• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

军事单侧颈神经根病的管理:颈椎后路椎间孔切开术与前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合术的成本效益比较。

Management of unilateral cervical radiculopathy in the military: the cost effectiveness of posterior cervical foraminotomy compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Naval Medical Center San Diego, California 92134, USA.

出版信息

Neurosurg Focus. 2010 May;28(5):E17. doi: 10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09305.

DOI:10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09305
PMID:20568933
Abstract

OBJECT

To review the cost effectiveness for the management of a unilateral cervical radiculopathy with either posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in military personnel, with a particular focus on time required to return to active-duty service.

METHODS

Following internal review board approval, the authors conducted a retrospective review of 38 cases in which patients underwent surgical management of unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Nineteen patients who underwent PCF were matched for age, treatment level, and surgeon to 19 patients who had undergone ACDF. Successful outcome was determined by return to full, unrestricted active-duty military service. The difference in time of return to active duty was compared between the groups. In addition, a cost analysis consisting of direct and indirect costs was used to compare the PCF group to the ACDF group.

RESULTS

A total of 21 levels were operated on in each group. There were 17 men and 2 women in the PCF group, whereas all 19 patients in the ACDF group were men. The average age at the time of surgery was 41.5 years (range 27-56 years) and 39.3 years (range 24-52 years) for the PCF and ACDF groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in operating room time, estimated blood loss, or postoperative narcotic refills. Complications included 2 cases of transient recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in the ACDF group. The average time to return to unrestricted full duty was 4.8 weeks (range 1-8 weeks) in the PCF group and 19.6 weeks (range 12-32 weeks) in the ACDF group, a difference of 14.8 weeks (p < 0.001). The direct costs of each surgery were $3570 for the PCF and $10,078 for the ACDF, a difference of $6508. Based on the 14.8-week difference in time to return to active duty, the indirect cost was calculated to range from $13,586 to $24,045 greater in the ACDF group. Total cost (indirect plus direct) ranged from $20,094 to $30,553 greater in the ACDF group.

CONCLUSIONS

In the management of unilateral posterior cervical radiculopathy for military active-duty personnel, PCF offers a benefit relative to ACDF in immediate short-term direct and long-term indirect costs. The indirect cost of a service member away from full, unrestricted active duty 14.8 weeks longer in the ACDF group was the main contributor to this difference.

摘要

目的

回顾颈椎单侧神经根病采用后路颈椎椎间孔切开术(PCF)或前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合术(ACDF)治疗的成本效益,特别关注恢复现役服务所需的时间。

方法

在内部审查委员会批准后,作者对 38 例接受单侧颈椎神经根病手术治疗的患者进行了回顾性研究。19 例接受 PCF 的患者与年龄、治疗水平和外科医生相匹配,与 19 例接受 ACDF 的患者相匹配。成功的结果通过恢复全面、不受限制的现役军事服务来确定。比较两组之间返回现役的时间差异。此外,使用直接和间接成本的成本分析来比较 PCF 组和 ACDF 组。

结果

每组共手术 21 个节段。PCF 组 17 名男性和 2 名女性,而 ACDF 组 19 名患者均为男性。手术时的平均年龄分别为 41.5 岁(27-56 岁)和 39.3 岁(24-52 岁)。手术时间、估计失血量或术后阿片类药物补充无统计学差异。并发症包括 ACDF 组 2 例短暂性喉返神经麻痹。PCF 组平均恢复到无限制的全职工作时间为 4.8 周(1-8 周),ACDF 组为 19.6 周(12-32 周),差异为 14.8 周(p < 0.001)。PCF 的每次手术直接费用为 3570 美元,ACDF 的每次手术直接费用为 10078 美元,差异为 6508 美元。基于恢复现役的 14.8 周差异,计算出 ACDF 组的间接费用为 13586 美元至 24045 美元。ACDF 组的总费用(间接加直接)范围为 20094 美元至 30553 美元。

结论

在管理现役军事人员的单侧颈椎后神经根病时,PCF 在直接短期和长期间接成本方面相对于 ACDF 具有优势。ACDF 组服务成员离开全面、不受限制的现役服务 14.8 周的间接成本是造成这种差异的主要原因。

相似文献

1
Management of unilateral cervical radiculopathy in the military: the cost effectiveness of posterior cervical foraminotomy compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.军事单侧颈神经根病的管理:颈椎后路椎间孔切开术与前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合术的成本效益比较。
Neurosurg Focus. 2010 May;28(5):E17. doi: 10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09305.
2
Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a cost analysis.单节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术与微创后路颈椎椎间孔切开术治疗神经根型颈椎病的成本分析
Neurosurg Focus. 2014 Nov;37(5):E9. doi: 10.3171/2014.8.FOCUS14373.
3
Cost-Utility Analysis of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With Plating (ACDFP) Versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) for Patients With Single-level Cervical Radiculopathy at 1-Year Follow-up.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术加钢板固定(ACDFP)与后路颈椎椎间孔切开术(PCF)治疗单节段颈椎神经根病患者1年随访的成本效用分析
Clin Spine Surg. 2016 Mar;29(2):E67-72. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000099.
4
Arthroplasty in the military: a preliminary experience with ProDisc-C and ProDisc-L.关节成形术在军队中的应用:ProDisc-C 和 ProDisc-L 的初步经验。
Neurosurg Focus. 2010 May;28(5):E18. doi: 10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS102.
5
Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion to Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Cervical Radiculopathy: Utilization, Costs, and Adverse Events 2003 to 2014.2003 年至 2014 年颈椎神经根病前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合术与后路颈椎侧块切除术的比较:利用、成本和不良事件。
Neurosurgery. 2019 Feb 1;84(2):413-420. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy051.
6
Rates of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion after initial posterior cervical foraminotomy.初次后路颈椎椎间孔切开术后前路颈椎间盘切除融合术的发生率。
Spine J. 2015 May 1;15(5):971-6. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.05.042. Epub 2013 Jul 17.
7
Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术与后路颈椎椎间孔切开术治疗神经根型颈椎病的比较:一项系统评价
Orthop Surg. 2016 Nov;8(4):425-431. doi: 10.1111/os.12285.
8
Ninety-Day Bundled Payment Reimbursement for Patients Undergoing Anterior and Posterior Procedures for Degenerative Cervical Radiculopathy.退行性颈椎神经根病行前后路手术患者 90 天打包付费报销。
Neurosurgery. 2019 Nov 1;85(5):E851-E859. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyz123.
9
Reoperation rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy: a propensity-matched analysis.颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术与颈椎后路椎间孔切开术后的再次手术率:一项倾向匹配分析。
Spine J. 2015 Jun 1;15(6):1277-83. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.026. Epub 2015 Feb 23.
10
Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy with tubes to prevent undesired fusion: a long-term follow-up study.采用管道进行微创后路颈椎椎间孔切开术以防止不必要的融合:一项长期随访研究
J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Oct;29(4):358-364. doi: 10.3171/2018.2.SPINE171003. Epub 2018 Jun 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Compared with Anterior Cervical Discectomy with Fusion for Cervical Radiculopathy: Two-Year Results of the FACET Randomized Noninferiority Study.后路颈椎侧方入路减压术与前路颈椎间盘切除融合术治疗神经根型颈椎病的两年随机非劣效性研究结果:FACET 研究。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2024 Sep 18;106(18):1653-1663. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.23.00775. Epub 2024 Jul 24.
2
The top-cited military relevant spine articles.被引用次数最多的与军事相关的脊柱文章。
J Orthop. 2024 Mar 13;54:38-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2024.03.014. eCollection 2024 Aug.
3
Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT.
颈椎后路椎间孔切开术与颈椎前路椎间盘切除术治疗颈臂痛:FORVAD RCT。
Health Technol Assess. 2023 Oct;27(21):1-228. doi: 10.3310/OTOH7720.
4
Return to sport and active military duty after cervical disc arthroplasty: A systematic review.颈椎间盘置换术后恢复运动和现役军事任务:一项系统综述。
J Orthop. 2023 Apr 11;39:75-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.04.008. eCollection 2023 May.
5
Comparison of Single-Level Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Radiculopathy.单节段后路颈椎椎间孔切开术与前路颈椎间盘切除融合术治疗神经根病的比较。
Int J Spine Surg. 2023 Jun;17(3):418-425. doi: 10.14444/8447. Epub 2023 Mar 24.
6
A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Cited Articles in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术领域被引频次最高的100篇文章的文献计量分析
J Pain Res. 2022 Oct 11;15:3137-3156. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S375720. eCollection 2022.
7
Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical radiculopathy: a meta-analysis.微创后路颈椎侧方入路减压术与前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合术治疗神经根型颈椎病的比较:一项荟萃分析。
Neurosurg Rev. 2022 Dec;45(6):3609-3618. doi: 10.1007/s10143-022-01882-5. Epub 2022 Oct 18.
8
Economic Impact of Revision Operations for Adjacent Segment Disease of the Subaxial Cervical Spine.下颈椎相邻节段病变翻修手术的经济影响。
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022 Apr 1;6(4):e22.00058. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00058.
9
Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion and Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.微创后路颈椎椎间孔切开术与前路颈椎融合术及关节成形术:系统评价与Meta分析
Global Spine J. 2022 Sep;12(7):1573-1582. doi: 10.1177/21925682211055094. Epub 2021 Dec 8.
10
Fully endoscopic cervical spine surgery: What does the future hold?全内镜下颈椎手术:未来会怎样?
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021 Sep 24;22:101609. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101609. eCollection 2021 Nov.