A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lumbar Decompression With and Without Fusion for Degenerative Spine Disease in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Value-based purchasing is rapidly being implemented to rein in the unsustainably rising costs of the US healthcare system. With a growing elderly population, it is vital to understand the value of spinal surgery in this group of individuals. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of lumbar decompression with and without fusion for degenerative spine disease in elderly vs nonelderly patients. METHODS: A total of 221 patients undergoing elective primary surgery for degenerative lumbar pathology who were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal registry were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes of Oswestry Disability Index, numeric rating scale for back and leg pain, and quality-of-life scores (EuroQol-5D) were recorded. Two-year back-related medical resource use, missed work, and health-state values (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were assessed. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts (direct cost). Patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Patients were divided into age groups <70 and ≥70 years. RESULTS: Mean cumulative 2-year QALYs gained were statistically similar between younger and older patients for both decompression alone (0.67 ± 0.65 vs 0.56 ± 0.65; P = .47) and decompression with fusion (0.56 ± 0.55 vs 0.59 ± 0.55; P = .26). Mean 2-year cost per QALY gained between younger and older patients was similar for both decompression alone ($24,365 vs $31,750 per QALY; P = .11) and decompression with fusion ($64,228 vs $60,183 per QALY; P = .09). CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment provided significant improvements in pain, disability, and quality of life for elderly patients with degenerative lumbar disease. Observed costs per QALY gained for lumbar decompression with and without fusion were similar for younger and older patients, demonstrating that lumbar spine surgery in the elderly is an equally cost-effective and valuable intervention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".