Factors associated with costs and health outcomes in patients with Back and leg pain in primary care: a prospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on the economic burden of low back-related leg pain, including sciatica. The aim of this study was to describe healthcare resource utilisation and factors associated with cost and health outcomes in primary care patients consulting with symptoms of low back-related leg pain including sciatica. METHODS: This study is a prospective cohort of 609 adults visiting their family doctor with low back-related leg pain, with or without sciatica in a United Kingdom (UK) Setting. Participants completed questionnaires, underwent clinical assessments, received an MRI scan, and were followed-up for 12-months. The economic analysis outcome was the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) calculated from the EQ-5D-3 L data obtained at baseline, 4 and 12-months. Costs were measured based on patient self-reported information on resource use due to back-related leg pain and results are presented from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and Societal perspective. Factors associated with costs and outcomes were obtained using a generalised linear model. RESULTS: Base-case results showed improved health outcomes over 12-months for the whole cohort and slightly higher QALYs for patients in the sciatica group. NHS resource use was highest for physiotherapy and GP visits, and work-related productivity loss highest from a societal perspective. The sciatica group was associated with significantly higher work-related productivity costs. Cost was significantly associated with factors such as self-rated general health and care received as part of the study, while quality of life was significantly predicted by self-rated general health, and pain intensity, depression, and disability scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results contribute to understanding the economics of low back- related leg pain and sciatica and may provide guidance for future actions on cost reduction and health care improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 13/09/2011 Retrospectively registered; ISRCTN62880786 .

Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and sciatica place significant burden on individuals and healthcare systems, with societal costs alone likely to be in excess of £15 billion. Two recent systematic reviews for LBP and sciatica identified a shortage of modelling studies in both conditions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to document existing model-based economic evaluations for the treatment and management of both conditions; critically appraise current modelling techniques, analytical methods, data inputs, and structure, using narrative synthesis; and identify unresolved methodological problems and gaps in the literature. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted whereby 6512 records were extracted from 11 databases, with no date limits imposed. Studies were abstracted according to a predesigned protocol, whereby they must be economic evaluations that employed an economic decision model and considered any management approach for LBP and sciatica. Study abstraction was initially performed by one reviewer who removed duplicates and screened titles to remove irrelevant studies. Overall, 133 potential studies for inclusion were then screened independently by other reviewers. Consensus was reached between reviewers regarding final inclusion. RESULTS: Twenty-one publications of 20 unique models were included in the review, five of which were modelling studies in LBP and 16 in sciatica. Results revealed a poor standard of modelling in both conditions, particularly regarding modelling techniques, analytical methods, and data quality. Specific issues relate to inappropriate representation of both conditions in terms of health states, insufficient time horizons, and use of inappropriate utility values. CONCLUSION: High-quality modelling studies, which reflect modelling best practice, as well as contemporary clinical understandings of both conditions, are required to enhance the economic evidence for treatments for both conditions.

Combining multiple imputation and bootstrap in the analysis of cost-effectiveness trial data.

In healthcare cost-effectiveness analysis, probability distributions are typically skewed and missing data are frequent. Bootstrap and multiple imputation are well-established resampling methods for handling skewed and missing data. However, it is not clear how these techniques should be combined. This paper addresses combining multiple imputation and bootstrap to obtain confidence intervals of the mean difference in outcome for two independent treatment groups. We assessed statistical validity and efficiency of 10 candidate methods and applied these methods to a clinical data set. Single imputation nested in the bootstrap percentile method (with added noise to reflect the uncertainty of the imputation) emerged as the method with the best statistical properties. However, this method can require extensive computation times and the lack of standard software makes this method not accessible for a larger group of researchers. Using a standard unpaired t-test with standard multiple imputation without bootstrap appears to be a robust alternative with acceptable statistical performance for which standard multiple imputation software is available.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC randomised controlled trial protocol (ISRCTN75449581).

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients, and is associated with high healthcare and societal costs. Although there is variation in the clinical management of sciatica, the current model of care usually involves an initial period of 'wait and see' for most patients, with simple measures of advice and analgesia, followed by conservative and/or more invasive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. A model of care is needed that does not over-treat those with a good prognosis yet identifies patients who do need more intensive treatment to help with symptoms, and return to everyday function including work. The aim of the SCOPiC trial (SCiatica Outcomes in Primary Care) is to establish whether stratified care based on subgrouping using a combination of prognostic and clinical information, with matched care pathways, is more effective than non-stratified care, for improving time to symptom resolution in patients consulting with sciatica in primary care. We will also assess the impact of stratified care on service delivery and evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared to non-stratified care. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel arm randomised trial, with internal pilot, cost-effectiveness analysis and embedded qualitative study. We will recruit 470 adult patients with sciatica from general practices in England and Wales, over 24 months. Patients will be randomised to stratified care or non-stratified care, and treated in physiotherapy and spinal specialist services, in participating NHS services. The primary outcome is time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, measured on a 6-point ordered categorical scale, collected using text messaging. Secondary outcomes include physical function, pain intensity, quality of life, work loss, healthcare use and satisfaction with treatment, and will be collected using postal questionnaires at 4 and 12-month follow-up. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants and clinicians will explore the acceptability of stratified care. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the details of the rationale, design and processes of the SCOPiC trial. Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of patients with sciatica consulting in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75449581 , date: 20.11.2014.

Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to manage patients with sciatica.

The aim of this paper is to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of treatment regimens for managing patients with sciatica. A deterministic model structure was constructed based on information from the findings from a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, published sources of unit costs, and expert opinion. The assumption was that patients presenting with sciatica would be managed through one of 3 pathways (primary care, stepped approach, immediate referral to surgery). Results were expressed as incremental cost per patient with symptoms successfully resolved. Analysis also included incremental cost per utility gained over a 12-month period. One-way sensitivity analyses were used to address uncertainty. The model demonstrated that none of the strategies resulted in 100% success. For initial treatments, the most successful regime in the first pathway was nonopioids, with a probability of success of 0.613. In the second pathway, the most successful strategy was nonopioids, followed by biological agents, followed by epidural/nerve block and disk surgery, with a probability of success of 0.996. Pathway 3 (immediate surgery) was not cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses identified that the use of the highest cost estimates results in a similar overall picture. While the estimates of cost per quality-adjusted life year are higher, the economic model demonstrated that stepped approaches based on initial treatment with nonopioids are likely to represent the most cost-effective regimens for the treatment of sciatica. However, development of alternative economic modelling approaches is required.

PRECISE - pregabalin in addition to usual care for sciatica: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a type of neuropathic pain that is characterised by pain radiating into the leg. It is often accompanied by low back pain and neurological deficits in the lower limb. While this condition may cause significant suffering for the individual, the lack of evidence supporting effective treatments for sciatica makes clinical management difficult. Our objectives are to determine the efficacy of pregabalin on reducing leg pain intensity and its cost-effectiveness in patients with sciatica. METHODS/DESIGN: PRECISE is a prospectively registered, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin compared to placebo, in addition to usual care. Inclusion criteria include moderate to severe leg pain below the knee with evidence of nerve root/spinal nerve involvement. Participants will be randomised to receive either pregabalin with usual care (n = 102) or placebo with usual care (n = 102) for 8 weeks. The medicine dosage will be titrated up to the participant's optimal dose, to a maximum 600 mg per day. Follow up consultations will monitor individual progress, tolerability and adverse events. Usual care, if deemed appropriate by the study doctor, may include a referral for physical or manual therapy and/or prescription of analgesic medication. Participants, doctors and researchers collecting participant data will be blinded to treatment allocation. Participants will be assessed at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52. The primary outcome will determine the efficacy of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity. Secondary outcomes will include back pain intensity, disability and quality of life. Data analysis will be blinded and by intention-to-treat. A parallel economic evaluation will be conducted from health sector and societal perspectives. DISCUSSION: This study will establish the efficacy of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity in patients with sciatica and provide important information regarding the effect of pregabalin treatment on disability and quality of life. The impact of this research may allow the future development of a cost-effective conservative treatment strategy for patients with sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, ACTRN 12613000530729.

Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk-related sciatica: cost utility analysis alongside a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional microdiskectomy is the most frequently performed surgery for patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disk herniation. Transmuscular tubular diskectomy has been introduced to increase the rate of recovery, although evidence of its efficacy is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a favorable cost-effectiveness for tubular diskectomy compared with conventional microdiskectomy is attained. METHODS: Cost utility analysis was performed alongside a double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted among 325 patients with lumbar disk related sciatica lasting >6 to 8 weeks at 7 Dutch hospitals comparing tubular diskectomy with conventional microdiskectomy. Main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years at 1 year and societal costs, estimated from patient reported utilities (US and Netherlands EuroQol, Short Form Health Survey-6D, and Visual Analog Scale) and diaries on costs (health care, patient costs, and productivity). RESULTS: Quality-adjusted life-years during all 4 quarters and according to all utility measures were not statistically different between tubular diskectomy and conventional microdiskectomy (difference for US EuroQol, -0.012; 95% confidence interval, -0.046 to 0.021). From the healthcare perspective, tubular diskectomy resulted in nonsignificantly higher costs (difference US $460; 95% confidence interval, -243 to 1163). From the societal perspective, a nonsignificant difference of US $1491 (95% confidence interval, -1335 to 4318) in favor of conventional microdiskectomy was found. The nonsignificant differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years in favor of conventional microdiskectomy result in a low probability that tubular diskectomy is more cost-effective than conventional microdiskectomy. CONCLUSION: Tubular diskectomy is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with conventional microdiskectomy.

The impact of workers' compensation on outcomes of surgical and nonoperative therapy for patients with a lumbar disc herniation: SPORT.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized and observational cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of patients with and without workers' compensation who had surgical and nonoperative treatment for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation (IDH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have examined the association between worker's compensation and outcomes of surgical and nonoperative treatment. METHODS: Patients with at least 6 weeks of sciatica and a lumbar IDH were enrolled in either a randomized trial or observational cohort at 13 US spine centers. Patients were categorized as workers' compensation or nonworkers' compensation based on baseline disability compensation and work status. Treatment was usual nonoperative care or surgical discectomy. Outcomes included pain, functional impairment, satisfaction and work/disability status at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: Combining randomized and observational cohorts, 113 patients with workers' compensation and 811 patients without were followed for 2 years. There were significant improvements in pain, function, and satisfaction with both surgical and nonoperative treatment in both groups. In the nonworkers' compensation group, there was a clinically and statistically significant advantage for surgery at 3 months that remained significant at 2 years. However, in the workers' compensation group, the benefit of surgery diminished with time; at 2 years no significant advantage was seen for surgery in any outcome (treatment difference for SF-36 bodily pain [-5.9; 95% CI: -16.7-4.9] and physical function [5.0; 95% CI: -4.9-15]). Surgical treatment was not associated with better work or disability outcomes in either group. CONCLUSION: Patients with a lumbar IDH improved substantially with both surgical and nonoperative treatment. However, there was no added benefit associated with surgical treatment for patients with workers' compensation at 2 years while those in the nonworkers' compensation group had significantly greater improvement with surgical treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300].

BACKGROUND: Nerve root decompression with instrumented spondylodesis is the most frequently performed surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with symptomatic low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Nerve root decompression without instrumented fusion, i.e. Gill's procedure, is an alternative and less invasive approach. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis. METHODS/DESIGN: All patients (age between 18 and 70 years) with sciatica or neurogenic claudication lasting more than 3 months due to spondylolytic spondylolisthesis grade I or II, are eligible for inclusion. Patients will be randomly allocated to nerve root decompression according to Gill, either unilateral or bilateral, or pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion. The main primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica at 12 weeks and 2 years. Other primary outcome measures are perceived recovery and intensity of leg pain and low back pain. The secondary outcome measures include, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine phosphokinase, quality of life, medical consumption, costs, absenteeism, work perception, depression and anxiety, and treatment preference. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurse will not be blinded during the follow-up period of 2 years. DISCUSSION: Currently, nerve root decompression with instrumented fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, although scientific proof justifying instrumented spondylodesis over simple decompression is lacking. This trial is designed to elucidate the controversy in best surgical treatment of symptomatic patients with low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis.

Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation: cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the faster recovery after early surgery for sciatica compared with prolonged conservative care is attained at reasonable costs. DESIGN: Cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Nine Dutch hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 283 patients with sciatica for 6-12 weeks, caused by lumbar disc herniation. INTERVENTIONS: Six months of prolonged conservative care compared with early surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year and societal costs, estimated from patient reported utilities (UK and US EuroQol, SF-6D, and visual analogue scale) and diaries on costs (healthcare, patient's costs, and productivity). RESULTS: Compared with prolonged conservative care, early surgery provided faster recovery, with a gain in QALYs according to the UK EuroQol of 0.044 (95% confidence interval 0.005 to 0.083), the US EuroQol of 0.032 (0.005 to 0.059), the SF-6D of 0.024 (0.003 to 0.046), and the visual analogue scale of 0.032 (-0.003 to 0.066). From the healthcare perspective, early surgery resulted in higher costs (difference euro1819 (pound1449; $2832), 95% confidence interval euro842 to euro2790), with a cost utility ratio per QALY of euro41 000 (euro14,000 to euro430 000). From the societal perspective, savings on productivity costs led to a negligible total difference in cost (euro-12, euro-4029 to euro4006). CONCLUSIONS: Faster recovery from sciatica makes early surgery likely to be cost effective compared with prolonged conservative care. The estimated difference in healthcare costs was acceptable and was compensated for by the difference in absenteeism from work. For a willingness to pay of euro40,000 or more per QALY, early surgery need not be withheld for economic reasons. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 26872154.

Cost-effectiveness of physical therapy and general practitioner care for sciatica.

STUDY DESIGN: An economic evaluation alongside a randomized clinical trial in primary care. A total of 135 patients were randomly allocated to physical therapy added to general practitioners' care (n = 67) or to general practitioners' care alone (n = 68). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physical therapy and general practitioner care for patients with an acute lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS, also called sciatica) compared with general practitioner care only. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a lack of knowledge concerning the cost-effectiveness of physical therapy in patients with sciatica. METHODS: The clinical outcomes were global perceived effect and quality of life. The direct and indirect costs were measured by means of questionnaires. The follow-up period was 1 year. The Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) between both study arms was constructed. Confidence intervals for the ICER were calculated using Fieller's method and using bootstrapping. RESULTS: There was a significant difference on perceived recovery at 1-year follow-up in favor of the physical therapy group. The additional physical therapy did not have an incremental effect on quality of life. At 1-year follow-up, the ICER for the total costs was 6224 euros (95% confidence interval, -10,419, 27,551) per improved patient gained. For direct costs only, the ICER was 837 euros (95% confidence interval, -731, 3186). CONCLUSION: The treatment of patients with LRS with physical therapy and general practitioners'care is not more cost-effective than general practitioners'care alone.

Prevalence and risk factors of disk-related sciatica in an urban population in Tunisia.

BACKGROUND: Disk-related sciatica (DRS) creates a public health burden because of its high incidence and considerable socioeconomic costs. We are not aware of previous epidemiological studies of the prevalence and risk factors of DRS in Tunisia or other Arab countries, and few studies have addressed these issues elsewhere. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and incidence of DRS in Monastir, Tunisia; to look for risk factors; and to evaluate socioeconomic costs. METHODS: Data on a cross-section of 5000 individuals aged 15 years or older living in Monastir were collected by interviewers using a previously developed 51-item questionnaire. RESULTS: The study participation rate was 87.6%. The annual prevalence of DRS was 2.21% and the incidence was 1.44%. Among the patients with DRS, 94.8% received healthcare interventions, 64% had plain radiographs taken, and 45.4% underwent computed tomography of the lumbar spine. Sick leaves were given to 77.7% of patients, and mean sick leave duration was 9 weeks. A change in job was required in 5.5% of cases. Factors associated with DRS included male gender (P<0.001), obesity (P<0.0001), smoking (P<0.0001), a history of low back problems (P<0.0001), anxiety and depression (P<0.0001), a job requiring prolonged standing and bending forward (P<0.03), heavy manual labor (P<0.005), heavy lifting (P<0.0001), and exposure to vibrations (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of DRS in Monastir is 2.2%. We identified a number of patient- and occupation-related risk factors. The high socioeconomic cost should encourage preventive measures.

Long-term disability and return to work among patients who have a herniated lumbar disc: the effect of disability compensation.

BACKGROUND: Low-back problems are one of the most frequent reasons for disability compensation claims by workers. However, the effect of Workers' Compensation status on the long-term outcome for workers with sciatica has not been studied in detail, to our knowledge. Therefore, we believe that it is important to describe the long-term outcomes for patients who have herniation of a lumbar disc and sciatica according to the Workers' Compensation status at the time of the preoperative consultation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of patients who had sciatica and were seeking care from specialist physicians in community-based practices throughout Maine. Among 440 eligible patients, 199 were receiving Workers' Compensation at the time of entry into the study (baseline) and 241 were not. Three hundred and twenty-six patients (74 percent) completed questionnaires at the time of a four-year follow-up. The outcomes that we assessed included disability compensation and work status as well as relief from symptoms, functional status, and quality of life. RESULTS: Patients who were receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline were more likely to be young, male, and employed as laborers. They reported worse functional status; however, the clinical findings for these patients were similar to those for patients who were not receiving Workers' Compensation. Patients who had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline were more likely to be receiving disability benefits at the time of the four-year follow-up compared with those who had not (27 percent of 133 compared with 7 percent of 189; p<0.001); however, they were only slightly less likely to be working at the time of the four-year follow-up (80 percent of 133 compared with 87 percent of 190; p = 0.09). Operative management did not influence these comparisons, but it decreased symptoms and improved functional status. Patients who had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline also had significantly less relief from symptoms and improvement in quality of life than patients who had not been receiving Workers' Compensation (all p<0.001). In multivariate models, Workers' Compensation status at baseline was an independent predictor of whether the patient would be receiving disability benefits after four years (odds ratio, 3.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 7.6) but was not an independent predictor of whether the patient would be working on a job for pay at the time of the four-year follow-up (odds ratio, 0.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjustment for the initial treatment of the sciatica and for other clinical factors, patients who had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline were more likely to be receiving disability benefits and were less likely to report relief from symptoms and improvement in quality of life at the time of the four-year follow-up than patients who had not been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline. Nonetheless, most patients returned to work regardless of their initial disability status, and those who had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline were only slightly less likely to be working after four years. Whether or not they had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline, patients who had been managed with an operation reported greater relief from symptoms and improvement in functional status at the time of the four-year follow-up compared with patients who had been managed nonoperatively, even though the outcomes with regard to disability and work status in these two groups were comparable.

Efficacy of lumbar discectomy and percutaneous treatments for lumbar disc herniation.

The changing health care environment necessitates careful re-evaluation of all costly elective procedures. Low back surgery is a typical example. This article reviews the current literature addressing the efficacy of surgery and invasive percutaneous treatments for discogenic sciatica. It also discusses the prospects for the continuation of reimbursement for these procedures under a system of managed health care. Relevant articles were identified using the MEDLINE and Current Contents databases, from bibliographies of articles identified from these databases, from recommendations of experts in the field, and from the Canadian Cochrane++ Collaboration. The review includes randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, published practice guidelines and large case series. The literature is classified and discussed in these quality strata. The review includes 9 randomized trials, 6 meta-analyses or review articles, one evidence-based practice guideline, 38 surgical case series and 35 additional references. Though incomplete, the existing evidence indicates that open discectomy shortens the duration of discogenic sciatica in selected patients. Neurologic outcomes are similar in operated and unoperated patients. Predominant leg pain, evidence of nerve root tension and concordant symptoms and imaging findings, are associated with favorable surgical results. Chemonucleolysis is also associated with more rapid pain relief than conservative treatment, but provides less certain benefit than standard discectomy. Available data on other percutaneous disc treatments do not currently support a statement on efficacy. Various percutaneous techniques are available but there is no solid scientific evidence of efficacy. The benefits of open discectomy, principally reduced duration of pain, appear to justify its use in carefully selected patients when discogenic sciatica fails to improve with conservative measures. Though elective, the procedure will probably continue to be available under managed care, but with increasing scrutiny of operative indications.

A pragmatic cost-effectiveness study of routine epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosciatic syndrome requiring inhospital management.

A multicenter randomized study was conducted using a pragmatic approach to evaluate the benefits and costs of routine epidural corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbosciatic syndrome requiring inhospital management. The primary evaluation criterion was whether other treatments were required after one to three injections. The 108 patients were randomly allocated to treatment with or without routine epidural corticosteroids. Rest and a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug were used in all patients. The two groups were comparable at baseline except for a larger proportion of males in the routine epidural corticosteroid group. Patients in the routine epidural corticosteroid group were more likely to require other treatments, but the difference was only of borderline significance after adjustment for gender. Results showed that physicians based their treatment decisions primarily on whether an improvement in the clinical status of the patient was apparent at the second visit. None of the other factors studied influenced treatment decisions. Clinical efficacy criteria were identical in the two groups. Hospital costs contributed most of the total cost, and the mean cost was higher in the routine epidural corticosteroid group. These data suggest that adding an epidural injection as a first-line treatment to rest and a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug for the treatment of lumbosciatic syndrome requiring inhospital management results in additional costs and no gain in efficacy.

MR imaging as the primary modality for neuroradiologic evaluation of the lumbar spine. Effects on cost and number of examinations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects on cost, and number of primary and supplementary neuroradiologic examinations, after introducing MR imaging as the primary modality in the evaluation of the lumbar spine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two 5-month periods were compared: period 1--before MR; and period 2--after introduction of a 2nd MR device. In period 1, patients were examined with myelography and/or CT after referral from specialists only, whereas in period 2 both specialists and general practitioners could refer patients for MR imaging. The direct cost (neuroradiologic methods and hospitalization) and indirect cost (sick-leave and estimated loss of production caused by the diagnostic procedure) were estimated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In period 1, investigations were started in 75 patients (62 myelographies and 13 CT examinations); in period 2, in 227 patients (198 MR, 21 CT, and 8 myelographies). The estimated total cost increased from SEK 825,000 to 1,265,000 (53%), the cost per investigated patient decreasing from 11,000 to 5565 (50%), and the cost of preoperative investigation per operated patient decreasing from 8616 to 5563 (35%). The number of supplementary examinations was unchanged.

Outpatient treatment of lumbar disc sciatica.

Of 47 patients with lumbar disc disease and sciatic radiculopathy (L-5 or S-1), 39 were successfully managed at home and as outpatients in an ambulatory care facility designed for the treatment of arthritis and back pain. When these patients were evaluated one to three years following discharge, they maintained their maximum level of activity and functional improvement noted at discharge. The average total cost per patient including physician's fees, x-rays, laboratory and therapy was approximately equivalent to the day rate for 1(1/2) days in hospital.