ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2026
Cost-Effectiveness of 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Versus Off-the-Shelf Interbody Cages in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Markov Model Cost-Utility Analysis.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of 3DMorphic's spinal 3DFusion Lumbar (3DFL) cages versus Off-The-Shelf (OTS) cages for patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion in an Australian healthcare setting. 3DFL cages differ from generic OTS cages in that they are Patient-Specific Interbody Cages (PSICs). While several studies have discussed the clinical benefits of PSIC versus OTS cages, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this technology. Without a direct randomised controlled trial between the two implant categories, an indirect treatment comparison was performed. The indirect comparison was informed by a clinical trial of 3DFL cages, the Australian Spine Registry and an analysis of reoperation rates for patients undergoing spinal fusion in an Australian cohort. In conclusion, the PSICs were demonstrated to be clinically superior to OTS cages as measured by Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and reoperation rates. The cost-utility analysis demonstrated that 3DFL cages were cost-effective compared to OTS cages in an Australian healthcare setting.
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.