ArticlePloS one2023
Cost-utility analysis of endoscopic lumbar discectomy following a uniform clinical pathway in the Korean national health insurance system.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Socioeconomic Implications of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Narrative Review.Neurospine · 2026Review
- Cost and outcome comparison between intradiscal condoliase injection and surgical treatment for lumbar disc herniation based on real-world data analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Feasibility of Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in a Remote Government Hospital in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFull-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is a type of minimally invasive spinal surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Sufficient evidence exists to recommend FELD as an alternative to standard open microdiscectomy, and some patients prefer FELD due to its minimally invasive nature. However, in the Republic of Korea, the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) controls the reimbursement and use of supplies for FELD, but FELD is not currently reimbursed by the NHIS. Nonetheless, FELD has been performed upon patients' request, but providing FELD for patients' sake is inherently an unstable arrangement in the absence of a practical reimbursement system. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of FELD to suggest appropriate reimbursements.
methodThis study was a subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data including 28 patients who underwent FELD. All patients were NHIS beneficiaries and followed a uniform clinical pathway. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed with a utility score using the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument. The costs included direct medical costs incurred at the hospital for 2 years and the price of the electrode ($700), although it was not reimbursed. The costs and QALYs gained were used to calculate the cost per QALY gained.
resultPatients' mean age was 43 years and one-third (32%) were women. L4-5 was the most common surgical level (20/28, 71%) and extrusion was the most common type of LDH (14, 50%). Half of the patients (15, 54%) had jobs with an intermediate level of activity. The preoperative EQ-5D utility score was 0.48±0.19. Pain, disability, and the utility score significantly improved starting 1 month postoperatively. The average EQ-5D utility score during 2 years after FELD was estimated as 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.85). For 2 years, the mean direct costs were $3,459 and the cost per QALY gained was $5,241.
conclusionThe cost-utility analysis showed a quite reasonable cost per QALY gained for FELD. A comprehensive range of surgical options should be provided to patients, for which a practical reimbursement system is a prerequisite.
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.