ArticleStereotactic and functional neurosurgery2026
Cost Variability in Stereotactic Technique for Deep Brain Stimulation: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study.
Article in Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDeep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well-defined therapeutic intervention for various neurological and psychiatric disorders; however, there are limited data comparing the costs associated with the various advanced stereotactic techniques employed in DBS surgery. In this study, we assessed the specific factors driving the variability in costs at a single institution across stereotactic approaches for DBS and aimed to highlight potential areas for cost optimization.
methodsInflation-adjusted cost data for patients undergoing DBS from 2012 to 2023 were retrospectively accessed using the University of Utah's Value-Driven Outcomes tool. Patients who underwent bilateral DBS surgery with or without same-stage internal pulse generator implantation were included. Surgical approaches to DBS implantation were separated into four techniques by the type or lack of frame and intraoperative imaging used: (1) frame with C-arm fluoroscopy; (2) frame with intraoperative computed tomography (iCT); (3) robotic stereotaxy with iCT; and (4) frameless with intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI [ClearPoint™]). Total reported costs for each technique were also split into four subcategories (imaging, facility, supply, services) and expressed as a percentage relative to the total cost for the staged frame with the C-arm method.
resultsOur study included 256 patients who underwent surgical procedures for DBS. The median (interquartile range) cost percentages were 171.0% (±29.0%) for frameless with iMRI, 121.7% (±14.9%) for frame with iCT, and 117.5% (±14.0%) for robotic stereotaxy with iCT procedures. Only the iMRI-based method demonstrated a significantly increased cost (p < 0.05) when compared with all other methods. Similarly, the iMRI-based method demonstrated notably higher costs than all other methods across imaging and supply subcategories.
conclusionThe iMRI method's imaging likely costs significantly more because iMRI procedure times are longer than other methods. Supply costs for the iMRI-based method were not statistically correlated with procedure length, highlighting a potential area for cost-saving measures. Future inclusion of technical accuracy, revision and readmission rates, perioperative complications, and other postoperative outcomes may more fully evaluate the most cost-effective approach.
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.