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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aljuboori, Zaid, Meyer, Kimberly, Sharma, Mayur, Ball, Tyler, Nauta, Haring
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