The cost-effectiveness of interbody fusions versus posterolateral fusions in 137 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis

Abstract Background context Reimbursements for interbody fusions have declined recently because of their questionable cost-effectiveness. Purpose A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost-effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (/TLIF)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe spine journal Vol. 15; no. 3; pp. 492 - 498
Main Authors Bydon, Mohamad, MD, Macki, Mohamed, BS, Abt, Nicholas B., BS, Witham, Timothy F., MD, Wolinsky, Jean-Paul, MD, Gokaslan, Ziya L., MD, Bydon, Ali, MD, Sciubba, Daniel M., MD
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Elsevier Inc 01.03.2015
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Abstract Background context Reimbursements for interbody fusions have declined recently because of their questionable cost-effectiveness. Purpose A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost-effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (/TLIF) versus noninterbody fusion and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Study design/Setting Decision model analysis based on retrospective data from a single institutional series. Patient sample One hundred thirty-seven patients underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Outcome measures Quality of life adjustments and expenditures were assigned to each short-term complication (durotomy, surgical site infection, and medical complication) and long-term outcome (bowel/bladder dysfunction and paraplegia, neurologic deficit, and chronic back pain). Methods Patients were divided into a PLF cohort and a PLF plus PLIF/TLIF cohort. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. Each short-term complication and long-term outcome was assigned a numerical quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), based on time trade-off values in the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. The cost data for short-term complications were calculated from charges accrued by the institution's finance sector, and the cost data for long-term outcomes were estimated from the literature. The difference in cost of PLF plus PLIF/TLIF from the cost of PLF alone divided by the difference in QALY equals the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER). We do not report any study funding sources or any study-specific appraisal of potential conflict of interest–associated biases in this article. Results Of 137 first-time lumbar fusions for spondylolisthesis, 83 patients underwent PLF and 54 underwent PLIF/TLIF. The average time to reoperation was 3.5 years. The mean QALY over 3.5 years was 2.81 in the PLF cohort versus 2.66 in the PLIFo /TLIF cohort (p=.110). The mean 3.5-year costs of $54,827.05 after index interbody fusion were statistically higher than that of the $48,822.76 after PLF (p=.042). The CER of interbody fusion to PLF after the first operation was −$46,699.40 per QALY; however, of the 27 patients requiring reoperation, the incident (reoperation) rate ratio was 7.89 times higher after PLF (2.91, 26.67). The CER after the first reoperation was −$24,429.04 per QALY (relative to PLF). Two patients in the PLF cohort required a second reoperation, whereas none required a second reoperation in the PLIF/TLIF cohort. Taken collectively, the total CER for the interbody fusion is $9,883.97 per QALY. Conclusions The reoperation rate was statistically higher for PLF, whereas the negative CER for the initial operation and first reoperation favors PLF. However, when second reoperations were included, the CER for the interbody fusion became $9,883.97 per QALY, suggesting moderate long-term cost savings and better functional outcomes with the interbody fusion.
AbstractList BACKGROUND CONTEXTReimbursements for interbody fusions have declined recently because of their questionable cost-effectiveness.PURPOSEA Markov model was adopted to compare the cost-effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (/TLIF) versus noninterbody fusion and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGDecision model analysis based on retrospective data from a single institutional series.PATIENT SAMPLEOne hundred thirty-seven patients underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis.OUTCOME MEASURESQuality of life adjustments and expenditures were assigned to each short-term complication (durotomy, surgical site infection, and medical complication) and long-term outcome (bowel/bladder dysfunction and paraplegia, neurologic deficit, and chronic back pain).METHODSPatients were divided into a PLF cohort and a PLF plus PLIF/TLIF cohort. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. Each short-term complication and long-term outcome was assigned a numerical quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), based on time trade-off values in the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. The cost data for short-term complications were calculated from charges accrued by the institution's finance sector, and the cost data for long-term outcomes were estimated from the literature. The difference in cost of PLF plus PLIF/TLIF from the cost of PLF alone divided by the difference in QALY equals the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER). We do not report any study funding sources or any study-specific appraisal of potential conflict of interest-associated biases in this article.RESULTSOf 137 first-time lumbar fusions for spondylolisthesis, 83 patients underwent PLF and 54 underwent PLIF/TLIF. The average time to reoperation was 3.5 years. The mean QALY over 3.5 years was 2.81 in the PLF cohort versus 2.66 in the PLIFo/TLIF cohort (p=.110). The mean 3.5-year costs of $54,827.05 after index interbody fusion were statistically higher than that of the $48,822.76 after PLF (p=.042). The CER of interbody fusion to PLF after the first operation was -$46,699.40 per QALY; however, of the 27 patients requiring reoperation, the incident (reoperation) rate ratio was 7.89 times higher after PLF (2.91, 26.67). The CER after the first reoperation was -$24,429.04 per QALY (relative to PLF). Two patients in the PLF cohort required a second reoperation, whereas none required a second reoperation in the PLIF/TLIF cohort. Taken collectively, the total CER for the interbody fusion is $9,883.97 per QALY.CONCLUSIONSThe reoperation rate was statistically higher for PLF, whereas the negative CER for the initial operation and first reoperation favors PLF. However, when second reoperations were included, the CER for the interbody fusion became $9,883.97 per QALY, suggesting moderate long-term cost savings and better functional outcomes with the interbody fusion.
Abstract Background context Reimbursements for interbody fusions have declined recently because of their questionable cost-effectiveness. Purpose A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost-effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (/TLIF) versus noninterbody fusion and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Study design/Setting Decision model analysis based on retrospective data from a single institutional series. Patient sample One hundred thirty-seven patients underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Outcome measures Quality of life adjustments and expenditures were assigned to each short-term complication (durotomy, surgical site infection, and medical complication) and long-term outcome (bowel/bladder dysfunction and paraplegia, neurologic deficit, and chronic back pain). Methods Patients were divided into a PLF cohort and a PLF plus PLIF/TLIF cohort. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. Each short-term complication and long-term outcome was assigned a numerical quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), based on time trade-off values in the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. The cost data for short-term complications were calculated from charges accrued by the institution's finance sector, and the cost data for long-term outcomes were estimated from the literature. The difference in cost of PLF plus PLIF/TLIF from the cost of PLF alone divided by the difference in QALY equals the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER). We do not report any study funding sources or any study-specific appraisal of potential conflict of interest–associated biases in this article. Results Of 137 first-time lumbar fusions for spondylolisthesis, 83 patients underwent PLF and 54 underwent PLIF/TLIF. The average time to reoperation was 3.5 years. The mean QALY over 3.5 years was 2.81 in the PLF cohort versus 2.66 in the PLIFo /TLIF cohort (p=.110). The mean 3.5-year costs of $54,827.05 after index interbody fusion were statistically higher than that of the $48,822.76 after PLF (p=.042). The CER of interbody fusion to PLF after the first operation was −$46,699.40 per QALY; however, of the 27 patients requiring reoperation, the incident (reoperation) rate ratio was 7.89 times higher after PLF (2.91, 26.67). The CER after the first reoperation was −$24,429.04 per QALY (relative to PLF). Two patients in the PLF cohort required a second reoperation, whereas none required a second reoperation in the PLIF/TLIF cohort. Taken collectively, the total CER for the interbody fusion is $9,883.97 per QALY. Conclusions The reoperation rate was statistically higher for PLF, whereas the negative CER for the initial operation and first reoperation favors PLF. However, when second reoperations were included, the CER for the interbody fusion became $9,883.97 per QALY, suggesting moderate long-term cost savings and better functional outcomes with the interbody fusion.
Reimbursements for interbody fusions have declined recently because of their questionable cost-effectiveness. A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost-effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (/TLIF) versus noninterbody fusion and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Decision model analysis based on retrospective data from a single institutional series. One hundred thirty-seven patients underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Quality of life adjustments and expenditures were assigned to each short-term complication (durotomy, surgical site infection, and medical complication) and long-term outcome (bowel/bladder dysfunction and paraplegia, neurologic deficit, and chronic back pain). Patients were divided into a PLF cohort and a PLF plus PLIF/TLIF cohort. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. Each short-term complication and long-term outcome was assigned a numerical quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), based on time trade-off values in the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. The cost data for short-term complications were calculated from charges accrued by the institution's finance sector, and the cost data for long-term outcomes were estimated from the literature. The difference in cost of PLF plus PLIF/TLIF from the cost of PLF alone divided by the difference in QALY equals the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER). We do not report any study funding sources or any study-specific appraisal of potential conflict of interest-associated biases in this article. Of 137 first-time lumbar fusions for spondylolisthesis, 83 patients underwent PLF and 54 underwent PLIF/TLIF. The average time to reoperation was 3.5 years. The mean QALY over 3.5 years was 2.81 in the PLF cohort versus 2.66 in the PLIFo/TLIF cohort (p=.110). The mean 3.5-year costs of $54,827.05 after index interbody fusion were statistically higher than that of the $48,822.76 after PLF (p=.042). The CER of interbody fusion to PLF after the first operation was -$46,699.40 per QALY; however, of the 27 patients requiring reoperation, the incident (reoperation) rate ratio was 7.89 times higher after PLF (2.91, 26.67). The CER after the first reoperation was -$24,429.04 per QALY (relative to PLF). Two patients in the PLF cohort required a second reoperation, whereas none required a second reoperation in the PLIF/TLIF cohort. Taken collectively, the total CER for the interbody fusion is $9,883.97 per QALY. The reoperation rate was statistically higher for PLF, whereas the negative CER for the initial operation and first reoperation favors PLF. However, when second reoperations were included, the CER for the interbody fusion became $9,883.97 per QALY, suggesting moderate long-term cost savings and better functional outcomes with the interbody fusion.
Reimbursements for interbody fusions have declined recently because of their questionable cost-effectiveness. A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost-effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (/TLIF) versus noninterbody fusion and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Decision model analysis based on retrospective data from a single institutional series. One hundred thirty-seven patients underwent first-time instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Quality of life adjustments and expenditures were assigned to each short-term complication (durotomy, surgical site infection, and medical complication) and long-term outcome (bowel/bladder dysfunction and paraplegia, neurologic deficit, and chronic back pain). Patients were divided into a PLF cohort and a PLF plus PLIF/TLIF cohort. Anterior techniques and multilevel interbody fusions were excluded. Each short-term complication and long-term outcome was assigned a numerical quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), based on time trade-off values in the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. The cost data for short-term complications were calculated from charges accrued by the institution's finance sector, and the cost data for long-term outcomes were estimated from the literature. The difference in cost of PLF plus PLIF/TLIF from the cost of PLF alone divided by the difference in QALY equals the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER). We do not report any study funding sources or any study-specific appraisal of potential conflict of interest–associated biases in this article. Of 137 first-time lumbar fusions for spondylolisthesis, 83 patients underwent PLF and 54 underwent PLIF/TLIF. The average time to reoperation was 3.5 years. The mean QALY over 3.5 years was 2.81 in the PLF cohort versus 2.66 in the PLIFo/TLIF cohort (p=.110). The mean 3.5-year costs of $54,827.05 after index interbody fusion were statistically higher than that of the $48,822.76 after PLF (p=.042). The CER of interbody fusion to PLF after the first operation was −$46,699.40 per QALY; however, of the 27 patients requiring reoperation, the incident (reoperation) rate ratio was 7.89 times higher after PLF (2.91, 26.67). The CER after the first reoperation was −$24,429.04 per QALY (relative to PLF). Two patients in the PLF cohort required a second reoperation, whereas none required a second reoperation in the PLIF/TLIF cohort. Taken collectively, the total CER for the interbody fusion is $9,883.97 per QALY. The reoperation rate was statistically higher for PLF, whereas the negative CER for the initial operation and first reoperation favors PLF. However, when second reoperations were included, the CER for the interbody fusion became $9,883.97 per QALY, suggesting moderate long-term cost savings and better functional outcomes with the interbody fusion.
Author Macki, Mohamed, BS
Gokaslan, Ziya L., MD
Wolinsky, Jean-Paul, MD
Bydon, Ali, MD
Abt, Nicholas B., BS
Witham, Timothy F., MD
Sciubba, Daniel M., MD
Bydon, Mohamad, MD
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  fullname: Bydon, Mohamad, MD
– sequence: 2
  fullname: Macki, Mohamed, BS
– sequence: 3
  fullname: Abt, Nicholas B., BS
– sequence: 4
  fullname: Witham, Timothy F., MD
– sequence: 5
  fullname: Wolinsky, Jean-Paul, MD
– sequence: 6
  fullname: Gokaslan, Ziya L., MD
– sequence: 7
  fullname: Bydon, Ali, MD
– sequence: 8
  fullname: Sciubba, Daniel M., MD
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25463402$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNqFkUuPFCEQgDtmjfvQf2AMRy898upu5mJiNusj2cSD65nQUGQYGWip7tnMv5fOrHvw4gVI8VUVfHXdXKScoGneMrphlPUf9hucQgLYcMpkDW0oHV40V0wNqmW94Bf13PFtu5WCXjbXiHtKqRoYf9Vc8k72QlJ-1Tw-7IDYjHML3oOdwxESIJLsSUgzlDG7E_ELhpyQHKHggmSqOJQcTV1NfL4NiTAxkMnMAdKM5DHMOxKXw2gKwSknd4o5Bpx3gAFfNy-9iQhvnvab5ufnu4fbr-399y_fbj_dt1aqYW6VGw2jxnNLt1Q4y8EN0nrurXfD1va2B8k4cE6pdwAjFYMCUBac6Hsnmbhp3p_rTiX_XgBnfQhoIUaTIC-oWd8pyZRQtKLyjNqSEQt4PZVwMOWkGdWrcr3XZ-V6Vb5Gq_Ka9u6pwzIewD0n_XVcgY9nAOo_jwGKRlsN1TeGUo1rl8P_OvxbwMaQgjXxF5wA93kpqTrUTCPXVP9Yx75OnUnKur6T4g_dZq7V
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000003937
crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000001638
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_spinee_2021_03_005
crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000002283
crossref_primary_10_3171_2017_10_FOCUS17571
crossref_primary_10_1097_BSD_0000000000001134
crossref_primary_10_1097_JMQ_0000000000000088
crossref_primary_10_1093_ons_opaa147
crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000004548
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2018_02_060
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2017_11_109
crossref_primary_10_1097_BSD_0000000000000729
crossref_primary_10_2106_JBJS_16_00679
crossref_primary_10_1089_sur_2016_186
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jos_2018_04_001
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_nec_2019_02_010
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_semss_2020_100808
crossref_primary_10_1097_BSD_0000000000000536
crossref_primary_10_1097_BSD_0000000000000298
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12893_022_01468_4
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_spinee_2018_01_028
crossref_primary_10_1055_s_0041_1739223
crossref_primary_10_1097_BSD_0000000000000297
crossref_primary_10_36106_ijsr_7909135
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_spinee_2023_05_003
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_spinee_2019_07_014
crossref_primary_10_1097_01_CSS_0000530141_36807_65
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2022_07_092
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12891_016_1280_8
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00586_017_5142_3
crossref_primary_10_3171_2020_8_SPINE201015
crossref_primary_10_1590_s1808_185120191804197070
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_spinee_2017_06_018
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jspd_2016_09_045
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2020_05_123
crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_067871
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jocn_2022_04_042
crossref_primary_10_3109_03008207_2015_1027341
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_inat_2016_07_001
crossref_primary_10_1007_s40258_019_00471_w
crossref_primary_10_18231_j_ijos_2022_026
crossref_primary_10_1097_NOR_0000000000000350
crossref_primary_10_1177_2192568217738766
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2020_10_048
crossref_primary_10_1097_BSD_0000000000000594
crossref_primary_10_1177_2192568217701103
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10439_015_1300_0
crossref_primary_10_1155_2022_8410519
crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000002812
Cites_doi 10.1097/01.brs.0000218635.14571.55
10.1177/0272989X9301300409
10.2106/00004623-197557040-00004
10.1007/s00586-013-2760-2
10.1177/0272989X9301300202
10.1097/00007632-200005010-00015
10.1097/00002517-200104000-00002
10.1097/00007632-199701150-00016
10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b8a829
10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815b84ae
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Elsevier Inc.
2015 Elsevier Inc.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright_xml – notice: Elsevier Inc.
– notice: 2015 Elsevier Inc.
– notice: Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
AAYXX
CITATION
7X8
DOI 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
CrossRef
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
CrossRef
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic

MEDLINE

Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Physical Therapy
EISSN 1878-1632
EndPage 498
ExternalDocumentID 10_1016_j_spinee_2014_10_007
25463402
S1529943014015654
1_s2_0_S1529943014015654
Genre Journal Article
Comparative Study
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: NREF
– fundername: DePuy
– fundername: Medtronic
– fundername: AOSpine North America
– fundername: K2M
– fundername: Integra Life Sciences
– fundername: Depuy Spine
– fundername: Eli Lilly and Company
GroupedDBID ---
--K
--M
.1-
.FO
.~1
0R~
123
1B1
1P~
1~.
1~5
4.4
457
4G.
53G
5VS
6PF
7-5
71M
8P~
AABNK
AACTN
AAEDT
AAEDW
AAIKJ
AAKOC
AALRI
AAOAW
AAQFI
AAQQT
AAQXK
AAWTL
AAXKI
AAXUO
ABBQC
ABFNM
ABJNI
ABMAC
ABMZM
ABXDB
ACDAQ
ACGFS
ACIUM
ACRLP
ADBBV
ADEZE
ADMUD
AEBSH
AEKER
AENEX
AEVXI
AFCTW
AFJKZ
AFKWA
AFRHN
AFTJW
AFXIZ
AGHFR
AGUBO
AGYEJ
AIEXJ
AIKHN
AITUG
AJOXV
AJRQY
AJUYK
AKRWK
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMFUW
AMRAJ
ANZVX
ASPBG
AVWKF
AXJTR
AZFZN
BKOJK
BLXMC
BNPGV
CS3
DU5
EBS
EFJIC
EJD
EO8
EO9
EP2
EP3
F5P
FDB
FEDTE
FGOYB
FIRID
FNPLU
FYGXN
G-Q
GBLVA
HVGLF
HZ~
IHE
J1W
KOM
M41
MO0
N9A
O-L
O9-
OAUVE
OF~
OR-
OZT
P-8
P-9
P2P
PC.
Q38
R2-
RIG
ROL
RPZ
SCC
SDF
SDG
SDP
SEL
SES
SPCBC
SSH
SSZ
T5K
UHS
UV1
Z5R
~G-
AAIAV
ABLVK
ABYKQ
AJBFU
EFLBG
LCYCR
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
AAYXX
CITATION
7X8
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-8dba10af2c0903dc2ed74cf2fcfd79c6c6e412e2200fdeeb0378ee8ced366d413
IEDL.DBID AIKHN
ISSN 1529-9430
IngestDate Sat Oct 26 00:41:39 EDT 2024
Thu Sep 26 19:47:56 EDT 2024
Sat Sep 28 08:02:00 EDT 2024
Fri Feb 23 02:23:24 EST 2024
Tue Oct 15 22:57:03 EDT 2024
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 3
Keywords Spondylolisthesis
TLIF
Interbody
Lumbar
PLIF
Cost-effectiveness
Language English
License Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c487t-8dba10af2c0903dc2ed74cf2fcfd79c6c6e412e2200fdeeb0378ee8ced366d413
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ORCID 0000-0002-2083-3523
PMID 25463402
PQID 1658418380
PQPubID 23479
PageCount 7
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_1658418380
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_spinee_2014_10_007
pubmed_primary_25463402
elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_spinee_2014_10_007
elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S1529943014015654
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2015-03-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2015-03-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 03
  year: 2015
  text: 2015-03-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle The spine journal
PublicationTitleAlternate Spine J
PublicationYear 2015
Publisher Elsevier Inc
Publisher_xml – name: Elsevier Inc
References Sonnenberg, Beck (bib8) 1993; 13
La Rosa, Conti, Cacciola, Cardali, La Torre, Gambadauro (bib9) 2003; 99
Whitecloud, Roesch, Ricciardi (bib11) 2001; 14
Høy, Bunger, Niederman, Helmig, Hansen, Li (bib3) 2013; 22
Levin, Bendo, Quirno, Errico, Goldstein, Spivak (bib10) 2007; 32
Suk, Lee, Kim, Lee, Cho, Kim (bib2) 1997; 22
Abdu, Lurie, Spratt, Tosteson, Zhao, Tosteson (bib4) 2009; 34
Kuntz, Snider, Weinstein, Pope, Katz (bib6) 2000; 25
Kim, Lee, Lee, Bae, Suk (bib5) 2006; 31
Fryback, Dasbach, Klein, Klein, Dorn, Peterson (bib7) 1993; 13
Rosenberg (bib1) 1975; 57
Fryback (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib7) 1993; 13
Suk (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib2) 1997; 22
Whitecloud (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib11) 2001; 14
Levin (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib10) 2007; 32
Kuntz (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib6) 2000; 25
Sonnenberg (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib8) 1993; 13
La Rosa (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib9) 2003; 99
Abdu (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib4) 2009; 34
Rosenberg (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib1) 1975; 57
Kim (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib5) 2006; 31
Høy (10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib3) 2013; 22
References_xml – volume: 57
  start-page: 467
  year: 1975
  end-page: 474
  ident: bib1
  article-title: Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Predisposing factors
  publication-title: J Bone Joint Surg Am
  contributor:
    fullname: Rosenberg
– volume: 34
  start-page: 2351
  year: 2009
  end-page: 2360
  ident: bib4
  article-title: Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial
  publication-title: Spine
  contributor:
    fullname: Tosteson
– volume: 13
  start-page: 89
  year: 1993
  end-page: 102
  ident: bib7
  article-title: The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors
  publication-title: Med Decis Making
  contributor:
    fullname: Peterson
– volume: 31
  start-page: 1351
  year: 2006
  end-page: 1357
  ident: bib5
  article-title: Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine
  publication-title: Spine
  contributor:
    fullname: Suk
– volume: 99
  start-page: 143
  year: 2003
  end-page: 150
  ident: bib9
  article-title: Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion?
  publication-title: J Neurosurg
  contributor:
    fullname: Gambadauro
– volume: 14
  start-page: 100
  year: 2001
  end-page: 103
  ident: bib11
  article-title: Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis
  publication-title: J Spinal Disord
  contributor:
    fullname: Ricciardi
– volume: 13
  start-page: 322
  year: 1993
  end-page: 338
  ident: bib8
  article-title: Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide
  publication-title: Med Decis Making
  contributor:
    fullname: Beck
– volume: 22
  start-page: 210
  year: 1997
  end-page: 219
  ident: bib2
  article-title: Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis
  publication-title: Spine
  contributor:
    fullname: Kim
– volume: 22
  start-page: 2022
  year: 2013
  end-page: 2029
  ident: bib3
  article-title: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up
  publication-title: Eur Spine J
  contributor:
    fullname: Li
– volume: 25
  start-page: 1132
  year: 2000
  end-page: 1139
  ident: bib6
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis
  publication-title: Spine
  contributor:
    fullname: Katz
– volume: 32
  start-page: 2905
  year: 2007
  end-page: 2909
  ident: bib10
  article-title: Comparative charge analysis of one- and two-level lumbar total disc arthroplasty versus circumferential lumbar fusion
  publication-title: Spine
  contributor:
    fullname: Spivak
– volume: 31
  start-page: 1351
  year: 2006
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib5
  article-title: Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine
  publication-title: Spine
  doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000218635.14571.55
  contributor:
    fullname: Kim
– volume: 13
  start-page: 322
  year: 1993
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib8
  article-title: Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide
  publication-title: Med Decis Making
  doi: 10.1177/0272989X9301300409
  contributor:
    fullname: Sonnenberg
– volume: 57
  start-page: 467
  year: 1975
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib1
  article-title: Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Predisposing factors
  publication-title: J Bone Joint Surg Am
  doi: 10.2106/00004623-197557040-00004
  contributor:
    fullname: Rosenberg
– volume: 22
  start-page: 2022
  year: 2013
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib3
  article-title: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up
  publication-title: Eur Spine J
  doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2760-2
  contributor:
    fullname: Høy
– volume: 13
  start-page: 89
  year: 1993
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib7
  article-title: The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors
  publication-title: Med Decis Making
  doi: 10.1177/0272989X9301300202
  contributor:
    fullname: Fryback
– volume: 25
  start-page: 1132
  year: 2000
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib6
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis
  publication-title: Spine
  doi: 10.1097/00007632-200005010-00015
  contributor:
    fullname: Kuntz
– volume: 14
  start-page: 100
  year: 2001
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib11
  article-title: Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis
  publication-title: J Spinal Disord
  doi: 10.1097/00002517-200104000-00002
  contributor:
    fullname: Whitecloud
– volume: 99
  start-page: 143
  issue: 2 Suppl
  year: 2003
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib9
  article-title: Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion?
  publication-title: J Neurosurg
  contributor:
    fullname: La Rosa
– volume: 22
  start-page: 210
  year: 1997
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib2
  article-title: Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis
  publication-title: Spine
  doi: 10.1097/00007632-199701150-00016
  contributor:
    fullname: Suk
– volume: 34
  start-page: 2351
  year: 2009
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib4
  article-title: Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial
  publication-title: Spine
  doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b8a829
  contributor:
    fullname: Abdu
– volume: 32
  start-page: 2905
  year: 2007
  ident: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007_bib10
  article-title: Comparative charge analysis of one- and two-level lumbar total disc arthroplasty versus circumferential lumbar fusion
  publication-title: Spine
  doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815b84ae
  contributor:
    fullname: Levin
SSID ssj0008712
Score 2.3498259
Snippet Abstract Background context Reimbursements for interbody fusions have declined recently because of their questionable cost-effectiveness. Purpose A Markov...
Reimbursements for interbody fusions have declined recently because of their questionable cost-effectiveness. A Markov model was adopted to compare the...
BACKGROUND CONTEXTReimbursements for interbody fusions have declined recently because of their questionable cost-effectiveness.PURPOSEA Markov model was...
SourceID proquest
crossref
pubmed
elsevier
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
Publisher
StartPage 492
SubjectTerms Aged
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost-effectiveness
Decision Support Techniques
Female
Health Care Costs
Health Expenditures
Humans
Interbody
Lumbar
Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery
Male
Markov Chains
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
PLIF
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Retrospective Studies
Spinal Fusion - adverse effects
Spinal Fusion - economics
Spinal Fusion - methods
Spondylolisthesis
Spondylolisthesis - surgery
TLIF
Title The cost-effectiveness of interbody fusions versus posterolateral fusions in 137 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis
URI https://www.clinicalkey.es/playcontent/1-s2.0-S1529943014015654
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.007
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25463402
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1658418380
Volume 15
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1LT9wwEB7B7oULUKCwpV25Uq9m89o8jggVLVRFSAWJm-X4oQahZLXeFeLCb-9M4qyKEELiljiJ7MyM52F_Mwb4EctkiqwNuCms4Yk0JUc_LuAFGqs4VlkWR5Tg_Psqnd0ml3fTuw0463NhCFbpdX-n01tt7VsmnpqTeVVN_qDlKah4OIUI6JYkmzBEcxTlAxieXvyaXa0VMsYE7aYnvk9jCPoMuhbm5eZU9Y8wXslJC_PK3rJQb3mgrSU634Vt70Ky026Un2DD1Huwc-0Jzm66OgH78IhXTDVuyTvQhtdrrLGsasnZ6CdmV7Rc5hihM1aOzSnnY4HhLiUmP6yfVjUL44z5IqyO0eotQ7VWygUjjK3GsP8BBeavcZU7gNvznzdnM-7PWeAKw5Ulz3Upw0DaSNGijVaR0VmibGSV1VmhUpUapKuJcEJZbUwZxFluTI4citNUoxX8DIO6qc0RMGnLJEx0GGq8KLUsU8LcSG2D2BaRViPgPW3FvCunIXqc2b3oeCGIF9SKvBhB1jNA9KmiqNyM8zPNiVC4SATilTT8_-ULgRJoK97p83vPaYFzjTZQZG2aFfZF7hrqwDwYwWEnAuu_aM8VwGD8y4f7PYYtvJt2ALevMFguVuYbejzLcgybJ8_h2Mv1P_QgA7g
link.rule.ids 315,783,787,4509,24128,27936,27937,45597,45691
linkProvider Elsevier
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Li9swEB7SzaG9bN9t-lShVzV-KHZ8DEuXpMmGQrOwNyHrQV0WO0QJy_77nbHl0FKWQm9CtpE8M5qH9M0I4HOqxARZG3FbOMuFsiVHPy7iBRqrNNV5niaU4HyxzuaX4tvV5GoAZ30uDMEqg-7vdHqrrUPPOFBzvK2q8Q-0PAUVD6cQAd0S8QCG6A0UuDqHs8Vyvj4qZIwJ2kNPfJ_mEPUZdC3My2-p6h9hvMSXFuaV32eh7vNAW0t0_gROgwvJZt0sn8LA1s_g8fdAcLbp6gQ8hxtsMd34Pe9AG0GvscaxqiVnY26ZO9B2mWeEzjh4tqWcjx2Gu5SYfH18WtUsTnMWirB6Rru3DNVaqXaMMLYGw_5rFJif1lf-BVyef92czXm4Z4FrDFf2fGpKFUfKJZo2bYxOrMmFdonTzuSFznRmRZzYBBeUM9aWUZpPrZ0ih9IsM2gFX8JJ3dT2NTDlShELE8cGG6VRZUaYG2VclLoiMXoEvKet3HblNGSPM_slO15I4gX1Ii9GkPcMkH2qKCo368NK8zKWPpGR_Esafv_yD4GSaCv-MeanntMS1xodoKjaNgcci9w11IHTaASvOhE4_kV7rwAG42_-e9yP8HC-uVjJ1WK9fAuP8MmkA7u9g5P97mDfo_ezLz8E6b4DOtYFrA
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+cost-effectiveness+of+interbody+fusions+versus+posterolateral+fusions+in+137+patients+with+lumbar+spondylolisthesis&rft.jtitle=The+spine+journal&rft.au=Bydon%2C+Mohamad&rft.au=Macki%2C+Mohamed&rft.au=Abt%2C+Nicholas+B&rft.au=Witham%2C+Timothy+F&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.eissn=1878-1632&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=492&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.spinee.2014.10.007&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F25463402&rft.externalDocID=25463402
thumbnail_m http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/image/custom?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.clinicalkey.com%2Fck-thumbnails%2F15299430%2FS1529943014X0015X%2Fcov150h.gif