Cargando…
Cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator
BACKGROUND: Invasive pain procedures can be valuable tools to manage chronic pain. Here, we compared the costs of three procedures used to address chronic pain; punctate midline myelotomy (PMM), placement of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS), or placement of an intrathecal pain pump (ITPP). CASE DESCRI...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Scientific Scholar
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049879/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32123613 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_16_2020 |
_version_ | 1783502535720435712 |
---|---|
author | Aljuboori, Zaid Meyer, Kimberly Sharma, Mayur Ball, Tyler Nauta, Haring |
author_facet | Aljuboori, Zaid Meyer, Kimberly Sharma, Mayur Ball, Tyler Nauta, Haring |
author_sort | Aljuboori, Zaid |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Invasive pain procedures can be valuable tools to manage chronic pain. Here, we compared the costs of three procedures used to address chronic pain; punctate midline myelotomy (PMM), placement of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS), or placement of an intrathecal pain pump (ITPP). CASE DESCRIPTION: This retrospective chart review yielded 9 patients with chronic pain syndromes; 3 had PMM, 3 had SCS, and 3 had ITPP procedures. Variables studied included; pain type, the procedures performed, and the cost of each procedure. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare the three groups (P < 0.05). PMM was performed for patients with chronic nonmalignant visceral pain and SCS was utilized for failed back syndrome, while ITPP was placed in two patients with chronic visceral cancer pain and one patient with chronic somatic cancer pain. The mean length of stay was significant shorter for SCS and PMM versus ITPP (e.g., 1, 3.6 ± 0.6 and 15 ± 5.6 days). The mean procedure costs were significantly higher for SCS versus PMM and ITPP (105,234, $71,087, and $79,333); for the latter PMM and ITPP, procedural costs were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: For the three pain procedures discussed in this report, PMM is the most cost-effective as it obviates the need for efficacy trials, and there are: no implant device costs, no medication refills, no maintenance costs, and no complication management costs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7049879 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Scientific Scholar |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70498792020-03-02 Cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator Aljuboori, Zaid Meyer, Kimberly Sharma, Mayur Ball, Tyler Nauta, Haring Surg Neurol Int Case Report BACKGROUND: Invasive pain procedures can be valuable tools to manage chronic pain. Here, we compared the costs of three procedures used to address chronic pain; punctate midline myelotomy (PMM), placement of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS), or placement of an intrathecal pain pump (ITPP). CASE DESCRIPTION: This retrospective chart review yielded 9 patients with chronic pain syndromes; 3 had PMM, 3 had SCS, and 3 had ITPP procedures. Variables studied included; pain type, the procedures performed, and the cost of each procedure. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare the three groups (P < 0.05). PMM was performed for patients with chronic nonmalignant visceral pain and SCS was utilized for failed back syndrome, while ITPP was placed in two patients with chronic visceral cancer pain and one patient with chronic somatic cancer pain. The mean length of stay was significant shorter for SCS and PMM versus ITPP (e.g., 1, 3.6 ± 0.6 and 15 ± 5.6 days). The mean procedure costs were significantly higher for SCS versus PMM and ITPP (105,234, $71,087, and $79,333); for the latter PMM and ITPP, procedural costs were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: For the three pain procedures discussed in this report, PMM is the most cost-effective as it obviates the need for efficacy trials, and there are: no implant device costs, no medication refills, no maintenance costs, and no complication management costs. Scientific Scholar 2020-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7049879/ /pubmed/32123613 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_16_2020 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Surgical Neurology International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Case Report Aljuboori, Zaid Meyer, Kimberly Sharma, Mayur Ball, Tyler Nauta, Haring Cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator |
title | Cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator |
title_full | Cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator |
title_fullStr | Cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator |
title_short | Cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator |
title_sort | cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator |
topic | Case Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049879/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32123613 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_16_2020 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aljuboorizaid costcomparisonamongpunctatemidlinemyelotomyintrathecalpainpumpandspinalcordepiduralstimulator AT meyerkimberly costcomparisonamongpunctatemidlinemyelotomyintrathecalpainpumpandspinalcordepiduralstimulator AT sharmamayur costcomparisonamongpunctatemidlinemyelotomyintrathecalpainpumpandspinalcordepiduralstimulator AT balltyler costcomparisonamongpunctatemidlinemyelotomyintrathecalpainpumpandspinalcordepiduralstimulator AT nautaharing costcomparisonamongpunctatemidlinemyelotomyintrathecalpainpumpandspinalcordepiduralstimulator |