Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32975446›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2021

Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Andrew S Chung, Alexander Ballatori, Brandon Ortega, Elliot Min, Blake Formanek, John Liu, Patrick Hsieh, Raymond Hah, Jeffrey C Wang, Zorica Buser

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. [Current status and progress of minimally invasive percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors.

Andrew S Chung5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3942-9595
Alexander Ballatori5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Brandon Ortega5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Elliot Min5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Blake Formanek5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3557-9350
John Liu5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Patrick Hsieh5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7206-4842
Raymond Hah5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7513-3519
Jeffrey C Wang5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Zorica Buser5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5680-0643

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designReview.

objectiveA comparative overview of cost-effectiveness between minimally invasive versus and equivalent open spinal surgeries.

methodsA literature search using PubMed was performed to identify articles of interest. To maximize the capture of studies in our initial search, we combined variants of the terms "cost," "minimally invasive," "spine," "spinal fusion," "decompression" as either keywords or MeSH terms. PearlDiver database was queried for open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS; endoscopic or percutaneous) reimbursements between Q3 2015 and Q2 2018.

resultsIn general, MIS techniques appeared to decrease blood loss, shorten hospital lengths of stay, mitigate complications, decrease perioperative pain, and enable quicker return to daily activities when compared to equivalent open surgical techniques. With regard to cost, primarily as a result of these latter benefits, MIS was associated with lower costs of care when compared to equivalent open techniques. However, cost reporting was sparse, and relevant methodology was inconsistent throughout the spine literature. Within the PearlDiver data sets, MIS approaches had lower reimbursements than open approaches for both lumbar posterior fusion and discectomy.

conclusionsCurrent data suggests that overall cost-savings may be incurred with use of MIS techniques. However, data reporting on costs lacks in uniformity, making it difficult to formulate any firm conclusions regarding any incremental improvements in cost-effectiveness that may be incurred when utilizing MIS techniques when compared to equivalent open techniques.

Indexed as

costdeformitydiscectomyminimally invasivespine surgeryTLIF

Identifiers

PMID32975446
PMCPMC8076812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.