ArticleHealth economics review2017
A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA.
Article in Health economics review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multicriteria decision analysis in the Italian healthcare context: a review of applications and methodological approaches.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Pooled it
- Multipack Versus Single-Sterile Implant Supply in Spine Surgery: A Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Cost Minimization and Cost Comparison of the Use of Conventional Double Lumen Tube versus Single-Use VivaSight-Double Lumen Tube in Thoracic Surgery: The Pascale Institute Experience.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Article
- Comparative Cost Analysis of Single-use Sterile versus Reprocessed Distal Radius Volar Plate Sets.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2022Article
- Overcoming Challenges with the Adoption of Point-of-Care Testing: From Technology Push and Clinical Needs to Value Propositions.Point of care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLumbar arthrodesis is a common surgical technique that consists of the fixation of one or more motion segments with pedicle screws and rods. However, spinal surgery using these techniques is expensive and has a significant impact on the budgets of hospitals and Healthcare Systems. While reusable and disposable instruments for laparoscopic interventions have been studied in literature, no specific information exists regarding instrument kits for lumbar arthrodesis. The aim of the present study was to perform a complete health technology assessment comparing a disposable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis (innovative device) with the standard reusable instrument.
methodsA prospective and observational study was implemented, by means of investigation of administrative records of patients undergoing a lumbar arthrodesis surgical procedure. The evaluation was conducted in 2013, over a 12- month time horizon, considering all the procedures carried out using the two technologies. A complete health technology assessment and a multi-criteria decision analysis approach were implemented in order to compare the two alternative technologies. Economic impact (with the implementation of an activity based costing approach), social, ethical, organisational, and technology-related aspects were taken into account.
resultsAlthough the cost analysis produced similar results in the comparison of the two technologies (total cost equal to € 4,279.1 and € 4,242.6 for reusable instrument kit and the disposable one respectively), a significant difference between the two instrument kits was noted, in particular concerning the organisational impact and the patient safety.
conclusionsThe replacement of a reusable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis, with a disposable one, could improve the management of this kind of devices in hospital settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.