FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2917497890> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2917497890 endingPage "E234" @default.
• W2917497890 startingPage "E228" @default.
• W2917497890 abstract "Study Design: This study was an ambispective long-term cost-utility analysis with retrospective chart review and included the prospective completion of health questionnaires by patients. Objective: This was a cost-utility analysis, comparing conservative treatment, discectomy, and discectomy with spinal fusion for patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation after a previous discectomy. Summary of Background Data: Lumbar disc herniation is an important health problem, with recurrence rates ranging from 5% to 15%. Management of recurrences is controversial due to a lack of high-level evidence. Cost-effectiveness analyses are useful when making clinical decisions. There are economic assessments for first herniations, but not in the context of recurrent lumbar disc herniations. Materials and Methods: Fifty patients with disc herniation recurrence underwent conservative treatment (n=11), discectomy (n=20), or discectomy with fusion (n=19), and they completed the Short-Form 36, EuroQol-5D, and Oswestry Disability Index. Baseline case quality-adjusted life year (QALY) values, cost-utility ratios, and incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated on the basis of the SF-36. Direct health costs were calculated by applying the health care system perspective. Both QALY and costs were discounted at a rate of 3%. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for uncertainty variables, such as other health surveys or 2-year follow-up. Results: Cost-utility analysis of conservative treatment versus discectomy showed that the former is dominant, mainly because it is significantly more economical (€904 vs. €6718, P <0.001), while health results were very similar (3.48 vs. 3.18, P =0.887). Cost-utility analysis of discectomy versus discectomy with fusion revealed that discectomy is dominant, showing a trend to be both more economical (€6718 vs. €9364, P =0.054) and more effective (3.18 vs. 1.92 QALY, P =0.061). Conclusions: This cost-utility analysis showed that conservative treatment is more cost-effective than discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation recurrence. In cases of recurrence in which conservative treatment is not feasible, and another surgery must be performed for the patient, discectomy is a more cost-effective surgical alternative than discectomy with fusion. Level of Evidence: Level II." @default.
• W2917497890 created "2019-03-02" @default.
• W2917497890 creator A5035591823 @default.
• W2917497890 creator A5044253576 @default.
• W2917497890 creator A5044462382 @default.
• W2917497890 date "2019-06-01" @default.
• W2917497890 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2917497890 title "Cost-utility Analysis for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation" @default.
• W2917497890 cites W1030456574 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W1455667793 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W1965651227 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W1987515784 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W1996390045 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W1998253578 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W1998451834 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W1999003876 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2000165235 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2024373567 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2039973247 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2048024913 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2072978089 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2076401996 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2088744300 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2095779291 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2098459347 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2105529165 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2105957182 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2137827668 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2139532359 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2153656245 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2167169531 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2191277698 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2284104664 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2291725602 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2321330344 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2417725848 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2473786944 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2517258169 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W2807505882 @default.
• W2917497890 cites W4292806894 @default.
• W2917497890 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000797" @default.
• W2917497890 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30839420" @default.
• W2917497890 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2917497890 type Work @default.
• W2917497890 sameAs 2917497890 @default.
• W2917497890 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W2917497890 countsByYear W29174978902020 @default.
• W2917497890 countsByYear W29174978902021 @default.
• W2917497890 countsByYear W29174978902022 @default.
• W2917497890 countsByYear W29174978902023 @default.
• W2917497890 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2917497890 hasAuthorship W2917497890A5035591823 @default.
• W2917497890 hasAuthorship W2917497890A5044253576 @default.
• W2917497890 hasAuthorship W2917497890A5044462382 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C127454912 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C184834754 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C2775998654 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C2776008035 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C2779951463 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C2780907711 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C2992636618 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C3019080777 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C44575665 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C64332521 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C112930515 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C127454912 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C141071460 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C142724271 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C151730666 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C159110408 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C184834754 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C1862650 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C18903297 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C204787440 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C2775998654 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C2776008035 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C2779343474 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C2779951463 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C2780907711 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C2992636618 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C3019080777 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C44575665 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C64332521 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C71924100 @default.
• W2917497890 hasConceptScore W2917497890C86803240 @default.
• W2917497890 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2917497890 hasLocation W29174978901 @default.

• next