Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 10, 2026
Treating Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Patients with Multicolumn-lead Spinal Cord Stimulation
Published on: June 26, 2018
Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of sacral anterior root stimulation for rehabilitation of bladder dysfunction
Antoine Bénard1, Elise Verpillot, Anne-Sophie Grandoulier
1*CHU Bordeaux, Pôle de Santé Publique, USMR et CIC-EC 7, Bordeaux, France; ‡Univ Bordeaux, Bordeaux School of Public Health, Groupe de Recherche Economie et Gestion en Santé Publique (GREGSAP), Bordeaux, France; §CHU Nantes, Service de Médecine Physique et Réadaptation Neurologique, Nantes, France; ¶CHU Bordeaux, Service de Neurochirurgie A, Bordeaux, France; Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Background:
Urinary disorders account for 10% of deaths in patients with complete spinal cord injury. Sacral anterior root stimulation (SARS) may be a valuable therapeutic option to restore complete and voluntary micturition (CVM), but questions on its cost-effectiveness remain.
Objective:
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SARS to restore CVM in patients with complete spinal cord injury.
Methods:
We conducted a nonrandomized, multicenter, parallel-group cohort study comparing SARS vs. current medical treatments with catheterization or reflex micturition. CVM was assessed at 12 months (end of follow-up) by urodynamic examination. Medical and nonmedical costs were measured in the perspective of the French national health insurance. Linear regression models were used to estimate the incremental net benefit ((Equation is included in full-text article.); λ = willingness-to-pay) adjusted for potential confounders, and P (INB >0) (i.e., probability of SARS being cost-effective vs medical treatment) for different values of λ.
Results:
Twenty-five patients were included in each group in 2005 to 2009. At inclusion, mean age was 41 years; 45 (90%) patients were male, and 29 (59%) patients were paraplegic. At 12 months, 15 (60%) patients with SARS had a CVM vs. 3 (12%) patients with medical treatment (P < .001). The total mean cost was 42,803 €; and 8762 €, respectively (P < .001). After adjustment for CVM and voiding methods at inclusion, P (INB >0) was 74% at λ = 100,000 €. This probability was 94% in a sensitivity analysis excluding 6 patients presenting a CVM at inclusion.
Conclusion:
The effectiveness and cost of SARS are much higher than for medical treatment. Our results inform decision makers of the opportunity to reimburse SARS in this vulnerable population.
