Cargando…

A 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: A retrospective bi-institutional review

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic strip craniectomy with helmeting (ESCH) has been shown to be a safe and efficacious alternative to fronto-orbital remodeling (FOR) for selected children with craniosynostosis. In addition to clinical factors, there may be economic benefits from the use of ESCH instead of FOR...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jivraj, B.A., Ahmed, N., Karia, K., Menon, R., Robertson, E., Sodha, A., Wormald, J.C.R., O'hara, J., Jeelani, O., Dunaway, D., James, G., Ong, J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7061657/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32158870
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2019.01.010
_version_ 1783504432590225408
author Jivraj, B.A.
Ahmed, N.
Karia, K.
Menon, R.
Robertson, E.
Sodha, A.
Wormald, J.C.R.
O'hara, J.
Jeelani, O.
Dunaway, D.
James, G.
Ong, J.
author_facet Jivraj, B.A.
Ahmed, N.
Karia, K.
Menon, R.
Robertson, E.
Sodha, A.
Wormald, J.C.R.
O'hara, J.
Jeelani, O.
Dunaway, D.
James, G.
Ong, J.
author_sort Jivraj, B.A.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic strip craniectomy with helmeting (ESCH) has been shown to be a safe and efficacious alternative to fronto-orbital remodeling (FOR) for selected children with craniosynostosis. In addition to clinical factors, there may be economic benefits from the use of ESCH instead of FOR. METHODS: A retrospective review of 23 patients with nonsyndromic unicoronal craniosynostosis (UCS) treated with FOR was carried out at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) for Children in London, UK. Secondary data were used for the ESCH cohort from a paper published by Jimenez and Barone (2013). Data were collected on surgical time, transfusion rates, length of hospital stay, adverse event rates, reintervention rates, and overall costs. Costs were categorized and then assigned to the appropriate data sets. RESULTS: The mean age of patients undergoing FOR (vs. ESCH) was 17.4 mo (vs. 3.1 mo) with a mean surgical time of 234 min (vs. 55 min), mean transfusion volume of 221.6 mL (vs. 80.0 mL), mean transfusion rate of 14/23 (vs. 2/115), and a total immediate overnight stay of 3.13 days (vs. 97% next-day discharge). The FOR group had a higher adverse event rate (5/23 vs. 4/115, p=<0.005) and a higher number requiring extraocular muscle surgery (4/23 vs. 7/109, p=0.16). There was a substantial difference in overall costs between the two groups. Total variance cost for the FOR group was £7436.5 vs. £4951.35, representing a cost difference of £2485.15 over the 24-month study period. CONCLUSION: ESCH, in comparison to FOR, appears as a more economical method in the management of USC patients, as well as having clinical benefits including reduced adverse event rate and improved ophthalmic outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7061657
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70616572020-03-10 A 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: A retrospective bi-institutional review Jivraj, B.A. Ahmed, N. Karia, K. Menon, R. Robertson, E. Sodha, A. Wormald, J.C.R. O'hara, J. Jeelani, O. Dunaway, D. James, G. Ong, J. JPRAS Open Original Article INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic strip craniectomy with helmeting (ESCH) has been shown to be a safe and efficacious alternative to fronto-orbital remodeling (FOR) for selected children with craniosynostosis. In addition to clinical factors, there may be economic benefits from the use of ESCH instead of FOR. METHODS: A retrospective review of 23 patients with nonsyndromic unicoronal craniosynostosis (UCS) treated with FOR was carried out at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) for Children in London, UK. Secondary data were used for the ESCH cohort from a paper published by Jimenez and Barone (2013). Data were collected on surgical time, transfusion rates, length of hospital stay, adverse event rates, reintervention rates, and overall costs. Costs were categorized and then assigned to the appropriate data sets. RESULTS: The mean age of patients undergoing FOR (vs. ESCH) was 17.4 mo (vs. 3.1 mo) with a mean surgical time of 234 min (vs. 55 min), mean transfusion volume of 221.6 mL (vs. 80.0 mL), mean transfusion rate of 14/23 (vs. 2/115), and a total immediate overnight stay of 3.13 days (vs. 97% next-day discharge). The FOR group had a higher adverse event rate (5/23 vs. 4/115, p=<0.005) and a higher number requiring extraocular muscle surgery (4/23 vs. 7/109, p=0.16). There was a substantial difference in overall costs between the two groups. Total variance cost for the FOR group was £7436.5 vs. £4951.35, representing a cost difference of £2485.15 over the 24-month study period. CONCLUSION: ESCH, in comparison to FOR, appears as a more economical method in the management of USC patients, as well as having clinical benefits including reduced adverse event rate and improved ophthalmic outcomes. Elsevier 2019-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7061657/ /pubmed/32158870 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2019.01.010 Text en © 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Jivraj, B.A.
Ahmed, N.
Karia, K.
Menon, R.
Robertson, E.
Sodha, A.
Wormald, J.C.R.
O'hara, J.
Jeelani, O.
Dunaway, D.
James, G.
Ong, J.
A 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: A retrospective bi-institutional review
title A 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: A retrospective bi-institutional review
title_full A 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: A retrospective bi-institutional review
title_fullStr A 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: A retrospective bi-institutional review
title_full_unstemmed A 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: A retrospective bi-institutional review
title_short A 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: A retrospective bi-institutional review
title_sort 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: a retrospective bi-institutional review
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7061657/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32158870
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2019.01.010
work_keys_str_mv AT jivrajba a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT ahmedn a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT kariak a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT menonr a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT robertsone a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT sodhaa a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT wormaldjcr a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT oharaj a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT jeelanio a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT dunawayd a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT jamesg a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT ongj a24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT jivrajba 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT ahmedn 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT kariak 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT menonr 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT robertsone 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT sodhaa 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT wormaldjcr 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT oharaj 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT jeelanio 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT dunawayd 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT jamesg 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview
AT ongj 24monthcostandoutcomeanalysiscomparingtraditionalfrontoorbitaladvancmentandremodelingwithendoscopicstripcraniectomyandmoldinghelmetinthemanagementofunicoronalcraniosynostosisaretrospectivebiinstitutionalreview