ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2019
Using minimally invasive techniques adds to the value equation for select patients.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review.Neurospine · 2024Article
- The Impact of Preoperative Sagittal Imbalance on Long-term Postoperative Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Laminectomy.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2024Article
- Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2023Review
- Improvement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients 80 years or older compared with younger age groups.Journal of neurosurgery. Spine · 2022Article
- Article
- Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion?Neurosurgical focus · 2020Article
- CORR Insights®: Are There Differences Between Patients with Extreme Stenosis and Non-extreme Stenosis in Terms of Pain, Function or Complications After Spinal Decompression Using a Tubular Retractor System?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conditions of the spine are one of the most prevalent causes of global disability, and result in a considerable portion of total health expenditures. Surgical treatment of the spine has been demonstrated in multiple studies to be a cost-effective treatment option for many patients, especially with continuing improvements in surgical technique and instrumentation. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), in particular, has evolved as a valuable option in treating certain patients. Numerous studies have analyzed minimally invasive techniques in regards to cost-effectiveness and other purported advantages. These advantages include conduciveness to outpatient settings, better perioperative and immediate post-operative benefits, and faster time to recovery. This article will describe the current literature on the advantages of MISS, specifically in regards to value and cost savings.
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.