Dataset Information

Direct medical costs after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal disease: A nationwide matched cohort study with a 10-year follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The demand for treating degenerative lumbar spinal disease has been increasing, leading to increased utilization of medical resources. Thus, we need to understand how the budget of insurance is currently used. The objective of the present study is to overview the utilization of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) by providing the direct insured cost between patients receiving surgery and patients receiving nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

The NHIS-National Sample Cohort was utilized to select patients with lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or spondylolysis. A matched cohort study design was used to show direct medical costs of surgery (n = 2,698) and nonsurgical (n = 2,698) cohorts. Non-surgical treatment included medication, physiotherapy, injection, and chiropractic. The monthly costs of the surgery cohort and nonsurgical cohort were presented at initial treatment, posttreatment 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and yearly thereafter for 10 years.

Results

The characteristics and matching factors were well-balanced between the matched cohorts. Overall, surgery cohort spent $50.84/patient/month, while the nonsurgical cohort spent $29.34/patient/month (p<0.01). Initially, surgery treatment led to more charge to NHIS ($2,762) than nonsurgical treatment ($180.4) (p<0.01). Compared with the non-surgical cohort, the surgery cohort charged $33/month more for the first 3 months, charged less at 12 months, and charged approximately the same over the course of 10 years.

Conclusion

Surgical treatment initially led to more government reimbursement than nonsurgical treatment, but the charges during follow-up period were not different. The results of the present study should be interpreted in light of the costs of medical services, indirect costs, societal cost, quality of life and societal willingness to pay in each country. The monetary figures are implied to be actual economic costs but those in the reimbursement system instead reflect reimbursement charges from the government.

SUBMITTER: Kim CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8635587 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundManagement of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is controversial. Surgery is widely used, but its effectiveness in comparison with that of nonsurgical treatment has not been demonstrated in controlled trials.MethodsSurgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 U.S. states who had at least 12 weeks of symptoms and image-confirmed degenerative spondylolisthesis were offered enrollment in a randomized cohort or an observational cohort. Treatment was standard decompressive laminectomy (with or without fusion) or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcome measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scores (100-point scales, with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (100-point scale, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years.ResultsWe enrolled 304 patients in the randomized cohort and 303 in the observational cohort. The baseline characteristics of the two cohorts were similar. The one-year crossover rates were high in the randomized cohort (approximately 40% in each direction) but moderate in the observational cohort (17% crossover to surgery and 3% crossover to nonsurgical care). The intention-to-treat analysis for the randomized cohort showed no statistically significant effects for the primary outcomes. The as-treated analysis for both cohorts combined showed a significant advantage for surgery at 3 months that increased at 1 year and diminished only slightly at 2 years. The treatment effects at 2 years were 18.1 for bodily pain (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5 to 21.7), 18.3 for physical function (95% CI, 14.6 to 21.9), and -16.7 for the Oswestry Disability Index (95% CI, -19.5 to -13.9). There was little evidence of harm from either treatment.ConclusionsIn nonrandomized as-treated comparisons with careful control for potentially confounding baseline factors, patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis treated surgically showed substantially greater improvement in pain and function during a period of 2 years than patients treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000409 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Project description:BackgroundDebate regarding effectiveness of surgical modalities contributes to a lack of consensus of decision making for surgical interventions. Furthermore, data regarding cost effectiveness, surgical operative time, resources, patient hospital stay and recovery is limited, particularly in the medium term for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The objective was to compare clinical outcomes following different fixation interventions treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsA retrospective cohort study using the British Spine Registry (BSR) of 1,838 patients aged ≥18 years. Five hundred and five patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and 1,333 undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with 6 months follow-up, were compared. Demographics, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) [back and leg], quality of life, complications and cost effectiveness were analysed.ResultsNRS (back and leg) demonstrated a statistically significant difference favouring TLIF at 6 months (P=0.04) and (P<0.05) respectively. There was no difference in ODI improvement at 6 months between PLIF and TLIF (P=0.620), but there was a statistically significant difference in ODI scores preoperatively between PLIF and TLIF (P<0.001). EQ-5D-5L-Health VAS (P=0.136) and EQ-5D-5L (P=0.655) did not show a statistically significant difference in improvement between PLIF and TLIF. Dural tear was the most common complication and was higher in the PLIF group (5.7%) but not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss was greater for PLIF (P=0.041). Implant cost (P<0.001) was higher for TLIF whereas theatre time was higher for PLIF (P=0.031).ConclusionsBoth PLIF and TLIF result in clinically significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain and NRS leg pain, with superiority of TLIF for improvements in back and leg pain. Surgeons appeared to use ODI preoperatively to decide intervention with comparable improvements for both approaches. Average theatre time and blood loss volume was higher for PLIF. Factors like implant costs and costs of consumables were higher for TLIF. Costs merit further evaluation.