Is Minimal Access Spine Surgery More Cost-effective Than Conventional Spine Surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To summarize and critically review the economic literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness of minimal access surgery (MAS) compared with conventional open procedures for the cervical and lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MAS techniques may improve perioperative parameters (length of hospital stay and extent of blood loss) compared with conventional open approaches. However, some have questioned the clinical efficacy of these differences and the associated cost-effectiveness implications. When considering the long-term outcomes, there seem to be no significant differences between MAS and open surgery. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration database, University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS-EED and HTA), and the Tufts CEA Registry were reviewed to identify full economic studies comparing MAS with open techniques prior to December 24, 2013, based on the key questions established a priori. Only economic studies that evaluated and synthesized the costs and consequences of MAS compared with conventional open procedures (i.e., cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility) were considered for inclusion. Full text of the articles meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed by 2 independent investigators to obtain the final collection of included studies. The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument was scored by 2 independent reviewers to provide an initial basis for critical appraisal of included economic studies. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 198 potentially relevant citations, and 6 studies met the inclusion criteria, evaluating the costs and consequences of MAS versus conventional open procedures performed for the lumbar spine; no studies for the cervical spine met the inclusion criteria. Studies compared MAS tubular discectomy with conventional microdiscectomy, minimal access transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and multilevel hemilaminectomy via MAS versus open approach. CONCLUSION: Overall, the included cost-effectiveness studies generally supported no significant differences between open surgery and MAS lumbar approaches. However, these conclusions are preliminary because there was a paucity of high-quality evidence. Much of the evidence lacked details on methodology for modeling, related assumptions, justification of economic model chosen, and sources and types of included costs and consequences. The follow-up periods were highly variable, indirect costs were not frequently analyzed or reported, and many of the studies were conducted by a single group, thereby limiting generalizability. Prospective studies are needed to define differences and optimal treatment algorithms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".