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)

被引:23
|
作者
Aichmair, A. [1 ]
Burgstaller, J. M. [2 ]
Schwenkglenks, M. [3 ]
Steurer, J. [2 ]
Porchet, F. [4 ]
Brunner, F. [5 ]
Farshad, M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Balgrist Univ Hosp, Spine Div, Dept Orthopaed, Forchstr 340, CH-8008 Zurich, Switzerland
[2] Univ Zurich, Horten Ctr Patient Oriented Res & Knowledge Trans, Zurich, Switzerland
[3] Univ Zurich, Epidemiol Biostat & Prevent Inst, Zurich, Switzerland
[4] Schulthess Clin, Dept Orthoped & Neurosurg, Spine Ctr, Zurich, Switzerland
[5] Univ Zurich, Balgrist Univ Hosp, Dept Phys Med & Rheumatol, Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
Cost-effectiveness; Conservative; Surgical; Decision tree; Health-care economics; QALY; Lumbar spinal stenosis; LAMINECTOMY; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS;
D O I
10.1007/s00586-016-4937-y
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). 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. 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%. 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.
引用
收藏
页码:501 / 509
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] (COST) EFFECTIVENESS OF SURGERY VERSUS PROLONGED CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT IN LUMBAR STENOSIS: DESIGN OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
    Overdevest, G.
    Vleggeert-Lankamp, C.
    Luijsterburg, P.
    Brand, R.
    Eekhof, J.
    Westendorp, R.
    van den Hout, W.
    Jacobs, W.
    Bierma-Zeinstra, S.
    Koes, B.
    Peul, W.
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2010, 18 : S230 - S231
  • [32] Lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study - Point of view
    Turner, JA
    SPINE, 2000, 25 (11) : 1435 - 1436
  • [33] Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Spinal Stenosis
    Harrop, James S.
    Hilibrand, Alan
    Mihalovich, Kathryn E.
    Dettori, Joseph R.
    Chapman, Jens
    SPINE, 2014, 39 (22S) : S75 - S85
  • [34] Cochrane in CORR®: Surgical Versus Non-surgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Aleem, Ilyas S.
    Drew, Brian
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2017, 475 (11) : 2632 - 2637
  • [35] Cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: nonsurgical care, laminectomy, and X-STOP Clinical article
    Burnett, Mark G.
    Stein, Sherman C.
    Bartels, Ronald H. M. A.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2010, 13 (01) : 39 - 46
  • [36] The Influence of Pre- and Postoperative Fear Avoidance Beliefs on Postoperative Pain and Disability in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Analysis of the Lumbar Spinal Outcome Study (LSOS) Data
    Burgstaller, Jakob M.
    Wertli, Maria M.
    Steurer, Johann
    Kessels, Alfons G. H.
    Held, Ulrike
    Gramke, Hans-Fritz
    SPINE, 2017, 42 (07) : E425 - E432
  • [37] Results in the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: A retrospective analysis
    Feldmann, J.
    Koenig, F. A.
    Schultz, W.
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ORTHOPADIE UND UNFALLCHIRURGIE, 2007, 145 (06): : 729 - 735
  • [38] Clinical Effectiveness of Conservative Treatments on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis
    Chen, Xuanwei
    Zheng, Zhizhan
    Lin, Jianhua
    FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY, 2022, 13
  • [39] Lumbar spinal surgery improves locomotive syndrome in elderly patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis: A multicenter prospective study
    Fujita, Nobuyuki
    Michikawa, Takehiro
    Miyamoto, Azusa
    Sakurai, Aiko
    Otaka, Yohei
    Suzuki, Satoshi
    Tsuji, Osahiko
    Nagoshi, Narihito
    Okada, Eijiro
    Yagi, Mitsuru
    Tsuji, Takashi
    Kono, Hitoshi
    Ishii, Ken
    Nakamura, Masaya
    Matsumoto, Morio
    Watanabe, Kota
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SCIENCE, 2020, 25 (02) : 213 - 218
  • [40] Effectiveness of surgery versus conservative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: A system review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Ma, Xin-long
    Zhao, Xing-wen
    Ma, Jian-xiong
    Li, Fei
    Wang, Yin
    Lu, Bin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 44 : 329 - 338