Cargando…

Treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an Ilizarov frame and the Masquelet technique

PURPOSE: The cost implications of limb reconstruction techniques have not been adequately investigated. Aim of this pilot study was to compare the direct medical cost of tibial bone defects managed with distraction osteogenesis–Ilizarov method (ILF), or with Masquelet technique (MIF). METHODS: Data...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kanakaris, Nikolaos K., Harwood, Paul J., Mujica-Mota, Ruben, Mohrir, Ganesh, Chloros, George, Giannoudis, Peter V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36443494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-02162-z
_version_ 1785040216964202496
author Kanakaris, Nikolaos K.
Harwood, Paul J.
Mujica-Mota, Ruben
Mohrir, Ganesh
Chloros, George
Giannoudis, Peter V.
author_facet Kanakaris, Nikolaos K.
Harwood, Paul J.
Mujica-Mota, Ruben
Mohrir, Ganesh
Chloros, George
Giannoudis, Peter V.
author_sort Kanakaris, Nikolaos K.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The cost implications of limb reconstruction techniques have not been adequately investigated. Aim of this pilot study was to compare the direct medical cost of tibial bone defects managed with distraction osteogenesis–Ilizarov method (ILF), or with Masquelet technique (MIF). METHODS: Data of 20 random patients treated in a single centre were analysed. Inclusion criteria included acute tibial defects, or post-debridement of nonunions with complete follow-up and successful union. The endpoint of clinical efficacy was the time-to-defect union. Comparisons were made between equally sized subgroups (ILF vs. MIF). RESULTS: The average defect length was 5.6 cm (2.6–9.6 cm). The overall cost of 20 cases reached £452,974 (mean £22,339, range £13,459–£36,274). Statistically significant differences favoring the MIF were found regarding the average time-to-union; number of surgeries, of admissions and follow-up visits, as well as the mean intraoperative cost (£8857 vs. £14,087). These differences lead to significant differences of the mean cost of the overall treatment (MIF £18,131 vs. ILF £26,126). Power analysis based on these data indicated that 35 patients on each group would allow detection of a 25% difference, with an alpha value of 0.05 and probability (power) of 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: The results and analysis presented highlight factors affecting the high financial burden, even in a best-case scenario, this type of surgery entails. Larger pivotal studies should follow to improve the cost efficiency of clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10175460
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101754602023-05-13 Treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an Ilizarov frame and the Masquelet technique Kanakaris, Nikolaos K. Harwood, Paul J. Mujica-Mota, Ruben Mohrir, Ganesh Chloros, George Giannoudis, Peter V. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Original Article PURPOSE: The cost implications of limb reconstruction techniques have not been adequately investigated. Aim of this pilot study was to compare the direct medical cost of tibial bone defects managed with distraction osteogenesis–Ilizarov method (ILF), or with Masquelet technique (MIF). METHODS: Data of 20 random patients treated in a single centre were analysed. Inclusion criteria included acute tibial defects, or post-debridement of nonunions with complete follow-up and successful union. The endpoint of clinical efficacy was the time-to-defect union. Comparisons were made between equally sized subgroups (ILF vs. MIF). RESULTS: The average defect length was 5.6 cm (2.6–9.6 cm). The overall cost of 20 cases reached £452,974 (mean £22,339, range £13,459–£36,274). Statistically significant differences favoring the MIF were found regarding the average time-to-union; number of surgeries, of admissions and follow-up visits, as well as the mean intraoperative cost (£8857 vs. £14,087). These differences lead to significant differences of the mean cost of the overall treatment (MIF £18,131 vs. ILF £26,126). Power analysis based on these data indicated that 35 patients on each group would allow detection of a 25% difference, with an alpha value of 0.05 and probability (power) of 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: The results and analysis presented highlight factors affecting the high financial burden, even in a best-case scenario, this type of surgery entails. Larger pivotal studies should follow to improve the cost efficiency of clinical practice. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-11-28 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10175460/ /pubmed/36443494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-02162-z Text en © Crown 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Kanakaris, Nikolaos K.
Harwood, Paul J.
Mujica-Mota, Ruben
Mohrir, Ganesh
Chloros, George
Giannoudis, Peter V.
Treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an Ilizarov frame and the Masquelet technique
title Treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an Ilizarov frame and the Masquelet technique
title_full Treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an Ilizarov frame and the Masquelet technique
title_fullStr Treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an Ilizarov frame and the Masquelet technique
title_full_unstemmed Treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an Ilizarov frame and the Masquelet technique
title_short Treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an Ilizarov frame and the Masquelet technique
title_sort treatment of tibial bone defects: pilot analysis of direct medical costs between distraction osteogenesis with an ilizarov frame and the masquelet technique
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36443494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-02162-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kanakarisnikolaosk treatmentoftibialbonedefectspilotanalysisofdirectmedicalcostsbetweendistractionosteogenesiswithanilizarovframeandthemasquelettechnique
AT harwoodpaulj treatmentoftibialbonedefectspilotanalysisofdirectmedicalcostsbetweendistractionosteogenesiswithanilizarovframeandthemasquelettechnique
AT mujicamotaruben treatmentoftibialbonedefectspilotanalysisofdirectmedicalcostsbetweendistractionosteogenesiswithanilizarovframeandthemasquelettechnique
AT mohrirganesh treatmentoftibialbonedefectspilotanalysisofdirectmedicalcostsbetweendistractionosteogenesiswithanilizarovframeandthemasquelettechnique
AT chlorosgeorge treatmentoftibialbonedefectspilotanalysisofdirectmedicalcostsbetweendistractionosteogenesiswithanilizarovframeandthemasquelettechnique
AT giannoudispeterv treatmentoftibialbonedefectspilotanalysisofdirectmedicalcostsbetweendistractionosteogenesiswithanilizarovframeandthemasquelettechnique