Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28679342›Full record

Trial reportInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2017

Percutaneous laser disc decompression versus microdiscectomy for sciatica: Cost utility analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial.

M Elske van den Akker-van Marle, Patrick A Brouwer, Ronald Brand, Bart Koes, Wilbert B van den Hout, Mark A van Buchem, Wilco C Peul

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Letter to the editor regarding 'Percutaneous laser disc decompression versus conventional microdiscectomy for patients with sciatica: Two-year results of a randomised controlled trial'.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

M Elske van den Akker-van Marle1 Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Patrick A Brouwer1 Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Ronald Brand1 Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Bart Koes3 Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Wilbert B van den Hout1 Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Mark A van Buchem1 Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Wilco C Peul1 Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLErasmus MC · NLKarolinska University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) for patients with lumbar disc herniation is believed to be cheaper than surgery. However, cost-effectiveness has never been studied. Materials and Methods A cost utility analysis was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing PLDD and conventional surgery. Patients reported their quality of life using the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), 36-item short form health survey (SF-36 and derived SF-6D) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). Using cost diaries patients reported health care use, non-health care use and hours of absenteeism from work. The 1-year societal costs were compared with 1-year quality adjusted life years (QALYs) based on the United States (US) EQ-5D. Sensitivity analyses were carried out on the use of different utility measures (Netherland (NL) EQ-5D, SF-6D, or VAS) and on the perspective (societal or healthcare). Results On the US EQ-5D, conventional surgery provided a non-significant gain in QALYs of 0.033 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.026 to 0.093) in the first year. PLDD resulted in significantly lower healthcare costs (difference €1771, 95% CI €303 to €3238) and non-significantly lower societal costs (difference €2379, 95% CI -€2860 to €7618). For low values of the willingness to pay for a QALY, the probability of being cost-effective is in favor of PLDD. For higher values of the willingness to pay, between €30,000 and €70,000, conventional microdiscectomy becomes favorable. Conclusions From a healthcare perspective PLDD, followed by surgery when needed, results in significantly lower 1-year costs than conventional surgery. From a societal perspective PLDD appears to be an economically neutral innovation.

Indexed as

DiskectomyAdolescentAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisDecompression, SurgicalFemaleHumansIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLaser TherapyMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementQuality of LifeSciaticaSurveys and QuestionnairesDisk herniationlaserpercutaneousspinal intervention

Identifiers

PMID28679342
PMCPMC5624405
OpenAlexW2735847581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.