Cost-Utility Study of the Economics of Bunion Correction Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:: Bunion correction surgery is a very common procedure to improve patients' pain and physical function attributable to a misaligned first metatarsophalangeal joint. The objective of this study was to apply a health utility framework to estimate the cost utility of bunion correction surgery. METHODS:: Patients were prospectively recruited from the population of patients seen in a lower-extremity orthopedic clinic and scheduled for isolated bunion surgery. Participants completed EuroQoL's EQ-5D(3L) to measure patients' current general health preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Participants' change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated by comparing the difference between postoperative utility values and preoperative utility values. The study had 95 patients representing 53% of eligible patients. RESULTS:: The mean preoperative utility value was 0.6816 and the mean postoperative value was 0.7451, a statistically significant difference denoting an improvement in self-reported health. The cost per QALY, assuming gains in health accrued for 15 years, was $4911 (the 95% confidence interval ranged from $4736 to $5088). The cost per QALY was highest among the oldest patients. Assuming gains in health accrued for 20 years, the cost per QALY was $3922. CONCLUSION:: This study demonstrated that bunion correction surgery was inexpensive relative to its gains in health compared with commonly applied thresholds for women and men in all age groups, though the gains were not uniformly distributed across age categories. Future research should examine the impact of recurrence on the robustness of these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level III, comparative study.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".