Cost-Effectiveness of Interventional Techniques (original) (raw)
Related papers
Pain, 2007
Patients with neuropathic pain secondary to failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) typically experience persistent pain, disability, and reduced quality of life. We hypothesised that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy in addition to conventional medical management (CMM) in this patient population. We randomised 100 FBSS patients with predominant leg pain of neuropathic radicular origin to receive spinal cord stimulation plus conventional medical management (SCS group) or conventional medical management alone (CMM group) for at least 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 50% or more pain relief in the legs. Secondary outcomes were improvement in back and leg pain, health-related quality of life, functional capacity, use of pain medication and non-drug pain treatment, level of patient satisfaction, and incidence of complications and adverse effects. Crossover after the 6-months visit was permitted, and all patients were followed up to 1 year. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months, 24 SCS patients (48%) and 4 CMM patients (9%) (p < 0.001) achieved the primary outcome. Compared with the CMM group, the SCS group experienced improved leg and back pain relief, quality of life, and functional capacity, as well as greater treatment satisfaction (p 6 0.05 for all comparisons). Between 6 and 12 months, 5 SCS patients crossed to CMM, and 32 CMM patients crossed to SCS. At 12 months, 27 SCS patients (32%) had experienced device-related complications. In selected patients with FBSS, SCS provides better pain relief and improves health-related quality of life and functional capacity compared with CMM alone. Ó
Is Spinal Cord Stimulation an Effective Treatment Option for Discogenic Pain?
Pain Practice, 2011
Introduction: In a prospective observational study conducted in an urban pain management center, we evaluated whether spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective in relieving discogenic pain of IDD origin. Methods: Thirteen patients with intractable discogenic low back pain were enrolled. Four patients never underwent permanent implantation due to insurance denial, medical reasons or failed trial and served as a control group. Nine patients underwent SCS implantation (treatment group). All patients were followed for 12 months and assessed at each interval for pain (NRS), disability (ODI), and opioid use. Results: Nine patients completed the SCS trial with > 50% pain relief. The pretrial NRS score was 7.8 ± 0.5 mm in treated patients vs. 6.5 ± 1.7 mm in control patients. At 3, 6 and 12 months, the NRS was reduced to 2.9 ± 0.7 mm, 1.7 ± 0.5 mm, and 2.9 ± 0.5 mm, respectively in treated patients. NRS was unchanged in the control patients (6.5 ± 1.9 mm). The ODI score prior to the SCS trial in treated patients was 53.1 ± 3.4% vs. 54.0 ± 20.5 in control patients. At 3, 6 and 12 months the ODI scores were 39.0 ± 8.0%, 38.7 ± 4.6%, and 41.1 ± 3.9%, respectively in the treated patients, and 48.5 ± 29.5 at 12 months in control patients. In 6 patients receiving opioids prior to the SCS trial, average consumption was reduced by 69% (P = 0.036) over 12 months of therapy as compared with a 54% increase in the control patients. SCS usage was stable over the 12-month study. Conclusions: The current study indicates that SCS may provide effective pain relief, improve disability, and reduce opioid usage in patients with discogenic pain. n
THE EFFECTS OF SPINAL CORD STIMULATION IN NEUROPATHIC PAIN ARE SUSTAINED
Neurosurgery, 2008
OBJECTIVE: After randomizing 100 failed back surgery syndrome patients to receive spinal cord stimulation (SCS) plus conventional medical management (CMM) or CMM alone, the results of the 6-month Prospective Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial of the Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation (i.e., PROCESS) showed that SCS offered superior pain relief, health-related quality of life, and functional capacity. Because the rate of crossover favoring SCS beyond 6 months would bias a long-term randomized group comparison, we present all outcomes in patients who continued SCS from randomization to 24 months and, for illustrative purposes, the primary outcome (Ͼ50% leg pain relief) per randomization and final treatment. METHODS: Patients provided data on pain, quality of life, function, pain medication use, treatment satisfaction, and employment status. Investigators documented adverse events. Data analysis included inferential comparisons and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: The 42 patients continuing SCS (of 52 randomized to SCS) reported significantly improved leg pain relief (P Ͻ 0.0001), quality of life (P Յ 0.01), and functional capacity (P ϭ 0.0002); and 13 patients (31%) required a device-related surgical revision. At 24 months, of 46 of 52 patients randomized to SCS and 41 of 48 randomized to CMM who were available, the primary outcome was achieved by 17 (37%) randomized to SCS versus 1 (2%) to CMM (P ϭ 0.003) and by 34 (47%) of 72 patients who received SCS as final treatment versus 1 (7%) of 15 for CMM (P ϭ 0.02). CONCLUSION: At 24 months of SCS treatment, selected failed back surgery syndrome patients reported sustained pain relief, clinically important improvements in functional capacity and health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment.
Neurosurgery, 2002
OBJECTIVE: There is limited available research measuring the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), compared with best medical treatment/conventional pain therapy (CPT). The purpose of this study was to tabulate the actual costs (in Canadian dollars) for a consecutive series of patients treated with SCS in a constant health care delivery environment and to compare the costs with those for a control group treated in the same controlled environment.
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, 2013
Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), by virtue of its historically described up-front costs and level of invasiveness, has been relegated by several complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) treatment algorithms to a therapy of last resort. Newer information regarding safety, cost, and efficacy leads us to believe that SCS for the treatment of CRPS should be implemented earlier in a treatment algorithm using a more comprehensive approach.
Neurosurgery, 2011
BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) I is a debilitating neuropathic pain disorder characterized by burning pain and allodynia. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective in the treatment of CRPS I in the medium term but its long-term efficacy and ability to improve functional status remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of SCS to improve pain, functional status, and quality of life in the long term. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 25 patients over a mean follow-up period of 88 months. The parameters for evaluation were visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form 36 (SF-36), and drug consumption. Evaluations were conducted at point of entry, 3 months, 12 months, and last follow-up at 88 months (mean). RESULTS: At baseline, the mean scores were VAS 8.4, ODI 70%, BDI 28, EQ-5D 0.30, and SF-36 24. In general, maximum improvement was recorded at follow-up at 3 months ...
Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the most effective modalities for management of refractory neuropathic pain unresponsive to conservative therapies. The SCS has been successful in providing analgesia, improving function, and enhancing quality of life for patients suffering from chronic pain conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, ischaemic and phantom limb pain, and coronary artery disease. This technique has proven to be cost effective in the long term despite its high initial cost. In this review article, we discuss the history of SCS development, mechanism of action, and indications for SCS.