Literature DB >> 28205332

Explantation Rates and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Jing L Han1, Kelly R Murphy1, Syed Mohammed Qasim Hussaini1, Siyun Yang2, Beth Parente1, Jichun Xie2, Promila Pagadala1, Shivanand P Lad1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Certain patients ultimately undergo explantation of their spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices. Understanding the predictors and rates of SCS explantation has important implications for healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and pain management. The present study identifies explant predictors and discerns differences in HCRU for at-risk populations.
METHODS: We designed a large, retrospective analysis using the Truven MarketScan Database. We included all adult patients who underwent a SCS trial from 2007 to 2012. Patients were grouped into cohorts that remained explant-free or underwent explantation over a three-year period, and multivariate models evaluated differences in healthcare resource utilization.
RESULTS: A total of 8727 unique instances of trial implants between 2007 and 2012 were identified. Overall, 805 (9.2%) patients underwent device explantation. One year prior to SCS implantation, the explant cohort had significantly higher median baseline costs ($42,140.3 explant vs. $27,821.7 in non-explant groups; p < 0.0001), total number of pain encounters (180 vs. 103 p < 0.0001), and associated costs ($15,446.9 vs. $9,227.9; p < 0.0001). The explant cohort demonstrated increased use of procedures (19.0 vs. 9.0; p < 0.0001) compared to non-explanted patients. For each month after initial SCS implantation, explanted patients had a slower decrease in total costs (4% vs. 6% in non-explant; p < 0.01). At the month of explant, explant patients were expected to have incurred 2.65 times the total cost compared to the non-explant cohort (CR 2.65, 95% CI [1.83, 3.84]; p < 0.001). Medium volume providers had lower rates of explantation at one-year and three-years compared to low volume providers (p = 0.042). Increased age and Charlson index were independent predictors of explantation during the same periods.
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide analysis, we identified that SCS device explantation is correlated with patients who have higher baseline costs, higher total cost post-SCS implantation, and increased use of procedures to control pain. The higher rates of explantation at three-years postimplant among low volume providers suggest that variations in provider experience and approach also contributes to differences in explantation rates.
© 2017 International Neuromodulation Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic pain; device explantation; explant rate; healthcare resource utilization; spinal cord stimulator

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28205332      PMCID: PMC5464976          DOI: 10.1111/ner.12567

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuromodulation        ISSN: 1094-7159


  30 in total

1.  Factors affecting spinal cord stimulation outcome in chronic benign pain with suggestions to improve success rate.

Authors:  K Kumar; J R Wilson
Journal:  Acta Neurochir Suppl       Date:  2007

Review 2.  Chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Andrew K Simpson; Jacek Cholewicki; Jonathan Grauer
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2006-12

3.  Spinal cord stimulation in treatment of chronic benign pain: challenges in treatment planning and present status, a 22-year experience.

Authors:  Krishna Kumar; Gary Hunter; Denny Demeria
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 4.  Safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain: a 20-year literature review.

Authors:  Tracy Cameron
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.115

5.  A socioeconomic survey of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) surgery.

Authors:  Shivanand P Lad; Paul S Kalanithi; Robert T Arrigo; Chirag G Patil; Jay K Nathan; Maxwell Boakye; Jaimie M Henderson
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2010-10

6.  Longer Delay From Chronic Pain to Spinal Cord Stimulation Results in Higher Healthcare Resource Utilization.

Authors:  Shivanand P Lad; Frank W Petraglia; Alexander R Kent; Steven Cook; Kelly R Murphy; Nirav Dalal; Edward Karst; Peter Staats; Ashwini Sharan
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2016-02-29

Review 7.  Treatment-Limiting Complications of Percutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulator Implants: A Review of Eight Years of Experience From an Academic Center Database.

Authors:  Salim M Hayek; Elias Veizi; Michael Hanes
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2015-06-05

8.  Four Year Follow-up of Dual Electrode Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Kenneth M Aló; Vladimir Redko; Jeffery Charnov
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2002-04

9.  Incidence of clinically significant percutaneous spinal cord stimulator lead migration.

Authors:  Halena M Gazelka; Eric D Freeman; W Michael Hooten; Jason S Eldrige; Bryan C Hoelzer; William D Mauck; Susan M Moeschler; Matthew J Pingree; Richard H Rho; Tim J Lamer
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2014-05-05

10.  Factors associated with the success of trial spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain from failed back surgery syndrome.

Authors:  Byung-Chul Son; Deok-Ryeong Kim; Sang-Won Lee; Chung-Kee Chough
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2013-12-31
View more
  4 in total

1.  Images in Practice: Replacement of an 18-Year-Old Spinal Cord Stimulator Paddle Lead with Cylindrical Leads Under Direct Visualization.

Authors:  Philip M Shumsky; Christopher S Wie; John A Freeman; Omar Viswanath; Naresh P Patel
Journal:  Pain Ther       Date:  2020-07-04

2.  Burst spinal cord stimulation for central neuropathic pain: Two case reports.

Authors:  Lim-Joon Yoon; Deok-Yeong Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 3.  Multidisciplinary Firms and the Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Case Study of Low Back Pain.

Authors:  Julie G Pilitsis; Olga Khazen; Nikolai G Wenzel
Journal:  Front Pain Res (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-11-10

4.  60-Day PNS Treatment May Improve Identification of Delayed Responders and Delayed Non-Responders to Neurostimulation for Pain Relief.

Authors:  Ramana Naidu; Sean Li; Mehul J Desai; Samir Sheth; Nathan D Crosby; Joseph W Boggs
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 3.133

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.