Economic Aspects of Neurosurgery

  • B. Jennett
  • J. Pickard
Part of the Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery book series (NEUROSURGERY, volume 19)


Critics of modern medicine who suspect that some of its activities do more harm than good, and that even avowed benefits may not be worth the cost, usually focus on various types of high technology medicine1. Surgery is both the oldest and the most widely practised example of a potentially hazardous and often expensive technological intervention offered to patients to improve their prospects of a good outcome. Within surgery some procedures and specialties are supposed more often than others to be of limited benefit or unusually costly. Examples include surgery for major congenital malformations in infancy and for advanced cancer, transplantation of heart, liver or lung, and the specialties of plastic surgery and neurosurgery. Debate about the ethics and economics of high technology medicine is now on the agenda in all westernised countries. This is because it is increasingly realized that rationing of health care is inevitable in even the most affluent societies. As a result, equity in the distribution of health care resources is recognized as an important principle of medical ethics2. Two other principles, non-maleficence (not doing harm to patients) and respecting patient autonomy, indicate that the use of some technologies is sometimes inappropriate even when resources are not an issue. We consider here the contribution that economic principles can make to this debate, dealing first with surgery in general and then with neurosurgery, for which some recent studies provide practical examples.


Head Injury Subarachnoid Haemorrhage Severe Disability Economic Aspect Malignant Brain Tumour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jennett B (1986) High technology medicine — benefits and burdens. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jennett B (1987) Are ethics and economics incompatible? Proc Roy Coll Phys Edinb 17: 190–195Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jennett B (1984) Economic appraisal. Br Med J 289: 1781–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mooney GH, Ludbrook A (1984) The NHS: efficiency need not be a dirty word. Br Med J 288: 1817–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams A (1985) Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. Br Med J 291: 326–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith A (1987) Qualms about QALYs. Lancet i: 1134–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pickard JD, Bailey S, Sanderson H, et al (1990) Steps towards cost-benefit analysis of regional neurosurgical care. Br Med J 301: 629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jennett B (1985) Benefits and burdens of surgery. Br J Surg 72: 939–941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jennett B (1988) Balancing benefits and burdens in surgery. Br Med Bull 44: 499–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenfield S (1989) The state of outcome research: are we on target? N Engl J Med 320: 1142–1143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carlson H, Pellettieri L (1989) Doctors’ versus patients’ evaluation of results after neurosurgery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 52: 153–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer CHA, Hitchcock ER (1991) Keeping the score: neurosurgical audit of clinical outcome (abstract). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (in press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jennett B (1989) Surgery to prevent stroke: high hopes and deep disappointment. Int J Tech Assess in Health Care 5: 443–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jennett B (1979) How many specialists? Lancet 1: 594–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jennett B, Murray A, Carlin J, et al (1979) Head injuries in three Scottish neurosurgical units. Scottish head injury management study. Br Med J 2: 955–958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bartlett JR, Neil-Dwyer G, Banham JMM, et al (1978) Evaluation of the cost effectiveness of diagnostic equipment: the brain scanner case. Br Med J ii: 815–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandercock PAG, Roberts MA, Blumhardt LD (1989) A prospective audit of the use and costs of myelography in a regional neuroscience unit. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 523: 1078–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jennett B (1986) Diagnostic investigations — towards more appropriate use: I. A clinicians’ viewpoint. Health Bull 44: 8–12Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ludbrook A, Mooney G (1986) Diagnostic investigations-towards more appropriate use: II. The economic perspective. Health Bull 44: 13–19Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hankey GJ, Warlow CP (1990) Symptomatic carotid ischaemic events: safest and most cost effective way of selecting patients for angiography, before carotid endarterectomy. Br Med J 300: 1485–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moffat DA, Hardy DG (1989) Early diagnosis and surgical management of acoustic neuroma: is it cost effective? J Roy Soc Med 82: 329–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swan IRC, Gatehouse S (1991) Clinical and financial audit of diagnostic protocols for lesions of the cerebellopontine angle. Br Med J 302: 701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pickard JD, Murray GD, Illingworth R, et al (1989) Effect of oral nimodipine on cerebral infarction and outcome after subarachnoid haemorrhage: British aneurysm nimodipine trial. Br Med J 298: 636–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silfvenius H (1988) Economic cost of epilepsy — treatment benefits. Acta Neurol Scand 78 [Suppl 117]: 136–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Teasdale G, Galbraith S, Murray L, et al (1982) Management of traumatic intracranial haematoma. Br Med J 285: 1695–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jennett B (1991) Epidemiology of severe head injury: socio-economic consequences of avoidable mortality and morbidity. In: Scriabine A, Teasdale GM, Tettenbom D, Young W (eds) Nimodipine. Pharmacological and clinical results in cerebral ischaemia. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teasdale G, Murray G, Anderson E, et al (1990) Risks of acute traumatic intracranial haematoma in children and adults: implications for managing head injuries. Br Med J 300: 363–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mendelow AD, Campbell DA, Jeffrey RR (1982) Admission after mild head injury: benefits and costs. Br Med J 285: 1530–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Group of Neurosurgeons (1984) Guidelines for initial management after head injury in adults. Br Med J 288: 983–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bryden JS, Jennett B (1983) Neurosurgical resources and transfer policies for head injuries. Br Med J 286: 1791–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jennett B, Macpherson P (1990) Implications of scanning recently head injured patients in general hospitals. Clin Radiol 42: 88–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jennett B (1990) Decisions to limit the use of technologies that save or sustain life. Proc Roy Coll Phys Edinb 20: 407–415Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barlow P, Teasdale G (1986) Prediction of outcome and the management of head injuries: the attitudes of neurosurgeons. Neurosurgery 19: 989–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barlow P, Jennett B (1991) Decisions to limit treatment in a neurosurgical unit: an aspect of audit of mortality. Scot Med J 36: 109–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rees M (1985) The costs of the cardiothoracic and neurological units in the Southampton General Hospital; Report of the Regional Services Project Steering Committee. Winchester: Wessex Regional Health AuthorityGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dixon J, Welch HG (1991) Priority setting: lessons from Oregon. Lancet 337: 891–894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sundbarg G, Norlund A, Nordstrom CH, Messeter K (1989) Severe traumatic brain lesions in Sweden. Part 3: Economic aspects of aggressive neurosurgical intensive care. Brain Injury 3: 283–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jennett B (1989) Severe head injuries — Swedish style. Brain Injury 3: 215–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Jennett
    • 1
  • J. Pickard
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of GlasgowUK
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of CambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations