Prudence Wing Hang Cheung1, Carlos King Ho Wong2,3, Sin Ting Lau1, Jason Pui Yin Cheung1,4. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, China. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 3. Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 4. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two of the most commonly used techniques for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) include full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression (MIS) and conventional microsurgical decompression (CD). Although these procedures have proven efficacy for relief of stenotic symptoms, in this age of increased concerns for healthcare cost, weighing the respective accumulative costs is essential for deciding which approach to adopt. The aim of this study is to perform a cost analysis comparison between MIS and CD for LSS. METHODS: A decision analysis model comparing MIS and CD for patients with LSS over a 1-year time horizon was conducted. Relevant unit costs associated with each surgical procedure and each possible complication treatment were estimated. Regarding the respective complication rates for each procedure, data was retrieved from the literature. Reoperation was considered for epidural hematoma, inadequate decompression or iatrogenic instability requiring fusion. Nonoperative treatment for complications like infection was also considered. RESULTS: The average total costs for MIS and CD were found to be HKD$54,863 and HKD$52,748 respectively. Both procedures carried similar costs in terms of hospitalization, radiology and routine follow-up visits. A 3.9% (HKD$2,115) difference in total cost was largely due to the differences in cost of surgery and complications. MIS costs 5.7% more than CD for an operation but was 28.1% less costly than MIS for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Given the similar clinical effectiveness of either procedure and only a small difference in overall cost, our findings suggest that surgeons should perform the procedure that they are competent with which guarantees adequacy of decompression. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Two of the most commonly used techniques for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) include full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression (MIS) and conventional microsurgical decompression (CD). Although these procedures have proven efficacy for relief of stenotic symptoms, in this age of increased concerns for healthcare cost, weighing the respective accumulative costs is essential for deciding which approach to adopt. The aim of this study is to perform a cost analysis comparison between MIS and CD for LSS. METHODS: A decision analysis model comparing MIS and CD for patients with LSS over a 1-year time horizon was conducted. Relevant unit costs associated with each surgical procedure and each possible complication treatment were estimated. Regarding the respective complication rates for each procedure, data was retrieved from the literature. Reoperation was considered for epidural hematoma, inadequate decompression or iatrogenic instability requiring fusion. Nonoperative treatment for complications like infection was also considered. RESULTS: The average total costs for MIS and CD were found to be HKD$54,863 and HKD$52,748 respectively. Both procedures carried similar costs in terms of hospitalization, radiology and routine follow-up visits. A 3.9% (HKD$2,115) difference in total cost was largely due to the differences in cost of surgery and complications. MIS costs 5.7% more than CD for an operation but was 28.1% less costly than MIS for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Given the similar clinical effectiveness of either procedure and only a small difference in overall cost, our findings suggest that surgeons should perform the procedure that they are competent with which guarantees adequacy of decompression. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna Tosteson; Emily Blood; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
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
Authors: Carlo Ammendolia; Kent Stuber; Linda K de Bruin; Andrea D Furlan; Carol A Kennedy; Yoga Raja Rampersaud; Ivan A Steenstra; Victoria Pennick Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Leonid Kalichman; Robert Cole; David H Kim; Ling Li; Pradeep Suri; Ali Guermazi; David J Hunter Journal: Spine J Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Karen Ka Man Ng; Prudence Wing Hang Cheung; Dino Samartzis; Kenneth Man Chee Cheung Journal: Scoliosis Spinal Disord Date: 2017-02-20