Medical specialists care and hospital costs for low back pain in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: To examine the organization of medical specialist care and hospital costs for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. METHODS: Aggregated health insurance claims data were provided on all diagnosis treatment combination (DTC) declarations for LBP patients first referred to the hospital in the 2nd half of 2008 and retrieved from Vektis, an organization that collects health insurance claims data. Data were available up to 1 January 2012. The data included patient characteristics, DTC-specific information including: neurology, neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery, anaesthesiology and radiology. RESULTS: In total 80,652 LBP patients were referred to the hospital for the first time in the second half of 2008 accumulating to a total of 173,620 DTC's with total costs of €194 million. Of these patients, 56% were female and 61% aged above 50 years at first referral to the hospital. The average number of DTC's and costs per patient were 2.15 and €2410, respectively (during the follow-up period of 3.0-3.5 year). Moreover, 51% of the patients needed only one DTC; less than 10% of patients needed 5 DTC's. Following the DTC number, the share of consultations to the neurologist decreased, whereas that of the anaesthesiology specialism increased. The largest portion of costs was allocated to the anaesthesiology and neurosurgery specialisms. CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, LBP patients consult a variety of medical specialists, in particular, the neurology, hospital costs for LBP patients are expected to increase given the rising incidence. Optimal diagnosis and tailored treatment plans might result in reduced costs and improved patient outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: Low back pain patients consult various specialists, with the majority first referred to the neurologist. More than half of the LBD patients require only one DTC and less than 10% needed five DTC's or more. The largest portion of the hospital costs for LBP patients is allocated to the anaesthesiology and neurosurgery specialisms.

Dutch multidisciplinary guideline for invasive treatment of pain syndromes of the lumbosacral spine

OBJECTIVES: When conservative therapies such as pain medication or exercise therapy fail, invasive treatment may be indicated for patients with lumbosacral spinal pain. The Dutch Society of Anesthesiologists, in collaboration with the Dutch Orthopedic Association and the Dutch Neurosurgical Society, has taken the initiative to develop the guideline "Spinal low back pain," which describes the evidence regarding diagnostics and invasive treatment of the most common spinal low back pain syndromes, that is, facet joint pain, sacroiliac joint pain, coccygodynia, pain originating from the intervertebral disk, and failed back surgery syndrome. METHODS: The aim of the guideline is to determine which invasive treatment intervention is preferred for each included pain syndrome when conservative treatment has failed. Diagnostic studies were evaluated using the EBRO criteria, and studies on therapies were evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. For the evaluation of invasive treatment options, the guideline committee decided that the outcome measures of pain, function, and quality of life were most important. RESULTS: The definition, epidemiology, pathophysiological mechanism, diagnostics, and recommendations for invasive therapy for each of the spinal back pain syndromes are reported. DISCUSSION: The guideline committee concluded that the categorization of low back pain into merely specific or nonspecific gives insufficient insight into the low back pain problem and does not adequately reflect which therapy is effective for the underlying disorder of a pain syndrome. Based on the guideline "Spinal low back pain," facet joint pain, pain of the sacroiliac joint, and disk pain will be part of a planned nationwide cost-effectiveness study.

Clinical course of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies set in primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Non-specific low back pain is a relatively common and recurrent condition for which at present there is no effective cure. In current guidelines, the prognosis of acute non-specific back pain is assumed to be favourable, but this assumption is mainly based on return to function. This systematic review investigates the clinical course of pain in patients with non-specific acute low back pain who seek treatment in primary care. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Included were prospective studies, with follow-up of at least 12 months, that studied the prognosis of patients with low back pain for less than 3 months of duration in primary care settings. Proportions of patients still reporting pain during follow-up were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were used to identify sources of variation between the results of individual studies. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were eligible for evaluation. In the first 3 months, recovery is observed in 33% of patients, but 1 year after onset, 65% still report pain. Subgroup analysis reveals that the pooled proportion of patients still reporting pain after 1 year was 71% at 12 months for studies that considered total absence of pain as a criterion for recovery versus 57% for studies that used a less stringent definition. The pooled proportion for Australian studies was 41% versus 69% for European or US studies. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review indicate that the assumption that spontaneous recovery occurs in a large majority of patients is not justified. There should be more focus on intensive follow-up of patients who have not recovered within the first 3 months.