扩展内窥镜腰椎椎间孔切开术(EELF)和经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(tliff)的成本-效果分析:一项前瞻性观察研究。

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Jun-Hoe Kim, Hangeul Park, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chi Heon Kim
{"title":"扩展内窥镜腰椎椎间孔切开术(EELF)和经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(tliff)的成本-效果分析:一项前瞻性观察研究。","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":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11775270/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11775270/pdf/\",\"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}","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

摘要

腰椎椎间孔狭窄可通过椎间孔减压或小关节切除术和融合术(经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术,TLIF)进行手术治疗。传统的椎间孔减压会带来节段性不稳定的风险,而内窥镜入路(扩展内窥镜腰椎椎间孔切开术,EELF)只切除小关节的腹侧部分,手术轨迹为水平。一项前瞻性观察研究分析了EELF与TLIF的成本-效果。从2021年1月至2023年2月纳入了L4-5或以上腰椎椎间孔狭窄引起的单侧神经根性疼痛为主,无严重中枢性狭窄或不稳定的患者。EELF包括使用扩眼器扩大椎间孔,然后进行内窥镜手术。主要终点是术后12个月的每质量调整生命年(QALY)收益成本。每组26例患者中,初步分析包括23例EELF患者(平均年龄72±8岁)和22例TLIF患者(平均年龄70±8岁)。EELF明显更具成本效益(EELF: 15,536.0±4,190.0美元/QALY vs. TLIF: 32,869.4±5,429.3美元/QALY, p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (EELF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a prospective observational study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (EELF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a prospective observational study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (EELF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a prospective observational study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (EELF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a prospective observational study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信