Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fenestration surgery in the Japanese universal health insurance system

Surgical Outcomes and Medical Costs Associated with Spinal Cord Tumors: Comparison of Extramedullary and Intramedullary Tumors

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to clarify the differences in the perioperative data of patients with extramedullary and intramedullary tumors and estimate the impact of surgery on medical costs.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent spinal tumor resection between September 2020 and December 2022. The perioperative medical information and medical costs for individual patients were obtained from their medical records.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients with extramedullary spinal cord tumors and 18 with intramedullary spinal cord tumors were included in the study. The 2 groups had no difference in surgery-related or major systemic complications. However, the operation time and the length of hospital stay were significantly longer and activities of daily living at discharge tended to worsen in the intramedullary tumor group compared to those in the extramedullary tumor group. As a result, the discharge outcome was significantly different between the 2 groups. The total medical costs for intramedullary tumors were approximately 1.43 times higher than those for extramedullary tumors. Further, a better functional outcome at discharge can save medical costs, regardless of extramedullary or intramedullary tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery for intramedullary tumors can be performed with similar perioperative risks as for extramedullary tumors. However, intramedullary tumors are associated with concerns, such as prolonged hospitalization and worsening of activities of daily living at discharge, which ultimately result in higher medical costs.

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment

OBJECTIVES

The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.

RESULTS

130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

Responsiveness of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, the 8-Item Short Form Health Survey, and the Euroqol 5 dimensions 5 level in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE

To assess the responsiveness of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), the Oswestry Disability Index, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, the visual analog scale (VAS), the 8-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-8), and the EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 level as methods of assessing outcomes of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

We analyzed 218 patients who had undergone lumbar surgery for spinal stenosis and completed one year of follow-up. The internal responsiveness of each questionnaire and any domains was assessed by the effect size and standardized response mean. External responsiveness was assessed by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

The most responsive assessments were "symptom severity" and "physical function" on the ZCQ, "walking ability" on the JOABPEQ, "leg pain" on the VAS, and "social function" on the JOABPEQ. The moderately responsive assessments were the physical component summary on the SF-8, the ODI, the EQ5D-5L, "low back pain" on the JOABPEQ, and "leg numbness" on the VAS. The least responsive assessments were "low back pain" on the VAS, "mental health" and "lumbar function" on the JOABPEQ, and the mental component summary on the SF-8.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of its high responsiveness, "symptom severity" on the ZCQ is recommended as a primary tool for assessing outcome when designing prospective studies for lumbar spinal stenosis.