European Spine Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 501–509 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies of lumbar spinal stenosis in the Swiss setting: analysis of the prospective multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS)

  • A. AichmairEmail author
  • J. M. Burgstaller
  • M. Schwenkglenks
  • J. Steurer
  • F. Porchet
  • F. Brunner
  • M. Farshad
  • LSOS Study Group
Original Article



To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).


Patients prospectively enrolled in the multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) were calculated based on EQ-5D data. Cost data were retrieved retrospectively. Cost-effectiveness was calculated via decision tree analysis.


A total of 434 patients were included, treated surgically (n = 170) or conservatively (n = 264) for LSS. The majority of surgically treated patients underwent decompression (n = 141, 82.9%), and 17.1% (n = 29) additionally underwent fusion. A reoperation was required in 13 (7.6%) surgically treated patients. In 27 (10.2%) conservatively treated patients, a single infiltration was successful, with no further infiltration or surgery within the follow-up. However, 46 patients (17.4%) required multiple infiltrations, and in 191 (72.4%) initially conservatively treated patients a subsequent surgery was needed. The area under the curve was 0.776 QALY in the surgical arm (0.776 and 0.790, decompression or additional fusion, respectively), compared to 0.778 in the conservative arm. Treatment costs were estimated at CHF 12,958 and 13,637 (USD 13,465 and 14,169) in surgically and initially conservatively treated patients, respectively [base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): CHF 392,145, USD 407,831], per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified surgery as the preferred strategy in 67.1%.


Both the surgical and the conservative treatment approach resulted in a comparable health-related quality of life within the first year after study inclusion. Due to slightly higher costs, mostly because the majority of initially conservatively treated patients underwent multiple infiltrations or a subsequent surgery, decompressive surgery was identified as the most cost-effective approach for LSS in this setting.


Cost-effectiveness Conservative Surgical Decision tree Health-care economics QALY Lumbar spinal stenosis 



We would like to express our gratitude to Alexander Schwab for providing the cost data, as well as to the surgeons of the Spine Division at the Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland for their contribution to defining average standard treatment costs of each arm of the presented decision tree. The authors further thank the Baugarten Foundation, the Helmut Horten Foundation, the Pfizer-Foundation for Geriatrics & Research in Geriatrics, the Symphasis Charitable Foundation and the OPO Foundation for their support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD et al (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707136 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyer F, Bredow J, Oppermann J et al (2014) Non-operative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis-outcome assessment with spine tango questionnaires. Eur Spine J 23:2493. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3600-8 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Katz JN, Harris MB (2008) Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:818–825. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp0708097 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuckler JM, Bernini PA, Wiesel SW et al (1985) The use of epidural steroids in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 67:63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carreon LY, Bratcher KR, Ammous F, Glassman SD (2015) Cost effectiveness of lumbar epidural steroid injections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000989
  6. 6.
    Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, et al (1997) 1997 Volvo award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2807–2812. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00003
  7. 7.
    Harrop JS, Hilibrand A, Mihalovich KE, et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:S75–S85. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000545
  8. 8.
    Parker SL, Anderson LH, Nelson T, Patel VV (2015) Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer. Int J spine Surg 9:28. doi: 10.14444/2028 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Udeh BL, Costandi S, Dalton JE et al (2015) The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Pain Pract 15:107–116. doi: 10.1111/papr.12160 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A (2009) QALYs: the basics. Value Heal. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steurer J, Nydegger A, Held U et al (2010) LumbSten: the lumbar spinal stenosis outcome study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:254. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-254 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burgstaller JM, Held U, Brunner F et al (2016) The impact of obesity on the outcome of decompression surgery in degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:82–89. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001128
  13. 13.
    Fekete T, Woernle C, Mannion AF et al (2015) The effect of epidural steroid injection on postoperative outcome in patients from the lumbar spinal stenosis outcome study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:1303–1310. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000969
  14. 14.
    Van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS et al (2012) Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Heal 15:708–715. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ortman BJM, Velkoff V, Hogan H (2014) An aging nation: the older population in the United States. Econ Stat Adm US Dep Commer 1964:1–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turner JA, Comstock BA, Standaert CJ et al (2015) Can patient characteristics predict benefit from epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms? Spine J 15:2319–2331. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.06.050 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S (2016) Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane database Syst Rev CD010264. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010264.pub2
  18. 18.
    OECD (2015) Health at a Glance 2015: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. Accessed 18 June 2016
  19. 19.
    Yaghoubi M, Moradi-Lakeh M, Moradi-Joo M et al (2016) The cost effectiveness of dynamic and static interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis compared with laminectomy. Med J Islam Repub Iran 30:339PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Society NAS (2011) Evidence-based clinical guidelines for multidisciplinary spine care—diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis.
  21. 21.
    Overdevest GM, Jacobs W, Vleggeert-Lankamp C et al (2015) Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. In: Overdevest GM (ed) The cochrane database of systematic reviews. Wiley, Chichester, p CD010036Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Overdevest G, Vleggeert-Lankamp C, Jacobs W et al (2015) Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. Eur Spine J 24:2244–2263. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4098-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hermansen E, Romild UK, Austevoll IM et al (2016) Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4643-9

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Aichmair
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. M. Burgstaller
    • 2
  • M. Schwenkglenks
    • 3
  • J. Steurer
    • 2
  • F. Porchet
    • 4
  • F. Brunner
    • 5
  • M. Farshad
    • 1
  • LSOS Study Group
  1. 1.Spine Division, Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University HospitalUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Horten Centre for Patient Oriented Research and Knowledge TransferUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention InstituteUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Orthopedics and Neurosurgery, Spine CenterSchulthess ClinicZurichSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of Physical Medicine and Rheumatology, Balgrist University HospitalUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations