4.5 Article

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome An Observational Study in a Workers' Compensation Population

Journal

SPINE
Volume 36, Issue 24, Pages 2076-2083

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a867c

Keywords

cost-benefit analysis; cost-effectiveness; failed back surgery syndrome; spinal cord stimulation; workers' compensation

Funding

  1. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries [K311]
  2. MRC [G0800800, G0802413] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0802413, G0800800] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study Design. Prospective cohort study. Objective. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) among workers' compensation recipients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Summary of Background Data. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence suggests that SCS is more effective at 6 months than medical management for patients with FBSS. However, procedure costs are high and workers' compensation claimants often have worse outcomes than other patients. Methods. We enrolled 158 FBSS patients receiving workers' compensation into three treatment groups: trial SCS with or without permanent device implant (n = 51), pain clinic (PC) evaluation with or without treatment (n = 39), and usual care (UC; n = 68). The primary outcome was a composite measure of pain, disability and opioid medication use. As reported previously, 5% of SCS patients, 3% of PC patients and 10% of UC patients achieved the primary outcome at 24 months. Using cost data from administrative databases, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of SCS, adjusting for baseline covariates. Results. Mean medical cost per SCS patient over 24 months was $52,091. This was $17,291 (95% confidence intervals [CI], $4100-30,490) higher than in the PC group and $28,128 ($17,620-38,630) higher than in the UC group. Adjusting for baseline covariates, the mean total medical and productivity loss costs per patient of the SCS group were $20,074 ($3840-35,990) higher than those of the PC group and $29,358 ($16,070-43,790) higher than those of the UC group. SCS was very unlikely (< 5% probability) to be the most cost-effective intervention. Conclusion. In this sample of workers' compensation recipients, the high procedure cost of SCS was not counterbalanced by lower costs of subsequent care, and SCS was not cost-effective. The benefits and potential cost savings reported in RCTs may not be replicated in workers' compensation patients treated in community settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available