Surgical neurology international · 2018
Treatment of cervical radiculopathy: A review of the evolution and economics.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ament Jared D, Karnati Tejas, Kulubya Edwin, Kim Kee D, Johnson J Patrick
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy has centered around anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Alternatively, the posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy/microdiscectomy (PCF/PCM), which results in comparable outcomes and is more cost-effective, has been underutilized.
METHODS: Here, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY.
CONCLUSION: PCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Here, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY.
CONCLUSION: PCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.