Jun-Hoe Kim, Hangeul Park, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chi Heon Kim
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (EELF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a prospective observational study.","authors":"Jun-Hoe Kim, Hangeul Park, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chi Heon Kim","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-88068-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lumbar foraminal stenosis can be surgically treated by foraminal decompression or facet joint resection and fusion (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF). While conventional foraminal decompression poses a risk of segmental instability, the endoscopic approach (extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy, EELF) resects only the ventral part of the facet joint with a horizontal surgical trajectory. A prospective observational study was performed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of EELF versus TLIF. Patients with dominant unilateral radicular pain from lumbar foraminal stenosis at or above L4-5, without severe central stenosis or instability, were included from January 2021 to February 2023. EELF involved sufficient foraminal widening using a reamer, followed by an endoscopic procedure. The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain at postoperative 12 months. Among 26 patients in each group, the primary analysis included 23 EELF patients (mean age: 72 ± 8 years) and 22 TLIF patients (mean age: 70 ± 8 years). EELF was significantly more cost-effective (EELF: $15,536.0 ± 4,190.0/QALY vs. TLIF: $32,869.4 ± 5,429.3/QALY, p < .001) and demonstrated shorter operating times, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay (p < .05), with no significant difference in clinical outcomes. Thus, EELF could be a cost-effective and less invasive alternative for treating lumbar foraminal stenosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"3602"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-88068-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Lumbar foraminal stenosis can be surgically treated by foraminal decompression or facet joint resection and fusion (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF). While conventional foraminal decompression poses a risk of segmental instability, the endoscopic approach (extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy, EELF) resects only the ventral part of the facet joint with a horizontal surgical trajectory. A prospective observational study was performed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of EELF versus TLIF. Patients with dominant unilateral radicular pain from lumbar foraminal stenosis at or above L4-5, without severe central stenosis or instability, were included from January 2021 to February 2023. EELF involved sufficient foraminal widening using a reamer, followed by an endoscopic procedure. The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain at postoperative 12 months. Among 26 patients in each group, the primary analysis included 23 EELF patients (mean age: 72 ± 8 years) and 22 TLIF patients (mean age: 70 ± 8 years). EELF was significantly more cost-effective (EELF: $15,536.0 ± 4,190.0/QALY vs. TLIF: $32,869.4 ± 5,429.3/QALY, p < .001) and demonstrated shorter operating times, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay (p < .05), with no significant difference in clinical outcomes. Thus, EELF could be a cost-effective and less invasive alternative for treating lumbar foraminal stenosis.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.