MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411604275 · doi:10.1016/j.xnsj.2025.100753

Laminoplasty compared to laminectomy and fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a cost-utility analysis

2025· article· en· W4411604275 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher S. Lozano, Vishwathsen Karthikeyan, Armaan K. Malhotra, Husain Shakil, Abdullah Ishaque, Jasleen Saini, Yingshi He, Eva Y. Yuan, Jetan H. Badhiwala, Michael G. Fehlings, Jefferson R. Wilson, Christopher D. Witiw

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsKrembil FoundationCanada Research ChairsToronto Western HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentrePublic Health OntarioSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality-adjusted life yearLaminoplastyCost–utility analysisConfidence intervalIncremental cost-effectiveness ratioLaminectomyCost effectivenessSurgeryInternal medicineSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a leading cause of spinal cord dysfunction in adults. Posterior surgical options include laminoplasty (LP), a motion-preserving procedure, and laminectomy with fusion (LF), which offers stabilization but at higher cost. A cost-utility comparison of these approaches is lacking. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a 5-year Markov state-transition model from a healthcare payer perspective. The study cohort was drawn from 3 multicenter prospective studies of patients with DCM. To reduce baseline confounding, patients who underwent LF or LP were matched 2:1 using propensity score matching. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from SF-6D utilities calculated from SF-36 scores at baseline and 12 months. Costs and transition probabilities were derived from meta-analysis and registry data. We calculated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses included deterministic variation and 1,000-iteration Monte Carlo microsimulation. Results: 240 matched patients were included (87 LP, 153 LF). Baseline mJOA, NDI and SF6D scores were similar between groups. In the base-case, LP cost $24,283, yielding 3.53 QALYs, while LF cost $35,902, yielding 3.72 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $59,796 per QALY, favouring LF. In probabilistic microsimulation, LP had a mean cost of $24,579 (95% confidence interval (CI): $23,933-$25,225) and a mean NMB of $326,281 (95% CI: $322,672-$329,891), while LF cost $35,936 (95% CI: $35,583-$36,288) with a mean NMB of $333,189 (95% CI: $328,629-$337,748). LP was the optimal strategy in 47% of simulations versus 53% for LF. Conclusions: Both LP and LF can be cost-effective for DCM. While the base-case favored LF, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed no clear cost-utility advantage with comparable NMBs. Economic considerations alone should not drive surgical decision-making and treatment choice should be tailored to individual patient factors and local resource contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ)Same topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207