FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1968483438> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1968483438 endingPage "231" @default.
• W1968483438 startingPage "229" @default.
• W1968483438 abstract "Debates on the cost-effectiveness of multimodal intraoperative monitoring (IOM) have been going on for more than a decade [5, 7, 10, 11, 18].One of the prejudices against the effectiveness of IOM was the idea that monitoring techniques can merely document neurological injury, with very little space for intervention. This concept should nowadays be abandoned because, in most of the circumstances, an experienced intraoperative neurophysiologist detects an impending injury to the nervous system in time for corrective measures to be taken. This ultimately results in either complete prevention or limitation of a neurological deficit. There is increasing evidence and general consensus among experts that IOM is valuable in spinal cord monitoring. From case reports to clinical series, authors from different centres worldwide have documented the benefit of IOM to prevent irreversible neurological injury [13, 15]. Yet, in the era of evidence based medicine, we are more and more asked to demonstrate that monitoring “really makes a difference” by performing control studies.However, existing data on the benefit of monitoring are limited to Class IV (most studies based on retrospectively collected data) and Class III (clinical studies with prospective data collection, retrospective studies with clearly reliable data) studies. On the other hand, Class I and II studies (prospective randomized trials) are very unlikely to occur because of both ethical and medico-legal constraints. To design a randomized controlled study would imply to assign some patients to a designated control group where IOM is not used. Those supporting the use of IOM would refuse to randomize patients for such a study because the likelihood of deficit prevention is so high—with currently used IOM techniques—that a controlled study would not be acceptable to most patients and surgeons.Moreover, the adequate sample of patients to design randomized studies far exceeds the case load of a single institution. For example, the power calculations for a prospective randomized trial of evoked potential monitoring for reduction of paraplegia following spine surgery is such that as many as 4,674 patients would be necessary to prove that IOM reduces the incidence of neurological deficit of 50% (from 1 to 0.5%). Similarly, the number of patients for a prospective randomized trial aimed to prove that motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring is superior to somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) monitoring (remaining incidence of severe injury from 0.5 to 0.1% ) is about 2,934 patients per group [8].It therefore appears that today it is still valid what Phillips and Park observed in 1990 [14], when they stated that “advocates of most monitoring techniques point to the lack of bad outcomes as proof that their particular technique has value”. From here, one feasible path to increase the evidence of the benefit of IOM is that of performing historical control studies or meta-analyses. Meanwhile, the value of IOM should be proved also from a merely economical perspective, in terms of cost-effectiveness.In this short report, we reviewed some recent data on the rate of neurological complications after different kind of spine and spinal cord surgery. We then analyzed the costs of health care for spinal cord injured patients and, finally, compared these costs with those of IOM." @default.
• W1968483438 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1968483438 creator A5003798508 @default.
• W1968483438 creator A5017173271 @default.
• W1968483438 creator A5053030261 @default.
• W1968483438 date "2007-07-21" @default.
• W1968483438 modified "2023-10-13" @default.
• W1968483438 title "Cost effectiveness of multimodal intraoperative monitoring during spine surgery" @default.
• W1968483438 cites W1752130959 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W1971486788 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2002894905 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2015028631 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2064269328 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2069302603 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2081067547 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2086001007 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2139463370 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2145521568 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2159998530 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2398001668 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2406580747 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2428943297 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2441422580 @default.
• W1968483438 cites W2474975132 @default.
• W1968483438 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0420-0" @default.
• W1968483438 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2072899" @default.
• W1968483438 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17659365" @default.
• W1968483438 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1968483438 type Work @default.
• W1968483438 sameAs 1968483438 @default.
• W1968483438 citedByCount "35" @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382012 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382013 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382014 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382015 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382016 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382017 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382018 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382019 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382020 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382021 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382022 @default.
• W1968483438 countsByYear W19684834382023 @default.
• W1968483438 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1968483438 hasAuthorship W1968483438A5003798508 @default.
• W1968483438 hasAuthorship W1968483438A5017173271 @default.
• W1968483438 hasAuthorship W1968483438A5053030261 @default.
• W1968483438 hasBestOaLocation W19684834382 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConcept C12770488 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConcept C205383261 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConcept C4441509 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConcept C60644358 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConceptScore W1968483438C12770488 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConceptScore W1968483438C141071460 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConceptScore W1968483438C205383261 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConceptScore W1968483438C4441509 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConceptScore W1968483438C60644358 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConceptScore W1968483438C71924100 @default.
• W1968483438 hasConceptScore W1968483438C86803240 @default.
• W1968483438 hasIssue "S2" @default.
• W1968483438 hasLocation W19684834381 @default.
• W1968483438 hasLocation W19684834382 @default.
• W1968483438 hasLocation W19684834383 @default.
• W1968483438 hasLocation W19684834384 @default.
• W1968483438 hasOpenAccess W1968483438 @default.
• W1968483438 hasPrimaryLocation W19684834381 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W2604872355 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W1968483438 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W1968483438 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W1968483438 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1968483438 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1968483438 magId "1968483438" @default.
• W1968483438 workType "article" @default.