Literature DB >> 26195079

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

Kevin Phan1,2,3, Jarred A Hogan4, Ralph J Mobbs5,6,7.   

Abstract

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.
METHODS: Relevant articles were identified from six electronic databases. Predefined end points were extracted and meta-analysis conducted from the identified studies.
RESULTS: For each study, the direct hospital cost for MI-TLIF was found to be less than that of open-TLIF. When these outcomes were pooled, direct hospital costs were found to be significantly lower in the MI-TLIF group [weighted mean difference (WMD), -$2820; I (2) = 61 %; P < 0.00001]. MI-TLIF was also associated with shorter hospitalization (WMD, 0.99; 95 % CI -1.81, -0.17; I (2) = 96 %; P = 0.02), trend toward reduced complications (relative risk 0.53; 95 % CI 0.23, 1.06; I (2) = 0 %; P = 0.07), and reduced blood loss (WMD, -246.40 mL; I (2) = 98 %; P = 0.003), but was not associated with a significant difference in operation time (WMD, -67.05; 95 % CI -169.44, 35.35; I (2) = 100 %; P = 0.20).
CONCLUSIONS: From the limited evidence, the available data suggest a trend of significantly reduced perioperative costs, length of stay, and blood loss for minimally invasive compared with open surgical approaches for TLIF. MI-TLIF may represent an opportunity for optimal utilization and allocation of health-care resources from both a hospital and societal perspective.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost; Cost-effectiveness; Cost–utility; Minimally invasive; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26195079     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4126-4

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


  31 in total

1.  Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis.

Authors:  S Duval; R Tweedie
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  Wale A R Sulaiman; Manish Singh
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

Review 3.  Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis.

Authors:  S L Parker; O Adogwa; T F Witham; O S Aaronson; J Cheng; M J McGirt
Journal:  Minim Invasive Neurosurg       Date:  2011-04-19

Review 4.  Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; David H Tian; Christopher Cao; Deborah Black; Tristan D Yan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

Review 5.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion--systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Ganesha K Thayaparan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 1.596

6.  Where the United States spends its spine dollars: expenditures on different ambulatory services for the management of back and neck conditions.

Authors:  Matthew A Davis; Tracy Onega; William B Weeks; Jon D Lurie
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Prashanth J Rao; Andrew C Kam; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Minimal access spinal technologies: state-of-the-art, indications, and techniques.

Authors:  Richard Assaker
Journal:  Joint Bone Spine       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.929

9.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence.

Authors:  Nai-Feng Tian; Yao-Sen Wu; Xiao-Lei Zhang; Hua-Zi Xu; Yong-Long Chi; Fang-Min Mao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  10 in total

1.  Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery.

Authors:  Kelechi Eseonu; Uche Oduoza; Mohamed Monem; Mohamed Tahir
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-07-14

2.  History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Michael C Prabhu; Kevin C Jacob; Madhav R Patel; Hanna Pawlowski; Nisheka N Vanjani; Kern Singh
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2022-09-30

3.  What Are Patients Saying About Minimally Invasive Spine Surgeons Online: A Sentiment Analysis of 2,235 Physician Review Website Reviews.

Authors:  Justin Tang; Christopher A White; Varun Arvind; Samuel Cho; Jun S Kim; Jeremy Steinberger
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-04-13

4.  Outcomes of direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) in an Australian cohort.

Authors:  Daniel B Scherman; Prashanth J Rao; Kevin Phan; Sean F Mungovan; Kenneth Faulder; Gordon Dandie
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-03

5.  Evidence Based Medicine Review of Posterior Thoracolumbar Minimally Invasive Technology.

Authors:  Charla R Fischer; Bryan Beaubrun; Jordan Manning; Sheeraz Qureshi; Juan Uribe
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12-21

Review 6.  Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ryan C Campbell; Ralph J Mobbs; Victor M Lu; Joshua Xu; Prashanth J Rao; Kevin Phan
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-05-31

7.  Standard versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Study.

Authors:  Daniel Serban; Niki Calina; Gabriel Tender
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Experience with 2-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Junlong Wu; Huan Liu; Shengxiang Ao; Wenjie Zheng; Changqing Li; Haiyin Li; Yong Pan; Chao Zhang; Yue Zhou
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Single Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Instrumentation Utilizing Computer Navigation and Robotic Assistance: Retrospective case review and surgical technique considerations.

Authors:  Vladimir Sinkov; Stephen Daniel Lockey; Bryan W Cunningham
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2022-04

10.  Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Authors:  Andrew S Chung; Alexander Ballatori; Brandon Ortega; Elliot Min; Blake Formanek; John Liu; Patrick Hsieh; Raymond Hah; Jeffrey C Wang; Zorica Buser
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-09-25
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.