2023
DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002464
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A 1-Year Cost-Utility Analysis

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are the most common surgical approaches for medically refractory cervical radiculopathy. Rigorous cost-effectiveness studies comparing ACDF and PCF are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-utility of ACDF vs PCF performed in the ambulatory surgery center setting for Medicare and privately insured patients at 1-year follow-up. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The sample size of 323 patients yielded 110 propensity-matched pairs (220 patients) which were analyzed for direct costs, indirect costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. 1 The results show similar complication rate, 90-day readmission, and reoperation profiles between the 2 procedures. Significantly higher total costs are reported for patients who underwent ACDF.…”
mentioning
confidence: 54%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The sample size of 323 patients yielded 110 propensity-matched pairs (220 patients) which were analyzed for direct costs, indirect costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. 1 The results show similar complication rate, 90-day readmission, and reoperation profiles between the 2 procedures. Significantly higher total costs are reported for patients who underwent ACDF.…”
mentioning
confidence: 54%
“…The authors conclude that ACDF may not be costeffective compared with MIPCF in the treatment of unilateral cervical radiculopathy. 1 This study does have several limitations acknowledged by the authors. Propensity matching was necessary because baseline differences existed between the 2 cohorts.…”
mentioning
confidence: 93%