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)...
Saved in:
Published in | The spine journal Vol. 15; no. 3; pp. 492 - 498 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Elsevier Inc
01.03.2015
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get 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 |