ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2025
Laminoplasty compared to laminectomy and fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a cost-utility analysis.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a leading cause of spinal cord dysfunction in adults. Posterior surgical options include laminoplasty (LP), a motion-preserving procedure, and laminectomy with fusion (LF), which offers stabilization but at higher cost. A cost-utility comparison of these approaches is lacking. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a 5-year Markov state-transition model from a healthcare payer perspective. The study cohort was drawn from 3 multicenter prospective studies of patients with DCM. To reduce baseline confounding, patients who underwent LF or LP were matched 2:1 using propensity score matching. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from SF-6D utilities calculated from SF-36 scores at baseline and 12 months. Costs and transition probabilities were derived from meta-analysis and registry data. We calculated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses included deterministic variation and 1,000-iteration Monte Carlo microsimulation. Results: 240 matched patients were included (87 LP, 153 LF). Baseline mJOA, NDI and SF6D scores were similar between groups. In the base-case, LP cost $24,283, yielding 3.53 QALYs, while LF cost $35,902, yielding 3.72 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $59,796 per QALY, favouring LF. In probabilistic microsimulation, LP had a mean cost of $24,579 (95% confidence interval (CI): $23,933-$25,225) and a mean NMB of $326,281 (95% CI: $322,672-$329,891), while LF cost $35,936 (95% CI: $35,583-$36,288) with a mean NMB of $333,189 (95% CI: $328,629-$337,748). LP was the optimal strategy in 47% of simulations versus 53% for LF. Conclusions: Both LP and LF can be cost-effective for DCM. While the base-case favored LF, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed no clear cost-utility advantage with comparable NMBs. Economic considerations alone should not drive surgical decision-making and treatment choice should be tailored to individual patient factors and local resource contexts.
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.