The 2-year Cost-effectiveness of 3 Options to Treat Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients

Overview

Journal Pain Pract

Specialties Neurology
Psychiatry

Date 2014 Jan 8

PMID 24393198

Citations 14

Authors

Belinda L Udeh

Shrif Costandi

Jarrod E Dalton

Raktim Ghosh

Hani Yousef

Nagy Mekhail

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) may result from degenerative changes of the spine, which lead to neural ischemia, neurogenic claudication, and a significant decrease in quality of life. Treatments for LSS range from conservative management including epidural steroid injections (ESI) to laminectomy surgery. Treatments vary greatly in cost and success. ESI is the least costly treatment may be successful for early stages of LSS but often must be repeated frequently. Laminectomy surgery is more costly and has higher complication rates. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild(®) ) is an alternative. Using a decision-analytic model from the Medicare perspective, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing mild(®) to ESI or laminectomy surgery. The analysis population included patients with LSS who have moderate to severe symptoms and have failed conservative therapy. Costs included initial procedure, complications, and repeat/revision or alternate procedure after failure. Effects measured as change in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from preprocedure to 2 years postprocedure. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined, and sensitivity analysis conducted. The mild(®) strategy appears to be the most cost-effective ($43,760/QALY), with ESI the next best alternative at an additional $37,758/QALY. Laminectomy surgery was the least cost-effective ($125,985/QALY).

Citing Articles

Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Hospital Outpatient Versus Ambulatory Surgery Center Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

Rana P, Brennan J, Johnson A, Patton C, Turcotte J Global Spine J. 2024; :21925682241290171.

PMID: 39370415 PMC: 11559905. DOI: 10.1177/21925682241290171.

Recovery Kinetics After Commonly Performed Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Procedures.

Shinn D, Mok J, Vaishnav A, Louie P, Sivaganesan A, Shahi P Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022; 47(21):1489-1496.

PMID: 35867600 PMC: 11905977. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004399.

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery.

Eseonu K, Oduoza U, Monem M, Tahir M Int J Spine Surg. 2022; .

PMID: 35835570 PMC: 9421209. DOI: 10.14444/8297.

Effects of calcitonin addition on epidural injection in patients with degenerative spinal canal stenosis: a randomized double blind clinical trial.

Rahimzadeh P, Mahdavi S, Mahmoudi K, Ghandhari H, Babashahi A, Zandi P Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2022; 49(6):470-476.

PMID: 35110026 PMC: 9472690. DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2021.1172.

The durability of minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: Long-term follow-up.

Mekhail N, Costandi S, Nageeb G, Ekladios C, Saied O Pain Pract. 2021; 21(8):826-835.

PMID: 33942964 PMC: 9291913. DOI: 10.1111/papr.13020.

References

Mekhail N, Vallejo R, Coleman M, Benyamin R . Long-term results of percutaneous lumbar decompression mild(®) for spinal stenosis. Pain Pract. 2011; 12(3):184-93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00481.x. View

Lingreen R, Grider J . Retrospective review of patient self-reported improvement and post-procedure findings for mild (minimally invasive lumbar decompression). Pain Physician. 2010; 13(6):555-60. View

Malter A, McNeney B, Loeser J, Deyo R . 5-year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998; 23(7):814-20. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199804010-00015. View

Mekhail N, Costandi S, Abraham B, Samuel S . Functional and patient-reported outcomes in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis following percutaneous decompression. Pain Pract. 2012; 12(6):417-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00565.x. View

Burnett M, Stein S, Bartels R . Cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: nonsurgical care, laminectomy, and X-STOP. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010; 13(1):39-46. DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09552. View

Weinstein M, Siegel J, Gold M, Kamlet M, Russell L . Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996; 276(15):1253-8. View

Katz J, Harris M . Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(8):818-25. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp0708097. View

Kuntz K, Snider R, Weinstein J, Pope M, Katz J . Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(9):1132-9. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200005010-00015. View

Deyo R, Mirza S, Martin B, Kreuter W, Goodman D, Jarvik J . Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010; 303(13):1259-65. PMC: 2885954. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.338. View

10.

Whynes D, McCahon R, Ravenscroft A, Hardman J . Cost effectiveness of epidural steroid injections to manage chronic lower back pain. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012; 12:26. PMC: 3468401. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2253-12-26. View

11.

Tosteson A, Lurie J, Tosteson T, Skinner J, Herkowitz H, Albert T . Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149(12):845-53. PMC: 2658642. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00003. View

12.

Brown L . A double-blind, randomized, prospective study of epidural steroid injection vs. the mild® procedure in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Pain Pract. 2012; 12(5):333-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00518.x. View

13.

Deer T, Kapural L . New image-guided ultra-minimally invasive lumbar decompression method: the mild procedure. Pain Physician. 2010; 13(1):35-41. View

14.

McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer A . The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(9):733-44. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004. View

15.

Kim S, Hedjri S, Coyte P, Rampersaud Y . Cost-utility of lumbar decompression with or without fusion for patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J. 2011; 12(1):44-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.10.004. View

16.

Carreon L, Glassman S, McDonough C, Rampersaud R, Berven S, Shainline M . Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the Oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(19):2085-9. PMC: 3504506. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a93ea6. View

17.

Tosteson A, Tosteson T, Lurie J, Abdu W, Herkowitz H, Andersson G . Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(24):2061-8. PMC: 3472956. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318235457b. View

18.

Kalichman L, Cole R, Kim D, Li L, Suri P, Guermazi A . Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham Study. Spine J. 2009; 9(7):545-50. PMC: 3775665. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.005. View

19.

Briggs A, OBrien B, Blackhouse G . Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002; 23:377-401. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140534. View

20.

Parker S, Fulchiero E, Davis B, Adogwa O, Aaronson O, Cheng J . Cost-effectiveness of multilevel hemilaminectomy for lumbar stenosis-associated radiculopathy. Spine J. 2011; 11(8):705-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.04.024. View