ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2024
Budget Impact Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A European Hospital Perspective.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world outcomes of minimally invasive posterior thoracic and lumbar spine fusion surgery versus open surgery in the Finnish Spine Registry.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: When traditional therapies fail to provide relief from debilitating lower back pain, surgeries such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be required. This budget impact analysis (BIA) compared minimally-invasive (MI)-TLIF versus open (O)-TLIF for single-level fusion from an Italian hospital perspective. Methods: The BIA compared costs of 100 MI-TLIF and 100 O-TLIF procedures from an Italian hospital perspective over a one-year time horizon. The base case included costs for length of hospital stay (LOS), blood loss, and sterilizing surgical trays. The scenario analysis also included operating room (OR) time and complication costs. Base case inputs were from the Miller et al meta-analysis; scenario analysis inputs were from the Hammad et al meta-analysis. The device costs for MI-TLIF and O-TLIF procedures were from Italian tender prices for Viper Prime™ System and Expedium™ Spine System, respectively. Results: Base case deterministic analysis results showed cost savings of €207,370 for MI-TLIF compared with O-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€215,277), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), and surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), whereas device costs were lower for O-TLIF (€53,020). The probabilistic result was similar, with MI-TLIF resulting in savings of €211,026 (95% credible interval [CR]: €208,725 - €213,327). All 1000 base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs were cost saving. Deterministic scenario analysis results showed cost savings of €166,719 for MI-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€190,813), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), and complications (€2076), whereas O-TLIF costs were lower for OR time (€18,263) and devices used (€53,020). Conclusion: Despite the increase incremental cost for medical device innovation and OR time, this study demonstrates the economic savings of MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF from a European hospital perspective. The findings will be useful to policy and hospital decision makers in assessing purchasing, funding and reimbursement decisions.
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.