An All-Suture-Based Technique for Meniscal Repair Is Cost-Effective in Comparison to Partial Meniscectomy for Horizontal Cleavage Tears.

Purpose: To determine the cost-effectiveness of meniscal repair (MR) using an all-suture-based technique when compared to partial meniscectomy (PM) for horizontal cleavage tears (HCTs) from a payor's perspective in the United States. Methods: A state-transition model and cost-utility analysis were developed from a US payor's perspective to project treatment costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a cohort of 35-year-old patients without osteoarthritis at baseline and presenting with either a lateral or medial HCT. Two outpatient costing perspectives were used, namely ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and hospitals. The state-transition model had 7 health states with transition probabilities, costs, and utilities obtained from the existing literature. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, and sensitivity analysis considered the effects of parameter uncertainty on model results. MR failure rates were focused on an all-suture-based technique; however, in a separate scenario, this study considered effectiveness data from various MR techniques and devices. Results: MR dominated PM over a lifetime horizon, increasing QALYs by 0.43 per patient and decreasing the cost by $12,227 per patient within a hospital setting (and by $12,570 within an ASC). MR with an all-suture-based technique continued to be the dominant treatment when age at primary treatment was varied between 30 and 60 years. Sensitivity analysis showed that MR was not cost-effective in year 1, was cost-effective from year 2, and was cost-saving from year 6 onward from both ASC and hospital perspectives. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that MR was cost-effective over a lifetime horizon in 99% of 10,000 iterations on base-case analysis. Conclusions: Using a lifetime horizon, this study found that from a payor's perspective, MR is a cost-saving intervention when compared with PM in patients with an HCT. Level of Evidence: Level III, economic analysis.

The characteristics and impact of hard-to-heal wounds: results of a standardised survey.

The effective management of hard-to-heal wounds has increasingly important implications for those who provide wound care services within healthcare systems. The burden of wounds in the population continues to grow, as does the demand for wound care, against a backdrop of cost constraints and increasing expectations. The need to improve both outcomes and efficiency in wound care is therefore paramount and the time taken to heal wounds is an important factor in determining both. Survey methodology was used to collect data across 10 community wound care providers in the UK, Ireland, Finland, Norway and Denmark between February and August 2017. This allowed for analysis of wounds and their characteristics, dressing selection and nursing practice across a typical wound caseload. Data from 1057 wounds demonstrates that the characteristics and consequences of hard-to-heal wounds are different from improving wounds. However, wounds are, in general, treated in the same way, irrespective of whether they are hard-to-heal or improving, suggesting that the healing status of a wound is not a major factor in treatment selection. Early intervention to return hard-to-heal wounds to a healing trajectory may be a useful approach to improving efficiency in wound care.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Single-use and Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy to Treat Chronic Venous and Diabetic Foot Ulcers.

Lower extremity ulcers such as venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) have a major clinical and economic impact on patients and providers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this economic evaluation was to determine the cost-effectiveness of single-use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) compared with traditional NPWT (tNPWT) for the treatment of VLUs and DFUs in the United States. METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was used to compare the incremental cost and ulcer weeks avoided for a time horizon of 12 and 26 weeks using lower extremity ulcer closure rates from a published randomized controlled trial (N = 161) that compared sNPWT with tNPWT. Treatment costs were extracted from a retrospective cost-minimization study of sNPWT and tNPWT from the payer perspective using US national 2016 Medicare claims data inflated to 2018 costs and multiplied by 7 to estimate the weekly costs of treatment for sNPWT and tNPWT. Two (2) arms of the model, tNPWT and sNPWT, were calculated separately for a combination of both VLU and DFU ulcer types. In this model, a hypothetical cohort of patients began in the open ulcer health state, and at the end of each weekly cycle a proportion of the cohort moved into the closed ulcer health state according to a constant transition probability. The costs over the defined timescale were summed to give a total cost of treatment for each arm of the model, and then the difference between the arms was calculated. Effectiveness was calculated by noting the incidence of healing at 12 and 26 weeks and the total number of open ulcer weeks; the incremental effectiveness was calculated as sNPWT effectiveness minus tNPWT effectiveness. Data were extracted to Excel spreadsheets and subjected to one-way sensitivity, scenario (where patients with unhealed ulcers were changed to standard care at 4 or 12 weeks), probabilistic, and threshold analyses. RESULTS: sNPWT was found to provide an expected cost saving of $7756 per patient and an expected reduction of 1.67 open ulcer weeks per patient over 12 weeks and a cost reduction of $15 749 and 5.31 open ulcer weeks over 26 weeks. Probabilistic analysis at 26 weeks showed 99.8% of the simulations resulted in sNPWT dominating tNPWT. Scenario analyses showed that sNPWT remained dominant over tNPWT (cost reductions over 26 weeks of $2536 and $7976 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSION: Using sNPWT for VLUs and DFUs is likely to be more cost-effective than tNPWT from the US payer perspective and may provide an opportunity for policymakers to reduce the economic burden of lower extremity ulcers.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Reduces Wound Breakdown and Implant Loss in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Single-use negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to encourage wound healing. It is often used when patient factors impair wound healing, or in more complex wounds, such as in implant-based breast reconstruction. We report the findings of a prospective cohort study comparing the use of NPWT with standard dressings in prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS: A prospective database of implant-based reconstruction from a single institution was mined to identify patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction. Patient demographics, operative data, surgical complications, and 90-day outcomes were compared between patients who had NPWT and those who had standard dressings. RESULTS: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction was performed on 307 breasts. NPWT dressings were used in 126 cases, with standard dressings used in 181 cases. Wound breakdown occurred in 10 cases after standard dressings versus 1 where NPWT was utilized. Of the standard dressing cases, only 3 implants were salvaged, while 7 cases led to implant loss. The 1 case of wound breakdown in the NPWT cohort settled with conservative measures. The cost of a reconstructive failure was £14,902, and the use of NPWT resulted in a cost savings of £426 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of single-use NPWT reduces the rate of wound breakdown and implant loss in prepectoral implant-based reconstruction. In addition to the significant clinical benefits, this approach is cost-saving compared with standard dressings. These data suggest that prepectoral implant reconstruction should be considered as an indication for the use of NPWT.

A multilayer polyurethane foam dressing for pressure ulcer prevention in older hip fracture patients: an economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (PU) have a substantial negative impact on patients and continue to impose a cost burden on hospital providers. Since the incidence of fragility fracture is growing, driven by the increase in the older population, it is expected that the overall incidence of associated complications will also increase accordingly. The aim of this economic evaluation was to determine whether the use of a multilayer, silicone-adhesive polyurethane foam dressing (ALLEVYN LIFE, Smith & Nephew, UK) alongside standard prevention (SP) for the prevention of PUs in older patients with hip fractures is a cost-effective strategy, compared with SP alone. METHOD: A decision-analytic model was constructed to determine the incremental cost and effectiveness of the foam dressing strategy from the perspectives of the Italian and US hospital systems. We also performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The foam dressing intervention was found to be cost saving and more effective than SP in both Italy and the US. Switching to foam dressing and standard prevention would result in an expected cost saving of €733 per patient in Italy and $840 per patient in the US, reducing the per-patient cost of treating PUs by 37-69% and 36-68%, respectively. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the strategy remains dominant over a range of values of the input variables. CONCLUSION: The foam dressing intervention is likely to be a cost-effective strategy compared with standard prevention alone.

Wound management for the 21st century: combining effectiveness and efficiency.

Treatment of wounds of different aetiologies constitutes a major part of the total health care budget. It is estimated that 1·5-2 million people in Europe suffer from acute or chronic wounds. These wounds are managed both in hospitals and in community care. The patients suffering from these wounds report physical, mental and social consequences of their wounds and the care of them. It is often believed that the use of wound dressings per se is the major cost driver in wound management, whereas in fact, nursing time and hospital costs are together responsible for around 80-85% of the total cost. Healing time, frequency of dressing change and complications are three important cost drivers. However, with the use of modern, advanced technology for more rapid wound healing, all these cost drivers can be substantially reduced. A basic understanding of the terminology and principles of Health Economics in relation to wound management might therefore be of interest.

A prospective, open, multicentre study to evaluate a new gelling fibre dressing containing silver in the management of venous leg ulcers.

This study investigated the performance of a new gelling fibre dressing containing silver (DURAFIBER™ Ag; Smith & Nephew, Hull, UK) in moderate to highly exuding venous leg ulcers with one or more clinical signs of infection. Fourteen patients with venous leg ulceration of median ulcer duration 12·5 weeks, recruited from three centres in South Africa, received treatment with the new dressing for a maximum of 8 weeks. Multilayer compression bandaging was used for all patients, at the majority of assessments. The objectives of this study were to assess the clinical acceptability of the dressing in terms of the following characteristics: antimicrobial properties, the progress of the wound towards healing, wear time, exudate management, conformability, patient comfort, pain on application, pain on removal and dressing integrity. The new dressing was rated as clinically acceptable for all characteristics, for all 14 patients (100%). It was easy to apply and remove; in 96·8% of removals, the dressing stayed intact on removal and could be removed in one piece. Fifty per cent of the wounds healed within the 8-week study duration; between baseline and final assessment, the median percentage reduction in wound area was 98·2% and the median percentage reduction in devitalised tissue was 78%. Exudate levels and wound pain were significantly improved at final assessment compared to baseline assessment, and an increase in the number of patients with healthy peri-wound skin between baseline and final assessment was observed. A reduction in bioburden and signs of clinical infection and an improvement in quality of life were observed over the 8-week period. The average wear time was 6·4 days. This study supports the use of new dressing in the management of moderately to highly exuding venous leg ulcers with clinical signs of infection.

The economic benefits of negative pressure wound therapy in community-based wound care in the NHS.

The human and economic costs of wounds are of major concern within today's National Health Service. Advances in wound care technology have been shown to be beneficial both in healing and in relation to patient quality of life. Negative pressure has often been associated with high-cost care and restricted to use in the secondary care setting. There is growing use of negative pressure within the community, and this has the potential to benefit the patient and the service by providing quality care in the patient's home setting. Three community sites were chosen to monitor their use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) over a period of 2 years, and this paper presents some of the key findings of this work. The data generated has been used to help target resources and prevent misuse of therapy. Cost per patient episode has been calculated, and this can be compared to similar costs in secondary care, showing significant savings if patients are discharged earlier from secondary care. There is also an increased demand for more patients with complex wounds to be cared for in the community, and in the future, it is likely that community initiated NPWT may become more common. Early analysis of the data showed that the average cost of dressing complex wounds would be significantly less than using traditional dressings, where increased nursing visits could increase costs. There is a compelling argument for more negative pressure to be used and initiated in the community, based not only on improved quality of life for patients but also on the economic benefits of the therapy.

Barrier dressings in surgical site infection prevention strategies.

Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) are a matter of priority for the NHS. They are associated with significant morbidity, and frequently lead to increased length of hospital stay, pain and discomfort for the patient, and in some cases even permanent disability. It is estimated that surgical site infections (SSIs) constitute around 14% of all HCAIs. Any break in the skin affords a portal of entry for microbial pathogens, and hence places the patient at an increased risk of infection. To address the issue, a multi-factorial strategy for the prevention of SSIs is essential, with postoperative dressings playing a key part alongside universal precautions such as hand hygiene and aseptic technique. The available guidance specifies the need for a postoperative dressing which provides an effective physical barrier and a moist environment for optimal wound healing. Vapour-permeable barrier dressings appear to be effective in meeting both of these criteria and also offer additional advantages both to patients and practitioners, such as patient comfort and the ability to stay in place whilst the patient showers. However, regular wound assessment must be carried out to ensure the vapour-permeable postoperative dressing is the right choice for a specific patient at a given time.

Economic and clinical contributions of an antimicrobial barrier dressing: a strategy for the reduction of surgical site infections.

OBJECTIVE: In patients at risk of surgical site infection (SSI), there is evidence that an antimicrobial barrier dressing (Acticoat* ) applied immediately post-procedure is effective in reducing the incidence of infection. The objective of this study was to assess when it is appropriate to use an antimicrobial barrier dressing rather than a post-operative film dressing, by evaluating the net cost and budget impact of the two strategies. METHODS: An economic model was developed, which estimates expected expenditure on dressings and the expected costs of surgical site infection during the initial inpatient episode, based on published literature on the pre-discharge costs of surgical infection and the efficacy of an antimicrobial barrier dressing in preventing SSI. RESULTS: At an SSI risk of 10%, an antimicrobial barrier dressing strategy is cost neutral if the incidence of infection is reduced by at least 9% compared with a post-operative film dressing. At 35% efficacy, expenditure on dressings would be higher by £30,760 per 1000 patients, and the cost of treating infection would be lower by £111,650, resulting in a net cost saving of £80,890. The break-even infection risk for cost neutrality is 2.6%. LIMITATIONS: Although this cost analysis is based on published data, there are limitations in methodology: the model is dependent on and subject to the limitations of the data used to populate it. Further studies would be useful to increase the robustness of the conclusions, particularly in a broader range of surgical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy involving the use of an antimicrobial barrier dressing in patients at moderate (5-10%) or high (>10%) risk of infection appears reasonable and cost saving in light of the available clinical evidence.

Prediction and monitoring the therapeutic response of chronic dermal wounds.

A significant proportion of chronic wounds fail to heal in response to treatment of underlying pathologies combined with good wound care practice. Current prognostic tests to identify these wounds rely on the use of algorithms based on clinically measurable parameters such as wound dimensions and wound duration. Venous leg ulcers may be stratified into healing/non healing at 24 weeks of compression therapy and diabetic foot ulcer treatment outcome assessed using a 3-parameter algorithm. Accurate and reproducible measurement of wound area is required for these algorithms to have clinical utility. Whilst a number of attempts have been made to develop computerised wound-assessment techniques, wound tracing by clinicians combined with planimetry remains the standard methodology. Once treatment has been initiated, it is important to continuously monitor the wound to assess efficacy of treatment. This can be achieved by measuring wound area change over the first weeks of treatment to identify whether re-assessment of treatment strategy is required. A number of algorithms for assessing rate of wound area change have been evaluated to determine a surrogate endpoint for healing. Retrospective analysis of large patient groups indicates that approximately 75% correct prediction of healing outcome can be achieved.