A systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of the computer-assisted orthopedic system

Hua Li, Tengfeng Zhuang, Wenrui Wu, Wenyi Gan, Chongjie Wu, Sijun Peng, Songwei Huan, Ning Liu
{"title":"A systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of the computer-assisted orthopedic system","authors":"Hua Li,&nbsp;Tengfeng Zhuang,&nbsp;Wenrui Wu,&nbsp;Wenyi Gan,&nbsp;Chongjie Wu,&nbsp;Sijun Peng,&nbsp;Songwei Huan,&nbsp;Ning Liu","doi":"10.1002/hcs2.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Computer-assisted orthopedic system (CAOS) is rapidly gaining popularity in the field of precision medicine. However, the cost-effectiveness of CAOS has not been well clarified. We performed this review to summarize and assess the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with regard to CAOS. Publications on CEA in CAOS have been searched in PubMed and CEA Registry up to May 31, 2022. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to estimate the quality of studies. Relationships between qualities and potential factors were also examined. There were 15 eligible studies in the present review. Twelve studies evaluated CAOS joint arthroplasties and found that CAOS joint arthroplasties were cost-effective compared to manual methods. Three studies focused on spinal surgery, two of which analyzed the cost-effectiveness of CAOS for patients after spinal fusion, with conflicting results. One study demonstrated that CAOS was cost-effective in spinal pedicle screw insertion. The mean QHES score of CEAs included was 86.1. The potential factors had no significant relationship with the quality of studies. Based on available studies, our review reflected that CAOS was cost-effective in the field of joint arthroplasty. While in spinal surgery, the answer was unclear. Current CEAs represent high qualities, and more CEAs are required in the different disciplines of orthopedics where CAOS is employed.</p>","PeriodicalId":100601,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Science","volume":"1 3","pages":"173-185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hcs2.23","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hcs2.23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Computer-assisted orthopedic system (CAOS) is rapidly gaining popularity in the field of precision medicine. However, the cost-effectiveness of CAOS has not been well clarified. We performed this review to summarize and assess the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with regard to CAOS. Publications on CEA in CAOS have been searched in PubMed and CEA Registry up to May 31, 2022. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to estimate the quality of studies. Relationships between qualities and potential factors were also examined. There were 15 eligible studies in the present review. Twelve studies evaluated CAOS joint arthroplasties and found that CAOS joint arthroplasties were cost-effective compared to manual methods. Three studies focused on spinal surgery, two of which analyzed the cost-effectiveness of CAOS for patients after spinal fusion, with conflicting results. One study demonstrated that CAOS was cost-effective in spinal pedicle screw insertion. The mean QHES score of CEAs included was 86.1. The potential factors had no significant relationship with the quality of studies. Based on available studies, our review reflected that CAOS was cost-effective in the field of joint arthroplasty. While in spinal surgery, the answer was unclear. Current CEAs represent high qualities, and more CEAs are required in the different disciplines of orthopedics where CAOS is employed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
计算机辅助骨科系统成本效益的系统综述
计算机辅助骨科系统(CAOS)在精准医学领域正迅速普及。然而,CAOS的成本效益尚未得到很好的澄清。我们进行了这篇综述,以总结和评估关于CAOS的成本效益分析(cea)。截至2022年5月31日,在PubMed和CEA Registry中检索了CAOS中CEA的出版物。使用卫生经济研究质量(QHES)工具来评估研究的质量。同时还考察了质量与潜在因素之间的关系。在本综述中有15项符合条件的研究。12项研究评估了CAOS关节置换术,发现与手工方法相比,CAOS关节置换术具有成本效益。三项研究聚焦脊柱手术,其中两项研究分析了脊柱融合术后患者CAOS的成本-效果,结果相互矛盾。一项研究表明,CAOS在椎弓根螺钉置入中具有成本效益。入选cea的平均QHES评分为86.1分。潜在因素与研究质量无显著关系。基于现有的研究,我们的综述反映CAOS在关节置换术领域具有成本效益。在脊柱外科手术中,答案还不清楚。目前的cea代表了高质量,在使用CAOS的骨科不同学科中需要更多的cea。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Study protocol: A national cross-sectional study on psychology and behavior investigation of Chinese residents in 2023. Caregiving in Asia: Priority areas for research, policy, and practice to support family caregivers. Innovative public strategies in response to COVID-19: A review of practices from China. Sixty years of ethical evolution: The 2024 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH). A novel ensemble ARIMA-LSTM approach for evaluating COVID-19 cases and future outbreak preparedness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1