Literature DB >> 28040872

Cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies of lumbar spinal stenosis in the Swiss setting: analysis of the prospective multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS).

A Aichmair1, J M Burgstaller2, M Schwenkglenks3, J Steurer2, F Porchet4, F Brunner5, M Farshad6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
METHODS: Patients prospectively enrolled in the multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) were calculated based on EQ-5D data. Cost data were retrieved retrospectively. Cost-effectiveness was calculated via decision tree analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 434 patients were included, treated surgically (n = 170) or conservatively (n = 264) for LSS. The majority of surgically treated patients underwent decompression (n = 141, 82.9%), and 17.1% (n = 29) additionally underwent fusion. A reoperation was required in 13 (7.6%) surgically treated patients. In 27 (10.2%) conservatively treated patients, a single infiltration was successful, with no further infiltration or surgery within the follow-up. However, 46 patients (17.4%) required multiple infiltrations, and in 191 (72.4%) initially conservatively treated patients a subsequent surgery was needed. The area under the curve was 0.776 QALY in the surgical arm (0.776 and 0.790, decompression or additional fusion, respectively), compared to 0.778 in the conservative arm. Treatment costs were estimated at CHF 12,958 and 13,637 (USD 13,465 and 14,169) in surgically and initially conservatively treated patients, respectively [base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): CHF 392,145, USD 407,831], per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified surgery as the preferred strategy in 67.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the surgical and the conservative treatment approach resulted in a comparable health-related quality of life within the first year after study inclusion. Due to slightly higher costs, mostly because the majority of initially conservatively treated patients underwent multiple infiltrations or a subsequent surgery, decompressive surgery was identified as the most cost-effective approach for LSS in this setting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conservative; Cost-effectiveness; Decision tree; Health-care economics; Lumbar spinal stenosis; QALY; Surgical

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28040872     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4937-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  19 in total

1.  Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily Blood; Brett Hanscom; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Authors:  Belinda L Udeh; Shrif Costandi; Jarrod E Dalton; Raktim Ghosh; Hani Yousef; Nagy Mekhail
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 3.183

3.  Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets.

Authors:  Ben van Hout; M F Janssen; You-Shan Feng; Thomas Kohlmann; Jan Busschbach; Dominik Golicki; Andrew Lloyd; Luciana Scalone; Paul Kind; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  The Effect of Epidural Steroid Injection on Postoperative Outcome in Patients From the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study.

Authors:  Tamas Fekete; Christoph Woernle; Anne F Mannion; Ulrike Held; Kan Min; Frank Kleinstück; Nils Ulrich; Daniel Haschtmann; Hans-Juergen Becker; Francois Porchet; Robert Theiler; J Steurer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation.

Authors:  J S Fischgrund; M Mackay; H N Herkowitz; R Brower; D M Montgomery; L T Kurz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 6.  Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  Gijsbert M Overdevest; Wilco Jacobs; Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp; Claudius Thomé; Robert Gunzburg; Wilco Peul
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-03-11

7.  The use of epidural steroids in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

Authors:  J M Cuckler; P A Bernini; S W Wiesel; R E Booth; R H Rothman; G T Pickens
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Erland Hermansen; Ulla Kristina Romild; Ivar Magne Austevoll; Tore Solberg; Kjersti Storheim; Jens Ivar Brox; Christian Hellum; Kari Indrekvam
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The cost effectiveness of dynamic and static interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis compared with laminectomy.

Authors:  Mohsen Yaghoubi; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Mohammad Moradi-Joo; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Neda Zamani; Ahmad Naghibzadeh-Tahami
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2016-03-06

Review 10.  Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Fabio Zaina; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Eugene Carragee; Stefano Negrini
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-01-29
View more
  9 in total

1.  Letter to the Editor concerning "Cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies of lumbar spinal stenosis in the Swiss setting: analysis of the prospective multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS)" by A. Aichmair et al. (Eur Spine J; 2016. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4937-y).

Authors:  Martín Avellanal
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Correlation of texture analysis of paraspinal musculature on MRI with different clinical endpoints: Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS).

Authors:  Manoj Mannil; Jakob M Burgstaller; Ulrike Held; Mazda Farshad; Roman Guggenberger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Texture analysis of paraspinal musculature in MRI of the lumbar spine: analysis of the lumbar stenosis outcome study (LSOS) data.

Authors:  Manoj Mannil; Jakob M Burgstaller; Arjun Thanabalasingam; Sebastian Winklhofer; Michael Betz; Ulrike Held; Roman Guggenberger
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 4.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review : A survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  The impact of obesity measured by outer abdominal fat on instability of the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation.

Authors:  Maximilian Lenz; Carolin Meyer; Christoph Kolja Boese; Jan Siewe; Peer Eysel; Max Joseph Scheyerer
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2018-07-04

Review 7.  Cost-effectiveness and Safety of Interspinous Process Decompression (Superion).

Authors:  Kevin Cairns; Tim Deer; Dawood Sayed; Kim van Noort; Kevin Liang
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 3.750

8.  How is spinal range of motion affected by disc- and facet degeneration and spinopelvic anatomy?

Authors:  Mazda Farshad; Alexander Aichmair; Tobias Götschi; Marco Senteler; Lukas Urbanschitz
Journal:  N Am Spine Soc J       Date:  2021-09-01

9.  Evaluation of the EQ-5D-3L and 5L versions in low back pain patients.

Authors:  A M Garratt; H Furunes; C Hellum; T Solberg; J I Brox; K Storheim; L G Johnsen
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 3.186

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.