Decompression With or Without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis: A Cost Minimization Analysis
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Study Design: Retrospective database review.
Objective: Compare 1-year episode of care costs between single-level decompression and decompression plus fusion for lumbar stenosis.
Summary Of Background Data: Lumbar stenosis is the most common indication for surgery in patients over 65. Medicare direct hospital costs for lumbar surgery reached $1.65 billion in 2007. Despite stenosis being a common indication for surgery, there is debate as to the preferred surgical treatment. Cost-minimization analysis is a framework that identifies potential cost savings between treatment options that have similar outcomes. We performed a cost-minimization analysis of decompression versus decompression with fusion for lumbar stenosis from the payer perspective.
Methods: An administrative claims database of privately insured patients (Humana) identified patients who underwent decompression (n = 5349) or decompression with fusion (n = 8540) for lumbar stenosis with and without spondylolisthesis and compared overall costs. All patients were identified and costs identified for a 1-year period. Complication rates and costs were described using summary statistics.
Results: Mean treatment costs at 1 year after surgery were higher for patients who underwent decompression and fusion compared to patients who underwent decompression alone ($20,892 for fusion vs. $6329 for decompression; P < 0.001). Facility costs (P < 0.001), surgeon costs (P < 0.001), and physical therapy costs (P < 0.001) were higher in the fusion group. Cost differences related to infection or durotomy reached significance (P < 0.04). No difference in cost was identified for supplies.
Conclusion: Decompression had significantly lower costs for the treatment of lumbar stenosis, including treatment for postoperative complications. If cost minimization is the primary goal, decompression is favored for surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis. Other factors including shared decision-making directed toward patient's values, patient-reported outcomes, and preferences should also be recognized as drivers of healthcare decisions.
Level Of Evidence: 3.
Kim J, Park H, Lee C, Kim C Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):3602.
PMID: 39875794 PMC: 11775270. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88068-3.
Longitudinal Analysis of the Care Pathway of Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in the US.
Naidu R, Tran O, Schatman M J Pain Res. 2024; 17:1979-1987.
PMID: 38854929 PMC: 11162185. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S454887.
Cost-effectiveness of a second opinion program on spine surgeries: an economic analysis.
Antonioli E, Malheiro D, Teich V, Dias Paiao I, Neto M, Lenza M BMC Health Serv Res. 2023; 23(1):1441.
PMID: 38115007 PMC: 10731842. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-10405-x.
Lewandrowski K, Yeung A, Lorio M, Yang H, Leon J, Soriano Sanchez J J Pers Med. 2023; 13(5).
PMID: 37240880 PMC: 10219192. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13050710.
Determination of Work Related to Endoscopic Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Lewandrowski K, Lorio M J Pers Med. 2023; 13(4).
PMID: 37109000 PMC: 10143172. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13040614.