Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40061199›Full record

ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine

Trends in spinal implant utilization and pricing.

Gabrielle Lucia Dykhouse, Rachel A Bratescu, Osama N Kashlan, Lynn McGrath, Roger Härtl, Galal A Elsayed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors.

Gabrielle Lucia DykhouseWeill Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Rachel A BratescuOch Spine at Newyork-Presbyterian at the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Osama N KashlanOch Spine at Newyork-Presbyterian at the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Lynn McGrathOch Spine at Newyork-Presbyterian at the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Roger HärtlOch Spine at Newyork-Presbyterian at the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Galal A ElsayedOch Spine at Newyork-Presbyterian at the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The escalation of United States (U.S.) spine surgery volume has been accompanied by considerable advancements in our understanding of spine physiology and technology. Together with implant development over the past decades, these improvements have led to shifts in implant usage. This investigation aimed to elucidate the trends in spinal implant utilization in the U.S. from 2013 to 2022. Materials and Methods: Spine implant utilization and pricing averages between 2013 and 2022 were extracted from Orthopedic Network News. The total sample composed of 664,310 spine procedure purchase orders. Prices were adjusted for inflation based on 2022 prices. Trends were analyzed using linear regression. Results: The U.S. spine procedure volume increased significantly from around 800,000 procedures per year in 2013 to over 1.1 million in 2022, with 73% comprising lumbar and cervical fusions. The proportion of procedures performed in patients over 64 years old increased significantly in both lumbar and cervical cases, constituting 50% and 37% of procedures, respectively. In lumbar spine in 2022, 46% of procedures utilized both pedicle screws (PSs) and interbody devices, 37% PSs only, and 13% interbody devices only. Lumbar PS price decreased significantly to $923 each despite stable lumbar and cervical fusion procedure costs. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and allograft interbody device usage declined while metal increased significantly. Conclusion: Nationwide spine procedure volume rose notably from 2013 to 2022, with the majority constituting lumbar and cervical fusions. The most frequent treatment for a lumbar fusion is a PS construct with an interbody fusion device. Interbody fusion device materials witnessed decline in the use of PEEK and allograft, with metals becoming the preferred material. Level of Evidence: III.

Indexed as

Cervical fusionimplant pricinglumbar fusionosteobiologics

Identifiers

PMID40061199
PMCPMC11888041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.