File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.21037/jss-20-552
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85098048444
- PMID: 33447674
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Cost analysis comparison between conventional microsurgical decompression and full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis surgery
Title | Cost analysis comparison between conventional microsurgical decompression and full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis surgery |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Endoscopic cost decompression lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) microsurgery |
Issue Date | 2020 |
Publisher | AME Publishing Company. The Journal's web site is located at https://jss.amegroups.com/ |
Citation | Journal of Spine Surgery, 2020, v. 6 n. 4, p. 721-728 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Background: Two of the most commonly used techniques for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) include full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression (MIS) and conventional microsurgical decompression (CD). Although these procedures have proven efficacy for relief of stenotic symptoms, in this age of increased concerns for healthcare cost, weighing the respective accumulative costs is essential for deciding which approach to adopt. The aim of this study is to perform a cost analysis comparison between MIS and CD for LSS. Methods: A decision analysis model comparing MIS and CD for patients with LSS over a 1-year time horizon was conducted. Relevant unit costs associated with each surgical procedure and each possible complication treatment were estimated. Regarding the respective complication rates for each procedure, data was retrieved from the literature. Reoperation was considered for epidural hematoma, inadequate decompression or iatrogenic instability requiring fusion. Nonoperative treatment for complications like infection was also considered. Results: The average total costs for MIS and CD were found to be HKD$54,863 and HKD$52,748 respectively. Both procedures carried similar costs in terms of hospitalization, radiology and routine follow-up visits. A 3.9% (HKD$2,115) difference in total cost was largely due to the differences in cost of surgery and complications. MIS costs 5.7% more than CD for an operation but was 28.1% less costly than MIS for complications. Conclusions: Given the similar clinical effectiveness of either procedure and only a small difference in overall cost, our findings suggest that surgeons should perform the procedure that they are competent with which guarantees adequacy of decompression. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/295902 |
ISSN | 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.045 |
PubMed Central ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Cheung, PWH | - |
dc.contributor.author | Wong, CKH | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lau, ST | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cheung, JPY | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-02-08T08:15:39Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-02-08T08:15:39Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Spine Surgery, 2020, v. 6 n. 4, p. 721-728 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2414-469X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/295902 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Two of the most commonly used techniques for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) include full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression (MIS) and conventional microsurgical decompression (CD). Although these procedures have proven efficacy for relief of stenotic symptoms, in this age of increased concerns for healthcare cost, weighing the respective accumulative costs is essential for deciding which approach to adopt. The aim of this study is to perform a cost analysis comparison between MIS and CD for LSS. Methods: A decision analysis model comparing MIS and CD for patients with LSS over a 1-year time horizon was conducted. Relevant unit costs associated with each surgical procedure and each possible complication treatment were estimated. Regarding the respective complication rates for each procedure, data was retrieved from the literature. Reoperation was considered for epidural hematoma, inadequate decompression or iatrogenic instability requiring fusion. Nonoperative treatment for complications like infection was also considered. Results: The average total costs for MIS and CD were found to be HKD$54,863 and HKD$52,748 respectively. Both procedures carried similar costs in terms of hospitalization, radiology and routine follow-up visits. A 3.9% (HKD$2,115) difference in total cost was largely due to the differences in cost of surgery and complications. MIS costs 5.7% more than CD for an operation but was 28.1% less costly than MIS for complications. Conclusions: Given the similar clinical effectiveness of either procedure and only a small difference in overall cost, our findings suggest that surgeons should perform the procedure that they are competent with which guarantees adequacy of decompression. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | AME Publishing Company. The Journal's web site is located at https://jss.amegroups.com/ | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Spine Surgery | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Endoscopic | - |
dc.subject | cost | - |
dc.subject | decompression | - |
dc.subject | lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) | - |
dc.subject | microsurgery | - |
dc.title | Cost analysis comparison between conventional microsurgical decompression and full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis surgery | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Cheung, PWH: gnuehcp6@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Wong, CKH: carlosho@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Cheung, JPY: cheungjp@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Wong, CKH=rp01931 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Cheung, JPY=rp01685 | - |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.21037/jss-20-552 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 33447674 | - |
dc.identifier.pmcid | PMC7797801 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85098048444 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 321274 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 6 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 721 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 728 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Hong Kong | - |