Premium
A Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy Compared with Circumferential Lumbar Fusion
Author(s) -
Stamuli Eugena,
Kesornsak Withawin,
Grevitt Michael P.,
Posnett John,
Claxton Karl
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
pain practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.899
H-Index - 58
eISSN - 1533-2500
pISSN - 1530-7085
DOI - 10.1111/papr.12641
Subject(s) - medicine , oswestry disability index , low back pain , lumbar , randomized controlled trial , physical therapy , cost effectiveness , visual analogue scale , back pain , surgery , quality adjusted life year , quality of life (healthcare) , risk analysis (engineering) , alternative medicine , pathology , nursing
Study Design Cost‐effectiveness analysis. Objective To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of intradiscal electrothermal therapy ( IDET ) relative to circumferential lumbar fusion with femoral ring allograft ( FRA ) in the United Kingdom. Summary of Background Data Circumferential lumbar fusion is an established treatment for discogenic low back pain. However, IDET could be a cost‐effective treatment alternative as it can be carried out as a day case. Methods Patient‐level data were available for patients with discogenic low back pain treated with FRA ( n = 37) in a randomized trial of FRA vs. titanium cage, and for patients recruited to a separate study evaluating the use of IDET ( n = 85). Both studies were carried out at a single institution in the United Kingdom. Patients were followed‐up for 24 months, with data collected on low back disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back and leg pain (visual analog scale), quality of life (Short Form 36), radiographic evaluations, and U.K. National Health Service ( NHS ) resource use. Cost‐effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life year ( QALY ) gained. Results Both treatments produced statistically significant improvements in outcome at 24‐month follow‐up. NHS costs were significantly lower with IDET due to a shorter mean procedure time (377.4 minutes vs. 49.9 minutes) and length of stay (7 days vs. 1.2 days). At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY , the probability that IDET is cost effective is high. Conclusions Both treatments led to significant improvements in patient outcomes that were sustained for at least 24 months. Costs were lower with IDET , and for appropriate patients IDET is an effective and cost‐effective treatment alternative.