strategies are far below the commonly cited $50,000/QALY threshold and produced several times the QALY increase versus CC, suggesting that surgical care provides superior value (cost / effectiveness) versus sustained conservative care in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation Idioma: En Revista: Int J Spine Surg Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation Idioma: En Revista: Int J Spine Surg Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article