Objectives: To present a cost-effectiveness analysis of sacral rhizotomies and electrical bladder stimulation compared with conventional care of neurogenic bladder dysfunction in patients with spinal cord injury. Methods: During a 3-year inclusion period, data on costs and quality of life before the intervention were collected to describe conventional care. Data on the pre-implantation period, the implantation and a follow-up period of 2 years were collected following a strict protocol simultaneous with medical and urodynamic data and were used to calculate the costs and effects on quality of life of the implantation of the stimulator. Results: Between June 1991 and June 1994, 52 patients with complete cervical or thoracic spinal cord lesions underwent sacral posterior rhizotomies and implantation of a Finetech-Brindley sacral anterior root stimulator. Although the initial costs of sacral anterior root stimulation are high, they are earned back in this series in about 8 years after the implantation. General indicators of the quality of life show no significant changes after the implantation. Factors related to psychological well-being and the patients’ satisfaction with the emptying of the bladder increased significantly whereas the experienced problems of micturition and incontinence all decreased significantly. Conclusion: Sacral rhizotomies and electrical bladder stimulation make a cost-effective method of treatment of lower urinary tract dysfunction in patients with spinal cord injury. Considerable savings on health care costs are possible in the long run with simultaneous positive effects on aspects of health status.

Keywords:
Sacral rhizotomy, Electrical bladder stimulation, Spinal cord injury
This content is only available via PDF.
1997
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.