Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Conventional Therapies for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review of Health Care Resource Utilization and Outcomes in the Last Decade

Author:

Odonkor Charles A1,Orman Sebastian2,Orhurhu Vwaire3,Stone Martha E4,Ahmed Shihab1

Affiliation:

1. Division of Pain, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

2. Department of Orthopaedics, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC

3. Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

4. Treadwell Library, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract

Abstract Objective The purpose of this review is to critically appraise the literature for evidence supporting the health care resource utilization and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) compared with conventional therapies (CTs) for chronic low back and leg pain. Methods The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine databases were searched for studies published from January 2008 through October 2018, using the following MeSH terms: “spinal cord stimulation,” “chronic pain,” “back pain,” “patient readmission,” “economics,” and “costs and cost analysis.” Additional sources were added based on bibliographies and consultation with experts. The following data were extracted and analyzed: demographic information, study design, objectives, sample sizes, outcome measures, SCS indications, complications, costs, readmissions, and resource utilization data. Results Of 204 studies screened, 11 studies met inclusion criteria, representing 31,439 SCS patients and 299,182 CT patients. The mean age was 53.5 years for SCS and 55.6 years for CT. In eight of 11 studies, SCS was associated with favorable outcomes and found to be more cost-effective than CT for chronic low back pain. Compared with CT, SCS resulted in shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates and health care costs at 90 days. SCS was associated with significant improvement in health-related quality of life, health status, and quality-adjusted life-years. Conclusions For the treatment of chronic low back and leg pain, the majority of studies are of fair quality, with level 3 or 4 evidence in support of SCS as potentially more cost-effective than CT, with less resource expenditure but higher complication rates. SCS therapy may yet play a role in mitigating the financial burden associated with chronic low back and leg pain.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Neurology (clinical),General Medicine

Reference55 articles.

1. The economic costs of pain in the United States;Gaskin;J Pain,2012

2. Is spinal cord stimulation safe? A review of its complications;Bendersky;World Neurosurg,2014

3. Financial impact of spinal cord stimulation on the healthcare budget: A comparative analysis of costs in Canada and the United States;Kumar;J Neurosurg Spine,2009

4. Present and potential use of spinal cord stimulation to control chronic pain;Song;Pain Physician,2014

5. Cost-effectiveness data regarding spinal cord stimulation for low back pain;Hoelscher;Spine,2017

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3