Neurology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the course for this article:
 Volume 59, Number 8, October 22, 2002
Right arrow Data Supplement
Right arrow Correspondence:
Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Correspondence are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kemler, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Furnée, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kemler, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Furnée, C. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow All Health Services Research
Right arrow Cost effectiveness/economic
Right arrow All Pain
Right arrow Neuropathic pain

Neurology 2002;59:1203-1209
© 2002 American Academy of Neurology

Economic evaluation of spinal cord stimulation for chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy

Marius A. Kemler, MD PhD and Carina A. Furnée, PhD

From the Department of Surgery (Dr. Kemler), Maastricht University Hospital; and the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Economics (Dr. Furnée), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. M.A. Kemler, Department of Surgery, Martini Hospital, PO Box 30033, 9700 RM Groningen, the Netherlands; e-mail: kemlerm{at}mzh.nl

Objective: To evaluate the economic aspects of treatment of chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) with spinal cord stimulation (SCS), using outcomes and costs of care before and after the start of treatment.

Methods: Fifty-four patients with chronic RSD were randomized to receive either SCS together with physical therapy (SCS+PT; n = 36) or physical therapy alone (PT; n = 18). Twenty-four SCS+PT patients responded positively to trial stimulation and underwent SCS implantation. During 12 months of follow-up, costs (routine RSD costs, SCS costs, out-of-pocket costs) and effects (pain relief by visual analogue scale, health-related quality of life [HRQL] improvement by EQ-5D) were assessed in both groups. Analyses were carried out up to 1 year and up to the expected time of death.

Results: SCS was both more effective and less costly than the standard treatment protocol. As a result of high initial costs of SCS, in the first year, the treatment per patient is $4,000 more than control therapy. However, in the lifetime analysis, SCS per patient is $60,000 cheaper than control therapy. In addition, at 12 months, SCS resulted in pain relief (SCS+PT [-2.7] vs PT [0.4] [p < 0.001]) and improved HRQL (SCS+PT [0.22] vs PT [0.03] [p = 0.004]).

Conclusions: The authors found SCS to be both more effective and less expensive as compared with the standard treatment protocol for chronic RSD.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.