Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleArticles

Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer

Scott L. Parker, Louise H. Anderson, Teresa Nelson and Vikas V. Patel
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2015, 9 28; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/2028
Scott L. Parker
1Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville TN
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louise H. Anderson
2Technomics Research, Minneapolis MN
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Teresa Nelson
2Technomics Research, Minneapolis MN
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vikas V. Patel
3University of Colorado Hospital, Denver CO
MD, MA, BSME
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1

    Markov Models for Conservative Care (CC) Strategy, Spacer Strategy, and Decompressive Surgery (DS) Strategy.

  • Fig. 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2

    QALYs gained at three months and 24 months.

  • Fig. 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3

    Conservative Care Strategy one-variable sensitivity analysis.

  • Fig. 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4

    Spacer Strategy one-variable sensitivity analysis.

  • Fig. 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5

    Decompressive Surgery Strategy one-variable sensitivity analysis.

  • Fig. 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6

    Decompressive Surgery Strategy one-variable sensitivity analysis.

  • Fig. 7
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7

    Cost-effectiveness plane: Increase in cost versus increase in utility gained, Spacer and Decompressive Surgery (DS) Strategies compared to the Conservative Care (CC) Strategy.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Baseline Characteristics

    CharacteristicCC *Spacer†DS‡Comparison p-value§
    CC v SpacerCC v DSSpacer v DS
    Number of patients100189129NANANA
    Age, mean (SD)58 (12)66 (9)64 (11)<0.05<0.05NS
    Male, %405859<0.05<0.05NS
    ODI, mean (SD)57 (19)39 (13)47 (14)<0.05<0.05<0.05
    SF-12 PCS, mean (SD)31.4 (8.1)29.2 (8.4)26.7 (9.4)<0.05<0.05<0.05
    SF-12 MCS, mean (SD)49.2 (12.1)49.9 (13.1)48.2 (11.2)NSNSNS
    1 Level treated, %NA5245NSNSNS
    2 Levels treated, %NA4855
    • SD: Standard deviation.

    • ↵* CC: Conservative Care, from Parker et al. 2014. Results from spondylolisthesis and stenosis patients were combined.

    • ↵† Spacer: from ISISS trial, Superion patients.

    • ↵‡ DS: Decompressive Surgery without fusion, from institutional registry.

    • ↵§ For continuous variables, a two sample Z-test was used for the pairwise comparisons. For categorical variables, Fisher's exact test was used. A p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No corrections for multiplicity were applied.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Base Case Values.

    Treatments
    CCSpacerDS
    VariableBase CaseBase CaseBase Case
    Failure rate, quarterly4.3%2.7%1.2%
    1 LevelNA50.0%50.0%
    2 LevelsNA50.0%50.0%
    Adverse event*NA0.0%5.4%
    Inpatient rehabilitationNA0.0%3.9%
    Fusion, secondary treatmentx31%
    Probability of utilization - Qtr of Procedure
    HealthcareNA45.2%76.2%
    MedicationsNA94.4%94.4%
    DiagnosticsNA22.2%22.2%
    Probability of utilization - FU Quarters
    Healthcare94.0%13.1%12.9%
    Medications100.0%64.3%64.3%
    Diagnostics86.0%8.8%8.8%
    Costs
    Procedure
    1 Level$7,367$7,883
    2 Levels$7,683$8,155
    1 Level, fusionxNA$26,118
    2 Levels, fusionxNA$27,662
    AnesthesiologyNA$386$454/$567#
    Inpatient rehabilitationNANA$9,100
    Qtr of Procedure
    Healthcare$662$774
    Medications$334$334
    Diagnostics$333$333
    FU Quarters
    Healthcare$289$665$1,060
    Medications$498$337$337
    Diagnostics$162$870$870
    Adverse EventNA$6,770
    QALY gained‡
    Baseline to 3 mo0.0080.1110.091
    3 mo - 6 mo0.0160.1440.173
    6 mo - 9 mo0.0160.1440.162
    9 mo - 12 mo0.0160.1440.155
    After 12 mo0.0160.1440.151
    • ↵* Adverse Events (AE) that generate additional reimbursement outside of the global payment. Healthcare includes non-surgeon physician visits, physical therapy, chiropractic care, acupuncture. Medications include narcotics, muscle relaxants, NSAIDs, and oral steroids. Diagnostics include MRI scans, CT scans, x-rays, spine injections, and EMGs. Superion patients assumed to have the same level of utilization for non-surgeon physician visits, medications, and diagnostics as decompressive surgery patients.

    • ↵x DS with fusion was received by a portion of patients after DS or Spacer failure.

    • ↵# Anesthesiology rate for DS without fusion / Anesthesiology rate for DS with fusion.

    • ↵‡ QALY gained is an annual amount; one-fourth of the value is accumulated each quarter.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Base case results.

    CostIncremental Cost*QALYs GainedIncremental QALYs*ICER*
    CC Strategy$10,540NA0.06NANA
    Spacer Strategy$13,947$3,4080.270.21$16,302
    DS Strategy$13,958$3,4180.290.22$15,231
    • CC: Conservative Care; DS: Decompressive Surgery; Spacer: Interspinous spacer.

    • ↵* Compared to CC Strategy

    • View popup
    Table 4

    One-variable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Ranges and Distributions.

    One-Variable Sensitivity AnalysisProbabilistic Sensitivity Analysis
    VariableLowerBase caseUpperDistribution (Parameters)
    Failure
    CC0.0280.0430.060Beta (mean=.043, SE=.008)
    Spacer0.0200.0270.036Beta (mean=.027,SE=.004)
    DS0.0040.0120.037Beta (mean=.012,SE=.008)
    DS AE rate0.0220.0540.099Beta (α = 7, β = 122)
    IRF discharge rate0.0130.0390.078Beta (α = 5, β = 124)
    Proportion 1 Level0.250.500.75Triangular (0.25,0.50,0.75)
    Fusion rate0.170.310.47Beta (α = 11, β = 24)
    DS after CC failure0.800.901.00Triangular (0.80,0.90,1.00)
    Utility Increase
    CC0.0000.0160.030Fixed
    Spacer0.1200.1440.168Normal (0.144, 0.013)
    DS, 3 mo0.1540.1810.207Normal (0.181, 0.014)
    DS, 12 mo0.1240.1510.179Normal (0.151, 0.014)
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 9
1 Jan 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer
Scott L. Parker, Louise H. Anderson, Teresa Nelson, Vikas V. Patel
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2015, 9 28; DOI: 10.14444/2028

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer
Scott L. Parker, Louise H. Anderson, Teresa Nelson, Vikas V. Patel
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2015, 9 28; DOI: 10.14444/2028
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Disclosures
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • A Differential Clinical Benefit Examination of Full Lumbar Endoscopy vs Interspinous Process Spacers in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis: An Effect Size Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparison of quality of life between men and women who underwent Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy for lumbar disc herniation
  • Integrated Fixation Cage Loosening Under Fatigue Loading
  • Minimally Invasive Excision of Lumbar Tophaceous Gout: Case Report
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • cost effectiveness
  • QALY
  • interspinous spacer
  • intermittent neurogenic claudication
  • laminectomy
  • lumbar spinal stenosis
  • decompressive surgery
  • Superion

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire