A Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between Open Transforaminal and Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions Using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio at 2-Year Follow-up
- 1 April 2016
- journal article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Neurosurgery
- Vol. 78 (4) , 585-595
Abstract
BACKGROUND:. Direct cost comparisons between minimally invasive spine surgeries and the open options are rare.OBJECTIVE:. To compare healthcare costs asKeywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cost-effectiveness analysis in minimally invasive spine surgeryNeurosurgical Focus, 2014
- Determination of the Minimum Improvement in Pain, Disability, and Health State Associated With Cost-EffectivenessNeurosurgery, 2012
- Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Associated Low-Back and Leg Pain Over Two YearsWorld Neurosurgery, 2012
- Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesisJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2011
- Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilitiesBritish Medical Bulletin, 2010
- How Medicare Could Use Comparative Effectiveness Research In Deciding On New Coverage And ReimbursementHealth Affairs, 2010
- New, but Not Improved? Incorporating Comparative-Effectiveness Information into FDA LabelingNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methodsThe Spine Journal, 2007
- Problems and solutions in calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2003
- Epidemiological features of chronic low-back painThe Lancet, 1999