Surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity: projected cost effectiveness at 5-year follow-up.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the United States, expenditures related to spine care are estimated to account for $86 billion annually. Policy makers have set a cost-effectiveness benchmark of less than $100,000/quality adjusted life year (QALY), forcing surgeons to defend their choices economically. This study projects the cost/QALY for surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity at 5-year follow-up based on 2-year cost- and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) data. METHODS: In a review of 541 patients with adult spinal deformity, the patients who underwent revision or were likely to undergo revision were identified and cost of surgery was doubled to account for the second procedure; all other patients maintained the cost of the initial surgery. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was modeled by revision status based on literature findings. Total surgical cost was based on Medicare reimbursement. Chi square and student t tests were utilized to compare cost-effective and non-cost-effective patients. RESULTS: The average cost/QALY at 5-year follow-up was $120,311.73. A total of 40.7% of patients fell under the threshold of a cost/QALY <$100,000. Cost-effective patients had higher baseline ODI scores (45% vs 34% [P=0.001]), lower baseline total Scoliosis Research Society scores (2.89 vs 3.00 [P=0.04]), and shorter fusions (8.23 vs 9.87 [P=0.0001]). CONCLUSION: We found 40.7% of patients to be below the threshold of cost effectiveness. Factors associated with reaching the threshold <$100,000/QALY were greater preoperative disability, diagnosis of idiopathic scoliosis, poor preoperative HRQOL scores, and fewer fusion levels.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".