Oestergaard, Lisa G7; Christensen, Finn B4; Nielsen, Claus V8; Bünger, Cody9; Fruensgaard, Soeren6; Sogaard, Rikke10
1 Department of Clinical Medicine - The Department of Orthopaedics E, ?AS, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University2 Department of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University3 Department of Clinical Medicine - Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, AUH, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University4 The Department of Orthopaedics E, ?AS, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus University5 Department of Public Health - Klinisk Socialmedicin og Rehabilitering, Department of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University6 unknown7 Department of Clinical Medicine - Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, AUH, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University8 Department of Public Health - Klinisk Socialmedicin og Rehabilitering, Department of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University9 Department of Clinical Medicine - The Department of Orthopaedics E, ?AS, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University10 Department of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University
Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial
STUDY DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of initiating rehabilitation 6 weeks after surgery as opposed to 12 weeks after surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In a previously reported randomized controlled trial, we assessed the impact of timing of rehabilitation after a lumbar spinal fusion and found that a fast-track strategy led to poorer functional ability. Before making recommendations, it seems relevant to address the societal perspective including return to work, quality of life, and costs. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis were conducted. Eighty-two patients undergoing instrumented lumbar spinal fusion due to degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis (grade I or II) were randomized to an identical protocol of 4 sessions of group-based rehabilitation and were instructed in home exercises focusing on active stability training. Outcome parameters included functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and quality-adjusted life years. Health care and productivity costs were estimated from national registries and reported in euros. Costs and effects were transformed into net benefit. Bootstrapping was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: The fast-track strategy tended to be costlier by euro6869 (95% CI, -4640 to 18,378) while at the same time leading to significantly poorer outcomes of functional disability by -9 points (95% CI, -18 to -3) and a tendency for a reduced gain in quality-adjusted life years by -0.04 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.01). The overall probability for the fast-track strategy being cost-effective does not reach 10% at conventional thresholds for cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Initiating rehabilitation at 6 weeks as opposed to 12 weeks after surgery is on average more costly and less effective. The uncertainty of this result did not seem to be sensitive to methodological issues, and clinical managements who have already adapted fast-track rehabilitation strategies have reason to reconsider their choice. .
Spine (philadelphia, 1976), 2013, Vol 38, Issue 23, p. 1979-1985
Absenteeism Adult Cost of Illness Cost-Benefit Analysis Denmark Disability Evaluation Efficiency Exercise Therapy/*economics/*methods Female *Health Care Costs Humans Intervertebral Disc Degeneration/diagnosis/economics/physiopathology/*surgery Lumbar Vertebrae/physiopathology/*surgery Male Middle Aged Quality-Adjusted Life Years Recovery of Function Return to Work/economics Sick Leave/economics Spinal Fusion/adverse effects/*economics/*rehabilitation Spondylolisthesis/diagnosis/economics/physiopathology/*surgery Time Factors Time-to-Treatment/*economics Treatment Outcome