Literature DB >> 16369828

Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno 2005.

Rikke Soegaard1, Finn B Christensen.   

Abstract

The goal of this systematic literature review was to assess the evidence for cost-effectiveness of various surgical techniques in lumbar spinal fusion in conformity with the guidelines provided by the Cochrane Back Review Group. As new technology continuously emerges and divergent directions in clinical practice are present, economic evaluation is needed in order to facilitate the decision-makers' budget allocations. NHS Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched. Two independent reviewers (one clinical content expert and one economic content expert) applied the eligibility criteria. A list of criteria for methodological quality assessment was established by merging the criteria recommended by leading health economists with the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. The two reviewers independently scored the selected literature and the disagreement was resolved by means of consensus following discussion. Key data were extracted and the level of evidence concluded. Seven studies were eligible; these studies reflected the diversified choices of economic methodology, study populations (diagnosis), outcome measures and comparators. At the conclusion of quality assessment, the methodological quality of three studies was judged credible. Two studies investigated posteolateral fusion (PLF) +/- instrumentation in different populations: one investigated non-specific low back pain and one investigated degenerative stenosis + spondylolisthesis. Both studies reflected that cost-effectiveness of instrumentation in PLF is not convincing. The third study concerned the question of circumferential vs anterior lumbar interbody fusion and found a non-significant difference between the techniques. In conclusion, the literature is limited and, in view of the fact that the clinical effects are statistically synonymous, it does not support the use of high-cost techniques. There is a great potential for improvement of methodological quality in economic evaluations of lumbar spinal fusion and further research is imperative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16369828      PMCID: PMC3233954          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0031-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  42 in total

1.  The economic burden of back pain in the UK.

Authors:  N Maniadakis; A Gray
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 6.961

2.  Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis.

Authors:  K M Kuntz; R K Snider; J N Weinstein; M H Pope; J N Katz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis--a prospective randomized study: part 2.

Authors:  H Möller; R Hedlund
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Sample size and power issues in estimating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials data.

Authors:  A R Willan; B J O'Brien
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients.

Authors:  Finn B Christensen; Ebbe S Hansen; Søren P Eiskjaer; Kristian Høy; Peter Helmig; Pavel Neumann; Bent Niedermann; Cody E Bünger
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group.

Authors:  J A Berlin
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-07-19       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; R A Lew; L J Grobler; J N Weinstein; G W Brick; A H Fossel; M H Liang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Lumbar spinal fusion patients' demands to the primary health sector: evaluation of three rehabilitation protocols. A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Rikke Soegaard; Finn B Christensen; Ida Lauerberg; Ida Lauersen; Cody E Bünger
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Threaded fusion cages for lumbar interbody fusions. An economic comparison with 360 degrees fusions.

Authors:  C D Ray
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments.

Authors:  Barbara Conner-Spady; Maria E Suarez-Almazor
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  13 in total

1.  Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?

Authors:  Maria-Florencia Hutter; Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas; Fernando Antonanzas
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-08-24

2.  Objective monitoring of activity and Gait Velocity using wearable accelerometer following lumbar microdiscectomy to detect recurrent disc herniation.

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Christopher J Katsinas; Wen Jie Choy; Kaitlin Rooke; Monish Maharaj
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12

3.  Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; William Abdu; Harry Herkowitz; Gunnar Andersson; Todd Albert; Keith Bridwell; Wenyan Zhao; Margaret R Grove; Milton C Weinstein; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Comparison of lifetime incremental cost:utility ratios of surgery relative to failed medical management for the treatment of hip, knee and spine osteoarthritis modelled using 2-year postsurgical values.

Authors:  Peggy Tso; Kevin Walker; Nizar Mahomed; Peter C Coyte; Y Raja Rampersaud
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.089

5.  A Prospective Study of Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Stenosis: Early Cost-effective Assessment from the Total Posterior Spine System (TOPS™) IDE Study.

Authors:  Jared D Ament; Amir Vokshoor; Yaser Badr; Todd Lanman; Kee D Kim; J Patrick Johnson
Journal:  J Health Econ Outcomes Res       Date:  2022-03-25

6.  Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Harry Herkowitz; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Keith Bridwell; Michael Longley; Gunnar B Andersson; Emily A Blood; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  A Christensen; K Høy; C Bünger; P Helmig; E S Hansen; T Andersen; R Søgaard
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Gunnar B Andersson; Sigurd Berven; Margaret R Grove; Brett Hanscom; Emily A Blood; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  The impact of economic evaluation on quality management in spine surgery.

Authors:  Norbert Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  An economic analysis of using rhBMP-2 for lumbar fusion in Germany, France and UK from a societal perspective.

Authors:  Volker Alt; Amit Chhabra; Jörg Franke; Matthieu Cuche; Reinhard Schnettler; Jean-Charles Le Huec
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-20       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.