Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2020
A Cost-Consequence Analysis Examining the Differences Between Non-Rechargeable and Rechargeable Systems.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abejón David, Vancamp Tim, Monzón Eva M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment option to relieve chronic intractable pain, and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a key indication.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the current study was to analyze the cost consequences of using non-rechargeable (NR)-SCS and rechargeable (R)-SCS.
METHODS: Real data taken from a review of 86 patients were used to simulate costs and review which patients might have benefitted more from R-SCS. Calculations were made to see what is the impact from a monetary point of view.
RESULTS: On average, NR-SCS devices lasted for 58 months (M). Only 14 patients were not eligible to receive an R-SCS implant. We found that using R-SCS batteries would save up to €56.322 on average over a patient's life expectancy, which means a saving of 43% compared to using NR-SCS systems. In our analysis, we found that if R-SCS implants were used instead of NR-SCS batteries, a saving of €5,735,334.23 over patients' life expectancy would be made, which represented a 63% saving to the public health system. We found that R-SCS was cost-beneficial from second year compared to NR-SCS, saving up to 70% when patients are implanted for 9 years.
CONCLUSIONS: This cost-consequences analysis suggests that R-SCS implants are more cost-beneficial than NR-SCS systems in well-selected patient candidates for this type of treatment.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the current study was to analyze the cost consequences of using non-rechargeable (NR)-SCS and rechargeable (R)-SCS.
METHODS: Real data taken from a review of 86 patients were used to simulate costs and review which patients might have benefitted more from R-SCS. Calculations were made to see what is the impact from a monetary point of view.
RESULTS: On average, NR-SCS devices lasted for 58 months (M). Only 14 patients were not eligible to receive an R-SCS implant. We found that using R-SCS batteries would save up to €56.322 on average over a patient's life expectancy, which means a saving of 43% compared to using NR-SCS systems. In our analysis, we found that if R-SCS implants were used instead of NR-SCS batteries, a saving of €5,735,334.23 over patients' life expectancy would be made, which represented a 63% saving to the public health system. We found that R-SCS was cost-beneficial from second year compared to NR-SCS, saving up to 70% when patients are implanted for 9 years.
CONCLUSIONS: This cost-consequences analysis suggests that R-SCS implants are more cost-beneficial than NR-SCS systems in well-selected patient candidates for this type of treatment.