TLIF suggested to be not cost-effective compared to intrumented PLF in cLBP .
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up
Eur Spine J. 2014 May;23(5):1137-43. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3238-6. Epub 2014 Feb 21100 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to undergo either transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterolateral fusion (PLF). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the cost-utility and cost-efficacy of TLIF relative to PLF. Data on primary health care costs, secondary health care costs, and production loss costs over the first 2 postoperative years were used for the analysis. Overall, no significant differences in costs were noted between groups, although total cost was higher with TLIF (59863€ vs. 55200€). As clinical outcome was found to not differ, cost-effective acceptability curves using QALYs and the Oswetry Disability Index did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness of TLIF compared to PLF.
Unlock the Full ACE Report
You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this ACE Reports
Unlock Now
Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidencecontent for as little as $1.99 per week.
Already have an account? Log in
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
