The cost-effectiveness of nonsurgical versus surgical treatment for XXXX .

@entity1 @entity923 @entity134 @entity616
PURPOSE: To compare direct costs and results for @entity1 with electrodiagnostically proven @entity923 treated with surgery versus nonsurgical care. METHODS: There is a retrospective study of 120 @entity1 divided into 2 groups: subjects in group 1 had chosen nonsurgical treatment, whereas subjects in group 2 had chosen surgery with no nonsurgical treatment. @entity1 were matched on age, gender, severity of @entity616 , body mass index, smoking history, job category, and insurance coverage. Direct cost of care was measured. An incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated to compare costs between the different management strategies. RESULTS: Group 1 follow-up averaged 13 +/- 5 months compared to 12 +/- 2 months for group 2. @entity134 injections were used in 18 @entity1 in group 1. Thirty-two @entity1 in group 1 elected to have surgery during the follow-up period. Cost of care averaged  3335 +/-  2097 in group 1 and  3068 +/-  983 in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: The direct cost of nonsurgical care of confirmed @entity923 did not show a significant difference from that of surgical treatment without preoperative splinting or therapy. The incremental cost-utility ratio for @entity923 was favorable. Surgery, rather than nonsurgical care, should be considered as the initial form of treatment when @entity1 are diagnosed with @entity923 that is confirmed by nerve conduction studies, as this provides symptom resolution with a favorable cost analysis. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis III.
