Literature DB >> 10214575

Cost effectiveness evaluation of ADCON-L adhesion control gel in lumbar surgery.

D S McKinley1, L M Shaffer.   

Abstract

Patients, physicians and third-party payers are becoming increasingly concerned with the economic burden resulting from advances in health care. Many economic health studies have focused on patients with sciatica and low back pain. An Economic Survey was conducted on lumbar discectomy patients who had been enrolled at least 12 months prior in a prospective randomized controlled clinical study of the adhesion control device ADCON-L. The survey measured patient satisfaction, return to work, additional medical treatment and medications after surgery. In addition, the duration of any re-operations from patients in the clinical study was analyzed. The results of the Economic Survey and re-operation time analysis show significant advantages for lumbar discectomy patients who received ADCON-L compared to control patients who did not. Patients who received ADCON-L not only had less scarring and less back pain than control patients but also were more satisfied with their surgeries and were able to return to work more often, as originally planned (p = 0.02). In addition, ADCON-L patients returned to their original jobs an average of 3.6 days sooner, changed jobs 50% less often, did not seek additional medical treatment as often, and took 20% less pain medication than did control patients (p = 0.01). In addition, patients receiving ADCON-L who required subsequent re-operation at the same lumbar space (e.g., reherniation) had a significantly shorter duration of secondary surgery (56.6 min vs. 130 min, p = 0.001) compared to patients who did not receive ADCON-L at the first surgery. Overall, ADCON-L patients demonstrated significant clinical and economic advantages over control patients. If all lumbar surgical patients in the US were to receive ADCON-L, annual savings to the health care system would exceed one half billion dollars.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10214575     DOI: 10.1080/01616412.1999.11741030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurol Res        ISSN: 0161-6412            Impact factor:   2.448


  4 in total

Review 1.  Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse.

Authors:  J N A Gibson; G Waddell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

2.  Prevention of epidural scarring after microdiscectomy: a randomized clinical trial comparing gel and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane.

Authors:  Gerd M Ivanic; Peter T Pink; Frank Schneider; Markus Stuecker; Nicolaus C Homann; Klaus W Preidler
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

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

Authors:  Wilbert B van den Hout; Wilco C Peul; Bart W Koes; Ronald Brand; Job Kievit; Ralph T W M Thomeer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-23

4.  Is the use of hemostatic matrix (Floseal) and alkylene oxide copolymer (Ostene) safe in spinal laminectomies? Peridural fibrosis assessment.

Authors:  Oktay Gurcan; Ahmet Gurhan Gurcay; Atilla Kazanci; Evrim Onder; Salim Senturk; Murad Bavbek
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 1.511

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.