IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/99886.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-utility analysis of treatment methods in spinal diseases

Author

Listed:
  • Balaska, Dimitra
  • Pollalis, Yannis
  • Dimogerontas, George
  • Bitsori, Zoi
  • Karaferis, Dimitrios

Abstract

AIM: The purpose of the present research study is to evaluate the quality of life of patients with musculoskeletal problems of the Spinal Column before and after surgery with the use of the EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire. MATERIALS - METHODS: The research is based on primary data collection of 27 patients who completed the questionnaires at three different times: a) preoperatively; that is, after completion of conservative treatment which involved medication, physiotherapy, etc., b) ten days postoperatively and c) immediately after the first post-operative month. RESULTS: Out of the 27 patients, aged between 34 and 79 years (mean age 52±15,07) who participated in this study, 11 were males (40,7%) while 16 were females (59,3%). 48,1% of the patients suffered from a herniated intervertebral disc in the lumbar region, 18,5% from symptomatic degenerative disc disease (DDD or black disc), 18,5% from a herniated intervertebral disc in the cervical region and the remaining 14,8% from spondylolisthesis in the lumbar region. Total improvement of the quality of life (QoL) in our study was on average 0,6 QALYs at 10 days and 0,83 QALYs at 30 days. The total average direct cost of these surgical interventions amounted to 7413,1±3062,9 while the index of cost-utility for the sample population was estimated to be 12355,2 euro/ QALY at 10 days. This index decreased considerably to 8931,4 euro/ QALY at 30 days after the surgical intervention since the average benefit in QALYs increased and the QoL improved. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study point out the great utility of surgical interventions in the spinal column to treat patients’ common symptoms (low back pain with or without sciatica) with complications being nearly next to zero. By means of the EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire, the comparative study of patients’ QoL both before and after surgical treatment reveals statistically considerable improvement at 10 and 30 days following the surgery. Finally, this study has led to useful conclusions: a) the modern technique of discoplasty is rather more efficient than percutaneous spinal fusion for the treatment of lumbago from degenerative disc disease in the lumbar region, b) conservative treatment of spinal column problems is rather less efficient than surgical treatment and c) modern surgery of the spinal column in Greece is rather more efficient than in other modern Health Systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Balaska, Dimitra & Pollalis, Yannis & Dimogerontas, George & Bitsori, Zoi & Karaferis, Dimitrios, 2020. "Cost-utility analysis of treatment methods in spinal diseases," MPRA Paper 99886, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 Apr 2020.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:99886
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99886/1/MPRA_paper_99886.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Utility; Cost; Quality of Life; Spinal Column.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I15 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Economic Development

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:99886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.