Literature DB >> 15094539

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.

Peter Fritzell1, Olle Hägg, Dick Jonsson, Anders Nordwall.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the societal and health care perspectives.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs-effectiveness of lumbar fusion for chronic low back pain (CLBP) during a 2-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A full economic evaluation comparing costs related to treatment effects in patients with CLBP is lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 284 of 294 patients with CLBP for at least 2 years were randomized to either lumbar fusion or a nonsurgical control group. Costs for the health care sector (direct costs), and costs associated with production losses (indirect costs) were calculated. Societal total costs were identified as the sum of direct and indirect costs. Treatment effects were measured using patient global assessment of improvement, back pain (VAS), functional disability (Owestry), and return to work.
RESULTS: The societal total cost per patient (standard deviations) in the surgical group was significantly higher than in the nonsurgical group: Swedish kroner (SEK) 704,000 (254,000) vs. SEK 636,000 (208,000). The cost per patient for the health care sector was significantly higher for the surgical group, SEK 123,000 (60,100) vs. 65,200 (38,400) for the control group. All treatment effects were significantly better after surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), illustrating the extra cost per extra effect unit gained by using fusion instead of nonsurgical treatment, were for improvement: SEK 2,600 (600-5,900), for back pain: SEK 5,200 (1,100-11,500), for Oswestry: SEK 11,300 (1,200-48,000), and for return to work: SEK 4,100 (100-21,400).
CONCLUSION: For both the society and the health care sectors, the 2-year costs for lumbar fusion was significantly higher compared with nonsurgical treatment but all treatment effects were significantly in favor of surgery. The probability of lumbar fusion being cost-effective increased with the value put on extra effect units gained by using surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15094539     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000102681.61791.12

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  34 in total

1.  Fusion as treatment for chronic low back pain--existing evidence, the scientific frontier and research strategies.

Authors:  Peter Fritzell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-03-01       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  A practical approach to spine registers in Europe: the Swedish experience.

Authors:  Peter Fritzell; Björn Strömqvist; Olle Hägg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Economic evaluations: a new avenue of outcome assessment in spinal disorders.

Authors:  Nicole van der Roer; Norbert Boos; Maurits W van Tulder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno 2005.

Authors:  Rikke Soegaard; Finn B Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  T Ibrahim; I M Tleyjeh; O Gabbar
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-11-21       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  [Lumbar disc arthroplasty: indications, biomechanics, types, and radiological criteria].

Authors:  A Baur-Melnyk; C Birkenmaier; M F Reiser
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration.

Authors:  Matthias Bothmann; Erich Kast; Gerald Jens Boldt; Joachim Oberle
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2007-09-29       Impact factor: 3.042

8.  [Mid-term outcome after fusion due to isthmic spondylolysis].

Authors:  Gerd M Ivanic; Peter T Pink; Sven Ziegler; Bernd Harter; Frank Schneider; Florian Plattner; Nikolaus C Homann
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2007-01

9.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  A Christensen; K Høy; C Bünger; P Helmig; E S Hansen; T Andersen; R Søgaard
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Using disablement models and clinical outcomes assessment to enable evidence-based athletic training practice, part II: clinical outcomes assessment.

Authors:  Tamara C Valovich McLeod; Alison R Snyder; John T Parsons; R Curtis Bay; Lori A Michener; Eric L Sauers
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.