Cost–utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Kevin Phan ; Jarred A. Hogan ; Ralph J. Mobbs
• 关键词：Minimally invasive ; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion ; Cost ; effectiveness ; Cost–utility ; Cost
• 刊名：European Spine Journal
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：November 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：24
• 期：11
• 页码：2503-2513
• 全文大小：1,532 KB
• 参考文献：1.Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343-47. doi:10.-055/?s-2008-1051624 CrossRef PubMed
  2.Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14:551-58. doi:10.-007/?s00586-004-0830-1 PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  3.Archavlis E, Carvi y Nievas M (2013) Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J 22:1731-740. doi:10.-007/?s00586-013-2732-6 PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  4.Brodano GB, Martikos K, Lolli F, Gasbarrini A, Cioni A, Bandiera S, Di Silvestre M, Boriani S, Greggi T (2013) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis grade i: minimally invasive versus open surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.-097/?BSD.-000000000000034-/span> PubMed
  5.Assaker R (2004) Minimal access spinal technologies: state-of-the-art, indications, and techniques. Joint Bone Spine 71:459-69. doi:10.-016/?j.?jbspin.-004.-8.-06 CrossRef PubMed
  6.Gu G, Zhang H, Fan G, He S, Cai X, Shen X, Guan X, Zhou X (2014) Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop 38:817-24. doi:10.-007/?s00264-013-2169-x PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  7.Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ (2015) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24:1017-030. doi:10.-007/?s00586-015-3903-4 CrossRef PubMed
  8.Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM (2013) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J 22:1741-749. doi:10.-007/?s00586-013-2747-z PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  9.Lubelski D, Mihalovich KE, Skelly AC, Fehlings MG, Harrop JS, Mummaneni PV, Wang MY, Steinmetz MP (2014) Is minimal access spine surgery more cost-effective than conventional spine surgery? Spine 39:S65–S74. doi:10.-097/?brs.-000000000000571-/span> CrossRef PubMed
  10.Al-Khouja LT, Baron EM, Johnson JP, Kim TT, Drazin D (2014) Cost-effectiveness analysis in minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus 36:E4. doi:10.-171/-014.-.?focus1449 CrossRef PubMed
  11.Lucio JC, Vanconia RB, Deluzio KJ, Lehmen JA, Rodgers JA, Rodgers W (2012) 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 5:65-4. doi:10.-147/?rmhp.?s30974 PubMedCentral PubMed
  12.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(264-69):W264CrossRef
  13.Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10. doi:10.-186/-471-2288-7-10 PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  14.Phan K, Tian DH, Cao C, Black D, Yan TD (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 4:112-22. doi:10.-978/?j.?issn.-225-319X.-015.-2.-4 PubMedCentral PubMed
  15.Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008-012CrossRef PubMed
  16.Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 33:90-4. doi:10.-097/?BRS.-b013e31815e3a10-/span> CrossRef PubMed
  17.Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56:455-63CrossRef PubMed
  18.Sulaiman WA, Singh M (2014) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Ochsner J 14:32-7PubMedCentral PubMed
  19.Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Oglesby M, Pelton MA, Andersson GB, Isayeva D, Jegier BJ, Phillips FM (2014) A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open t
• 作者单位：Kevin Phan (1) (2) (3)
  Jarred A. Hogan (3)
  Ralph J. Mobbs (1) (2) (3)
  
  1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of New South Wales, High Street, Randwick, NSW, Australia
  2. Neuro Spine Clinic, Suite 7a, Level 7 Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Barker Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia
  3. NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia
  
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Surgical Orthopedics
  Neurosurgery
  
• 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
• ISSN：1432-0932

文摘

Purpose To assess the cost–utility and perioperative costs of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) versus open-TLIF for degenerative lumbar pathologies.