The cost-effectiveness of physical therapy versus laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Markov decision analysis

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2025.02.008
Prashant V. Rajan MD , Joshua Eisenberg MD , Stephen Selverian MD , Richard Wawrose MD , Sangwook Tim Yoon MD, PhD
{"title":"The cost-effectiveness of physical therapy versus laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Markov decision analysis","authors":"Prashant V. Rajan MD ,&nbsp;Joshua Eisenberg MD ,&nbsp;Stephen Selverian MD ,&nbsp;Richard Wawrose MD ,&nbsp;Sangwook Tim Yoon MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.02.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3><div>Physical therapy is often utilized as a nonoperative modality for the treatment of lumbar stenosis, oftentimes a prerequisite for insurance approval for surgery.</div></div><div><h3>PURPOSE</h3><div>The goal of our study was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of physical therapy as compared to a hospital-based or inpatient single-level lumbar laminectomy from the outset for lumbar stenosis.</div></div><div><h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3><div>Cost-effectiveness analysis, Markov model simulation.</div></div><div><h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3><div>We developed a Markov model to analyze the baseline case: a 55-year-old patient with symptomatic lumbar stenosis undergoing physical therapy versus lumbar laminectomy from outset.</div></div><div><h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3><div>Model outcome measures were total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs, organized into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). ICERs were evaluated against willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP) of $50,000 and $100,000.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>Transition probabilities were derived from the literature. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses were performed as well as a probabilistic analysis varying several sensitive variables over distributions through 10,000 different simulations. Both healthcare payer and societal perspectives were included.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>From healthcare payer perspective, laminectomy from outset produced higher QALYs (12.11 vs 11.87) at lower total cost ($15,735 vs $16,877) and was thus the dominant treatment. From societal perspective, physical therapy generated lower costs ($32,007) compared to laminectomy ($32,368). With an ICER of $1,485 per QALY for laminectomy which was below the WTP thresholds. The results were not sensitive to the procedural costs of laminectomy and physical therapy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, virtually all iterations found laminectomy from outset to be cost-effective over physical therapy across all WTP thresholds.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3><div>Our cost-effectiveness analysis showed laminectomy to be the preferred treatment strategy from the outset for symptomatic lumbar stenosis from both healthcare payer and societal perspectives. These findings highlight the need for further study into the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of physical therapy to validate these model-based findings and explore ways to optimize the management of lumbar stenosis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":"25 8","pages":"Pages 1608-1617"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1529943025001214","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Physical therapy is often utilized as a nonoperative modality for the treatment of lumbar stenosis, oftentimes a prerequisite for insurance approval for surgery.

PURPOSE

The goal of our study was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of physical therapy as compared to a hospital-based or inpatient single-level lumbar laminectomy from the outset for lumbar stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Cost-effectiveness analysis, Markov model simulation.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We developed a Markov model to analyze the baseline case: a 55-year-old patient with symptomatic lumbar stenosis undergoing physical therapy versus lumbar laminectomy from outset.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Model outcome measures were total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs, organized into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). ICERs were evaluated against willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP) of $50,000 and $100,000.

METHODS

Transition probabilities were derived from the literature. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses were performed as well as a probabilistic analysis varying several sensitive variables over distributions through 10,000 different simulations. Both healthcare payer and societal perspectives were included.

RESULTS

From healthcare payer perspective, laminectomy from outset produced higher QALYs (12.11 vs 11.87) at lower total cost ($15,735 vs $16,877) and was thus the dominant treatment. From societal perspective, physical therapy generated lower costs ($32,007) compared to laminectomy ($32,368). With an ICER of $1,485 per QALY for laminectomy which was below the WTP thresholds. The results were not sensitive to the procedural costs of laminectomy and physical therapy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, virtually all iterations found laminectomy from outset to be cost-effective over physical therapy across all WTP thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Our cost-effectiveness analysis showed laminectomy to be the preferred treatment strategy from the outset for symptomatic lumbar stenosis from both healthcare payer and societal perspectives. These findings highlight the need for further study into the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of physical therapy to validate these model-based findings and explore ways to optimize the management of lumbar stenosis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
物理治疗与椎板切除术治疗腰椎管狭窄的成本-效果:马尔科夫决策分析。
背景:物理治疗通常被用作治疗腰椎管狭窄的非手术方式,通常是保险批准手术的先决条件。目的:本研究的目的是评估从一开始治疗腰椎管狭窄时,物理治疗与基于医院或住院的单节段腰椎椎板切除术相比的相对成本效益。研究设计/设置:成本-效果分析,马尔可夫模型模拟患者样本:我们建立了一个马尔可夫模型来分析基线病例:一名55岁的有症状的腰椎管狭窄患者从一开始就接受物理治疗和腰椎椎板切除术。结果测量:模型结果测量是总质量调整生命年(QALYs)和成本,组织成增量成本-效果比(ICERs)。ICERs的支付意愿阈值(WTP)分别为5万美元和10万美元。方法:根据文献推导转移概率。进行了单变量和双变量敏感性分析,以及通过10,000种不同模拟在分布中改变几个敏感变量的概率分析。保健付款人和社会观点都包括在内。结果:从医疗保健支付款人的角度来看,椎板切除术从一开始就以较低的总成本(15,735美元对16,877美元)产生了更高的质量年(12.11比11.87),因此是主要的治疗方法。从社会角度来看,与椎板切除术(32,368美元)相比,物理治疗产生的费用(32,2007美元)更低。椎板切除术的ICER为每QALY 1485美元,低于WTP阈值。结果对椎板切除术和物理治疗的程序费用不敏感。在概率敏感性分析中,几乎所有的迭代都发现椎板切除术从一开始就比所有WTP阈值的物理治疗更具成本效益。结论:我们的成本-效果分析显示,从医疗保健支付者和社会角度来看,椎板切除术从一开始就是治疗症状性腰椎管狭窄的首选治疗策略。这些发现强调需要进一步研究物理治疗的有效性和成本效益,以验证这些基于模型的发现,并探索优化腰椎管狭窄管理的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Spine Journal
Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
680
审稿时长
13.1 weeks
期刊介绍: The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Performance of EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L Crosswalk and Reverse Crosswalk in Lumbar Spine Surgery Patients. Infections in non-instrumented spine surgery: is the discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis to blame? Chronic low back pain is associated with remotely collected gait quality and quantity parameters from a wrist-worn accelerometer. Cost Comparisons and Perioperative Outcomes in the Surgical Treatment of Tandem Spinal Stenosis. Spontaneous atlantoaxial facet joint autofusion after posterior C1-2 fusion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1