ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2020
Cost analysis comparison between conventional microsurgical decompression and full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis surgery.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic comparisons of endoscopic spine surgery: a systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023Pooled it
- Case-matched radiological and clinical outcome evaluation of interlaminar versus microsurgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023Article
- Percutaneous Full Endoscopic Management of Spinal Foraminal Schwannomas: Case Series.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo of the most commonly used techniques for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) include full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression (MIS) and conventional microsurgical decompression (CD). Although these procedures have proven efficacy for relief of stenotic symptoms, in this age of increased concerns for healthcare cost, weighing the respective accumulative costs is essential for deciding which approach to adopt. The aim of this study is to perform a cost analysis comparison between MIS and CD for LSS.
methodsA decision analysis model comparing MIS and CD for patients with LSS over a 1-year time horizon was conducted. Relevant unit costs associated with each surgical procedure and each possible complication treatment were estimated. Regarding the respective complication rates for each procedure, data was retrieved from the literature. Reoperation was considered for epidural hematoma, inadequate decompression or iatrogenic instability requiring fusion. Nonoperative treatment for complications like infection was also considered.
resultsThe average total costs for MIS and CD were found to be HKD$54,863 and HKD$52,748 respectively. Both procedures carried similar costs in terms of hospitalization, radiology and routine follow-up visits. A 3.9% (HKD$2,115) difference in total cost was largely due to the differences in cost of surgery and complications. MIS costs 5.7% more than CD for an operation but was 28.1% less costly than MIS for complications.
conclusionsGiven the similar clinical effectiveness of either procedure and only a small difference in overall cost, our findings suggest that surgeons should perform the procedure that they are competent with which guarantees adequacy of decompression.
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.