Cost-effectiveness analysis in minimally invasive spine surgery

Neurosurgical Focus

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2014, Pages

  Al Khouja, Lutfi T ^a   Baron, Eli M ^a   Patrick Johnson, J ^a,b   Kim, Terrence T ^a   Drazin, Doniel ^a  

^a CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost analysis; Cost effectiveness analysis; Cost utility analysis; Minimally invasive surgery; Spine

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; PROCEDURES; REGISTER; SPINAL DISEASES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; REGISTRIES; SPINAL DISEASES;

EID: 84902500222     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10920684     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3171/2014.4.FOCUS1449     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Allen RT, Garfin SR): The economics of minimally invasive spine surgery: the value perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (26 Suppl):S375-S382, 2010
2. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, Neumann PJ): Costutility analyses in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1253-1259, 2005
3. Cahill KS, Levi AD, Cummock MD, Liao W, Wang MY): A comparison of acute hospital charges after tubular versus open microdiskectomy. World Neurosurg 80:208-212, 2013
4. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services: Economic evaluation of public health preparedness and response efforts. (http://www.cdc.gov/owcd/eet/Preface/Preface.html) [Accessed April 27, 2014]
5. Cheng JS, Park P, Le H, Reisner L, Chou D, Mummaneni PV:Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference? Neurosurg Focus 35(2):E6, 2013
6. Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S): A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J 8:8-20, 2008
7. Dasenbrock HH, Juraschek SP, Schultz LR, Witham TF, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, et al): The efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy compared with open discectomy: a metaanalysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:452-462, 2012
8. Davis MA, Onega T, Weeks WB, Lurie JD): Where the United States spends its spine dollars: expenditures on different ambulatory services for the management of back and neck conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1693-1701, 2012
9. Habib A, Smith ZA, Lawton CD, Fessler RG): Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge. Minim Invasive Surg 2012:657342, 2012
10. Karikari IO, Isaacs RE): Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (26 Suppl):S294-S301, 2010
11. Kepler CK, Wilkinson SM, Radcliff KE, Vaccaro AR, Anderson DG, Hilibrand AS, et al): Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review. Spine J 12:676-690, 2012
12. Klimo P Jr, Thompson CJ, Ragel BT, Boop FA): Methodology and reporting of meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature. A review. J Neurosurg 120:796-810, 2014
13. Lucio JC, Vanconia RB, Deluzio KJ, Lehmen JA, Rodgers JA, Rodgers W): Economics of less invasive spinal surgery:an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 5:65-74, 2012
14. Martin BI, Turner JA, Mirza SK, Lee MJ, Comstock BA, Deyo RA): Trends in health care expenditures, utilization, and health status among US adults with spine problems, 1997-2006. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2077-2084, 2009
15. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Lerner J, Engelhart L, Knight T, Wang MY): Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 14:771-778, 2011
16. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ): Costeffectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg 78:178-184, 2012
17. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Davis BJ, Fulchiero E, Aaronson O, Cheng J, et al): Cost-utility analysis of minimally invasive versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy for lumbar stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:42-47, 2013
18. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ): Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF):literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 54:33-37, 2011
19. Parker SL, Lerner J, McGirt MJ): Effect of minimally invasive technique on return to work and narcotic use following transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion: a review. Prof Case Manag 17:229-235, 2012
20. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, et al: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylo listhesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg [epub ahead of print], 2013
21. Parker SL, McGirt MJ): Determination of the minimum improvement in pain, disability, and health state associated with cost-effectiveness: introduction of the concept of minimum cost-effective difference. Neurosurgery 71:1149-1155, 2012
22. Pelton MA, Phillips FM, Singh K): A comparison of perioperative costs and outcomes in patients with and without workers' compensation claims treated with minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1914-1919, 2012
23. Rihn JA, Berven S, Allen T, Phillips FM, Currier BL, Glassman SD, et al): Defining value in spine care. Am J Med Qual 24 (6 Suppl):4S-14S, 2009
24. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT): Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF):technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18 Suppl:S1-S6, 2005
25. Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Oglesby M, Pelton MA, et al: A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J [epub ahead of print], 2013
26. Slotman GJ, Stein SC): Laminectomy compared with laparoscopic diskectomy and outpatient laparoscopic diskectomy for herniated L5-S1 intervertebral disks. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 8:261-267, 1998
27. Smith WD, Christian G, Serrano S, Malone KT): A comparison of perioperative charges and outcome between open and miniopen approaches for anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion. J Clin Neurosci 19:673-680, 2012
28. Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Andersson GB, Berven S, et al): The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2108-2115, 2008
29. Udeh BL, Costandi S, Dalton JE, Ghosh R, Yousef H, Mekhail N: The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Pain Pract [epub ahead of print], 2014
30. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A): Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12, 2010
31. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA): An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 12:694-699, 2010
32. Wang MY, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt MJ): Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion:data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 25:324-328, 2012
33. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB:Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276:1253-1258, 1996