Suppr超能文献

减压融合与非融合治疗腰椎狭窄症的成本最小化分析。

Decompression With or Without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis: A Cost Minimization Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

出版信息

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Mar 1;45(5):325-332. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003250.

Abstract

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

摘要

研究设计

回顾性数据库研究。

目的

比较单节段减压与减压融合治疗腰椎狭窄症的 1 年治疗费用。

背景资料概要

腰椎狭窄症是 65 岁以上患者最常见的手术指征。2007 年,医疗保险直接用于腰椎手术的费用达到 16.5 亿美元。尽管狭窄症是手术的常见指征,但对于首选的手术治疗仍存在争议。成本最小化分析是一种确定具有相似结果的治疗方案之间潜在成本节约的框架。我们从支付者的角度对腰椎狭窄症的减压与减压融合治疗进行了成本最小化分析。

方法

一项私人保险公司(Humana)的行政索赔数据库确定了因腰椎狭窄症接受减压术(n=5349)或减压融合术(n=8540)的患者,这些患者伴或不伴脊椎滑脱,并比较了总体费用。所有患者均被识别并在 1 年内确定了费用。使用汇总统计数据描述并发症发生率和费用。

结果

术后 1 年,接受减压融合术的患者的治疗费用高于接受单纯减压术的患者(融合术为 20892 美元,减压术为 6329 美元;P<0.001)。融合组的设施费用(P<0.001)、外科医生费用(P<0.001)和物理治疗费用(P<0.001)更高。感染或硬脊膜切开术相关的成本差异具有统计学意义(P<0.04)。耗材费用无差异。

结论

对于腰椎狭窄症的治疗,减压术的成本明显更低,包括术后并发症的治疗。如果以成本最小化为主要目标,减压术是治疗腰椎狭窄症的首选。其他因素,包括以患者价值观为导向的共同决策、患者报告的结果和偏好,也应被视为医疗决策的驱动因素。

证据等级

3。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验