A cost-effectiveness analysis of anchorage reinforcement with miniscrews and molar blocks in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse cost-effectiveness of anchorage reinforcement with buccal miniscrews and with molar blocks. We hypothesized that anchorage with miniscrews is more cost-effective than anchorage with molar blocks. TRIAL DESIGN: A single-centre, two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Adolescents (age 11-19 years) in need of treatment with fixed appliance, premolar extractions, and en masse retraction were recruited from one Public Dental Health specialist centre. The intervention arm received anchorage reinforcement with buccal miniscrews during space closure. The active comparator received anchorage reinforcement with molar blocks during levelling/alignment and space closure. The primary outcome measure was societal costs defined as the sum of direct and indirect costs. Randomization was conducted as simple randomization stratified on gender. The patients, caregivers, and outcome assessors were not blinded. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomized into two groups. The trial is completed. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median societal costs for the miniscrew group were €4681 and for the molar block group were €3609. The median of the difference was €825 (95% confidence interval (CI) 431-1267). This difference was mainly caused by significantly higher direct costs consisting of material and chair time costs. Differences in chair time costs were related to longer treatment duration. No serious harms were detected, one screw fractured during insertion and three screws were lost during treatment. GENERALIZABILITY AND LIMITATIONS: The monetary variables are calculated based on a number of local factors and assumptions and cannot necessarily be transferred to other countries. Variables such as chair time, number of appointments, and treatment duration are generalizable. Owing to the study protocol, the benefit of miniscrews as a stable anchorage has not been fully utilized. CONCLUSIONS: When only moderate anchorage reinforcement is needed, miniscrews are less cost-effective than molar blocks. The initial hypothesis was rejected. Miniscrews provide better anchorage reinforcement at a higher price. They should be used in cases where anchorage loss cannot be accepted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02644811.

Evaluation of Factors Driving Cost Variation for Distal Radius Fracture Open Reduction Internal Fixation.

PURPOSE: Distal radius fracture open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) represents a considerable cost burden to the health care system. We aimed to elucidate demographic-, injury-, and treatment-specific factors influencing surgical encounter costs for distal radius ORIF. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed adult patients treated with isolated distal radius ORIF between November 2014 and October 2016 at a single tertiary academic medical center. Using our institution's information technology value tools-which allow for comprehensive payment and cost data collection and analysis on an item-level basis-we determined relative costs (RC) for each factor potentially influencing total direct costs (TDC) for distal radius ORIF using univariate and multivariable gamma regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the included 108 patients, implants and facility utilization costs were responsible for 48.3% and 37.9% of TDC, respectively. Factors associated with increased TDC include plate manufacturer (RC 1.52 for the most vs least expensive manufacturer), number of screws (RC 1.03 per screw) and distal radius plates used (RC 1.67 per additional plate), surgery setting (RC 1.32 for main hospital vs ambulatory surgery center), treating service (RC 1.40 for trauma vs hand surgeons), and surgical time (RC 1.04 for every 10 min of additional surgical time). Open fracture was associated with increased costs (RC 1.55 vs closed fracture), whereas other estimates of fracture severity were nonsignificant. In the multivariable model controlling for injury-specific factors, variables including implant manufacturer, and number of distal radius plates and screws used, remained as significant drivers of TDC. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variations in surgical direct costs for distal radius ORIF exist, and implant choice is the predominant driver. Cost reductions may be expected through judicious use of additional plates and screws, if hospital systems use bargaining power to reduce implant costs, and by efficiently completing surgeries. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study identifies modifiable factors that may lead to cost reduction for distal radius ORIF.

Costs Associated With Single-Use and Conventional Sets for Distal Radius Plating.

PURPOSE: Volar plating of distal radius fractures is an increasingly common procedure. Presterilized, single-use volar plate fixation sets have been purported to increase operating room efficiency and decrease cost. The purpose of this study was to compare the actual cost of using a conventional set compared with the projected cost of using its single-use counterpart. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 30 consecutive cases of volar plate fixation in which conventional instrument sets were used. Hardware and processing costs were calculated for the conventional sets and compared with the projected cost of using single-use sets. RESULTS: The mean total cost of hardware and processing for the conventional sets was $2,728, whereas the projected cost for the single-use sets was slightly higher at $2,868. Twenty-three of the 30 cases would have required additional screws not available in the single-use set. The cost of the additional screws needed to supplement the single-use set would have added an average of $282/case. Overall, the combined hardware and processing cost was lower for conventional sets in 25 of the 30 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although the price of the single-use set is less than the mean charge for use of a conventional set, additional screws not available in the single-use set were required in 77% of cases and consequently rendered the conventional set cheaper in 83% of cases. Stocking the single-use sets with additional screws to reflect the most commonly used screw lengths could make these sets more cost effective in the future. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and decision analysis IV.

Maxillomandibular Fixation by Plastic Surgeons: Cost Analysis and Utilization of Resources.

PURPOSE: Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) can be performed using various techniques. Two common approaches used are arch bars and bone screws. Arch bars are the gold standard and inexpensive, but often require increased procedure time. Bone screws with wire fixation is a popular alternative, but more expensive than arch bars. The differences in costs of care, complications, and operative times between these 2 techniques are analyzed. METHODS: A chart review was conducted on patients treated over the last 12 years at our institution. Forty-four patients with CPT code 21453 (closed reduction of mandible fracture with interdental fixation) with an isolated mandible fracture were used in our data collection. The operating room (OR) costs, procedure duration, and complications for these patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Operative times were significantly shorter for patients treated with bone screws (P < 0.002). The costs for one trip to the OR for either method of fixation did not show any significant differences (P < 0.840). More patients with arch bar fixation (62%) required a second trip to the OR for removal in comparison to those with screw fixation (31%) (P < 0.068). This additional trip to the OR added significant cost. There were no differences in patient complications between these 2 fixation techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The MMF with bone screws represents an attractive alternative to fixation with arch bars in appropriate scenarios. Screw fixation offers reduced costs, fewer trips to the OR, and decreased operative duration without a difference in complications. Cost savings were noted most significantly in a decreased need for secondary procedures in patients who were treated with MMF screws. Screw fixation offers potential for reducing the costs of care in treating patients with minimally displaced or favorable mandible fractures.

Mandibular fractures treated with small plates and screws reduce treatment cost.

PURPOSE: The efficacy of treating mandibular fractures with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using small titanium plates and monocortical screws is well established. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of semirigid (small) titanium plates results in lower treatment charges. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with mandibular fractures were randomly allocated to ORIF with small or large titanium plates. The primary predictor variable for this secondary subset analysis was plate size. The primary outcome variable was total treatment charges. Other outcomes included length of stay (LOS), operating room charges, hardware charges, LOS charge, and charges related to the treatment of complications. RESULTS: A total of 127 consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. Fifty-two patients completed the required 6-week follow-up and had data available for analysis. Adjusted total treatment charges suggested a significant difference, with a mean total treatment charge of $15,308 in the semirigid group and a mean total treatment charge of $16,557 in the rigid group (P = .04). Total treatment charges were 8% higher in the rigid group compared with the semirigid group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that the overall charges associated with treating mandibular fractures with ORIF are significantly lower when semirigid plates are used.

Treatment outcomes with the use of maxillomandibular fixation screws in the management of mandible fractures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to assess whether uncomplicated mandible fractures could be treated successfully in an open or closed fashion using maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) screws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective institutional review board-approved study involving 20 adult patients who presented to the university emergency department or oral and maxillofacial surgical clinic with uncomplicated mandible fractures. Patients who met the exclusion criteria consented to enter the study in the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or the closed (MMF) study group. Six to 8 MMF screws were used to obtain intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in the 2 groups. Screw failure was documented. All screws were removed at 5 to 6 weeks postoperatively. Insertional torque (IT) was measured at time of screw placement to assess primary stability. Clinical and photographic documentation was performed to assess fracture healing, occlusion, and gingival health. Ten-centimeter visual analog scales were used to assess patient-centered outcomes. Cone-beam computed tomography was performed to assess the long-term effects on the periodontium and roots. A cost comparison was performed to determine whether the use of screws was cost effective compared with arch bars. RESULTS: Fifteen men and 5 women (mean age, 25.2 yr) entered the study. All patients displayed adequate fracture healing based on clinical examination. All patients had acceptable occlusion at 5 to 6 weeks postoperatively. Total screw failure was 27 of 106 screws (25.5%). Forty percent of screws placed in the MMF group failed compared with only 6% in the ORIF group. Gingival health scores were favorable. Factors that had a significant effect on screw failure included a lower IT (P = .002), use in closed (MMF) treatment (P < .001), and use in the posterior jaw (P = .012). Minimal pain was associated with the MMF screws and pre-existing occlusion was re-established based on patients' subjective responses. The MMF group reported a statistically significant lower quality of life (P < .001) compared with the ORIF group. There was only 1 screw site that had a facial cortical bone defect noted at 6-month follow-up CBCT examination. There were no discernible long-term root defects. Cost analysis showed that the use of MMF screws saved around $600 per patient in operating room usage cost alone compared with the estimated use of arch bars. CONCLUSIONS: Uncomplicated mandible fractures were successfully treated using MMF screws in open and closed treatments. However, the utility in closed treatment was decreased because of significant screw failure and patient noncompliance. The screws were well tolerated by the patients. There was minimal long-term damage to the periodontium and dental roots. The cost of screws was more than offset by time savings.

The economic impact of individually packaged screws.

BACKGROUND: Trends in orthopaedic surgery have seen a migration towards using individually packaged screws (IPS). The manufacturers claim IPS improves sterility, traceability, and avoids the effects of repeated sterilisation. In recent times there has been increasing pressure on the NHS to be more cost-efficient. Challenging decisions must be made to make cost-efficient choices without comprising the quality of care provided. AIM: This study investigates the cost-benefit of IPS compared to the conventional screw rack stored screws (SRSS). METHODS: A single-centred observational study was carried out in a district general hospital between February and March 2013. One-hundred and forty-seven screws were requested intra-operatively and the screw acquisition time was measured with a digital handheld timer. Screw acquisition time was defined as the time taken from the initial verbal request to when the screw was mounted ready for use. The screws were categorised into two groups: SRSS and IPS. RESULTS: The mean screw acquisition time for the SRSS group (n = 94) was 6.6 s (S.D ± 2.5). The mean screw acquisition time for the IPS group (n = 53) was 102.1 s (S.D ± 25.7). The mean difference between SRSS and IPS was 96 s (95%CI 90.3-100.8; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the use of IPS significantly (p < 0.001) increases the operation duration and costs compared to SRSS. Based on ankle ORIF procedures alone, the use of IPS could potentially increase department spending by approximately £76,680 per year.

Pedicle screw instrumentation and spinal deformities: have we gone too far?

INTRODUCTION: Placement of pedicle screws within the thoracic and lumbar spine has become the "state of the art" for the treatment of spinal deformities. Newly trained surgeons are often trained only with the placement of pedicle screws within the thoracic and lumbar spine and not with hooks or other means of fixation. However, if the benefits of pedicle screw instrumentation in terms of correction ability cannot be questioned on some issues pertaining to their safety, their rationale for all situations as well as their long-term adverse consequence and or early or late complications start to arise. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We therefore present four case examples that illustrate the advantages, questions and complications inherent to pedicle screw instrumentation in spinal deformities. These four cases serve as discussion supported by a review of the literature. The literature search was performed to include pedicle screws associated risks, costs and complications. Articles focusing on instrumentation of the thoracic and lumbar spine for the treatment of adult and pediatric scoliosis were reviewed. RESULTS: Pedicle screw instrumentation in the treatment of spinal deformity is here to stay, however a fair number of issues have come up since their widespread use that started 10 years ago: these include their misplacement with the inherent risks to the vascular or neurologic structures, the rate of misplaced pedicle screw not per number of screws inserted, but per patient operated, the number of screws really necessary to achieve a satisfactory outcome while maintaining costs, their contraindications in some very challenging deformities where the risks clearly outweigh their advantage compared to hooks. At last, the use of pedicle screw instrumentation has driven many centers in increasing the safety of such procedures using intraoperative spinal cord monitoring as well as improved imaging technologies. CONCLUSION: To answer our provocative title "Pedicle screw instrumentation have we gone too far?" Definitively we can answer that for some spinal deformities instrumented with all-pedicle-screw instrumentation, we have observed cases where the surgeons have gone way too far; in other cases, where such instrumentation was used in a comprehensive and rational manner, the answer to "Have we gone too far" is no, and such use of pedicle screw has improved outcome with minimum complications.

Clinical and radiologic outcomes of TLIF applications with or without pedicle screw: a double center prospective pilot comparative study.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort data by merging data from comparative studies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinical and radiologic outcomes of the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure with or without pedicle screw support in stable patients with a degenerative disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The unilateral lumbar interbody fusion technique has gained popularity in the management of many lumbar degenerative conditions requiring fusion. TLIF is routinely performed with the support of pedicle screws. The use of the TLIF procedure without pedicle screw support has not yet been reported. METHODS: Between February 2006 and May 2009, surgical decompression and fusion was performed in patients with lumbar degenerative conditions using the TLIF technique either with (n=30, group A) or without pedicle screw support (n=30, group B). The 2 groups had similar age, sex distribution, pain level, and pain history. In this prospective study, patients were followed for a mean period of 31 months (range, 22 to 38 mo). The mean age was 45.5 years (range, 29 to 78 y), and all patients had a disease involving a single intervertebral space. RESULTS: The female to male ratio was 19:11 and 18:12 in groups A and B, respectively. Pain and function were evaluated by the Oswestry disability index and visual analog scale. Pseudoarthrosis developed in 2 patients from group A and in 3 patients from group B. Although these 5 patients had insufficient fusion, they did show a clinical improvement. The mean duration of the operation was 110 and 73 minutes in groups A and B, respectively. The mean total amount of bleeding was 410 and 220 mL in groups A and B, respectively. Cage loosening did not occur in group A, but 1 patient in group B developed asymptomatic cage loosening limited to the endplates. Four patients in group A suffered sciatic pain because of the malposition of the screw, and 1 patient in group B had contralateral sciatic pain lasting for 2 months. The visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index scores were higher in group A than in group B 1 month after the operation (P<0.005), but the groups did not significantly differ at 3 months (P<0.89). The cost of the procedure was 3-fold higher in group A compared with group B. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the TLIF procedure without pedicle screw support would be sufficient in the management of preoperatively stable patients with lumbar degenerative spinal disease requiring fusion after single-level decompression. This technique is minimally invasive, requires only unilateral intervention, allows magnetic resonance imaging during the postoperative period and is associated with less costs and complications when compared with pedicle screwing. This study represents the first prospective comparative report on this technique showing several of its advantages.

Hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation with percutaneous cannulated screws as treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: cost-utility analysis performed alongside a randomized, controlled trial.

UNLABELLED: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation for elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Over 2 years, patients treated with hemiarthroplasty gained more quality-adjusted life years than patients treated with internal fixation. In addition, costs for hemiarthroplasty were lower. Hemiarthroplasty was thus cost effective. INTRODUCTION: Estimating the cost utility of hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted alongside a clinical randomized controlled trial at a university hospital in Norway; 166 patients, 124 (75%) women with a mean age of 82 years were randomized to either internal fixation (n = 86) or hemiarthroplasty (n = 80). Patients were followed up at 4, 12, and 24 months. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the EQ-5D, and in combination with time used to calculate patients' quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Resource use was identified, quantified, and valued for direct and indirect hospital costs and for societal costs. Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Over the 2-year period, patients treated with hemiarthroplasty gained 0.15-0.20 more QALYs than patients treated with internal fixation. For the hemiarthroplasty group, the direct hospital costs, total hospital costs, and total costs were non-significantly less costly compared with the internal fixation group, with an incremental cost of €2,731 (p = 0.81), €2,474 (p = 0.80), and €14,160 (p = 0.07), respectively. Thus, hemiarthroplasty was the dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses by bootstrapping supported these findings. CONCLUSION: Hemiarthroplasty was a cost-effective treatment. Trial registration, NCT00464230.

Cost-effectiveness of confirmatory techniques for the placement of lumbar pedicle screws.

OBJECT: There is considerable variation in the use of adjunctive technologies to confirm pedicle screw placement. Although there is literature to support the use of both neurophysiological monitoring and isocentric fluoroscopy to confirm pedicle screw positioning, there are no studies examining the cost-effectiveness of these technologies. This study compares the cost-effectiveness and efficacy of isocentric O-arm fluoroscopy, neurophysiological monitoring, and postoperative CT scanning after multilevel instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from 4 spine surgeons who used 3 different strategies for monitoring of pedicle screw placement in multilevel lumbar degenerative disease. A decision analysis model was developed to analyze costs and outcomes of the 3 different monitoring strategies. A total of 448 surgeries performed between 2005 and 2010 were included, with 4 cases requiring repeat operation for malpositioned screws. A sample of 64 of these patients was chosen for structured interviews in which the EuroQol-5D questionnaire was used. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life years were calculated based on the incidence of repeat operation and its negative effect on quality of life and costs. RESULTS: The decision analysis model demonstrated that the O-arm monitoring strategy is significantly (p < 0.001) less costly than the strategy of postoperative CT scanning following intraoperative uniplanar fluoroscopy, which in turn is significantly (p < 0.001) less costly than neurophysiological monitoring. The differences in effectiveness of the different monitoring strategies are not significant (p = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the O-arm for confirming pedicle screw placement is the least costly and therefore most cost-effective strategy of the 3 techniques analyzed.

Cost effectiveness of subaxial fusion--lateral mass screws versus transarticular facet screws.

As health care reform continues to evolve, demonstrating the cost effectiveness of spinal fusion procedures will be of critical value. Posterior subaxial cervical fusion with lateral mass screw and rod instrumentation is a well-established fixation technique. Subaxial transarticular facet fixation is a lesser known fusion technique that has been shown to be biomechanically equivalent to lateral mass screws for short constructs. Although there has not been a widespread adoption of transarticular facet screws, the screws potentially represent a cost-effective alternative to lateral mass rod and screw constructs. In this review, the authors describe an institutional experience with the use of lateral mass screws and provide a theoretical cost comparison with the use of transarticular facet screws.

Screw versus staple fixation for Akin osteotomy.

INTRODUCTION: Akin osteotomies are commonly fixed with a screw or staple. Hardware-related symptoms are not uncommon. We compared the outcomes and costs of the two implants. METHODS: We evaluated 74 Akin osteotomies performed in conjunction with first metatarsal osteotomy for hallux valgus. The osteotomy was fixed with a headless compression screw in 39 cases and a staple in 35 cases. We looked at the implant-related complications, removal of metalwork, revision, non-union and cost. Pre- and postoperative hallux valgus interphalangeal (HI) angles and length of the proximal phalanx were measured. RESULTS: There was 100% union, no failure of fixation, no revision surgery and no delayed union in either group. The radiological prominence of screws was significant (p=0.02), but there was no significant difference in soft-tissue irritation (p=0.36) or removal of implants (p=0.49). Two cortical breaches (5.8%) occurred in staple fixation and 4 (10.2%) in screw fixation (not statistically significant (NS), p=0.50). The mean improvement in HI angle was 4.3° with screw fixation and 4.1° with staple fixation (NS, p=0.69). The mean shortening of the proximal phalanx was 2.5mm with screw fixation and 2.3mm with staple fixation (NS, p=0.64). The total cost was £1,925 for staple fixation and £4,290 for screw fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Staple and screw fixation are reproducible modalities with satisfactory outcomes, but screw fixation is expensive. We conclude staple fixation is a cost-effective alternative.

Right adolescent idiopathic thoracic curve (Lenke 1 A and B): does cost of instrumentation and implant density improve radiographic and cosmetic parameters?

In adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) there has been a shift towards increasing the number of implants and pedicle screws, which has not been proven to improve cosmetic correction. To evaluate if increasing cost of instrumentation correlates with cosmetic correction using clinical photographs. 58 Lenke 1A and B cases from a multicenter AIS database with at least 3 months follow-up of clinical photographs were used for analysis. Cosmetic parameters on PA and forward bending photographs included angular measurements of trunk shift, shoulder balance, rib hump, and ratio measurements of waist line asymmetry. Pre-op and follow-up X-rays were measured for coronal and sagittal deformity parameters. Cost density was calculated by dividing the total cost of instrumentation by the number of vertebrae being fused. Linear regression and spearman's correlation were used to correlate cost density to X-ray and photo outcomes. Three independent observers verified radiographic and cosmetic parameters for inter/interobserver variability analysis. Average pre-op Cobb angle and instrumented correction were 54° (SD 12.5) and 59% (SD 25) respectively. The average number of vertebrae fused was 10 (SD 1.9). The total cost of spinal instrumentation ranged from $6,769 to $21,274 (Mean $12,662, SD $3,858). There was a weak positive and statistically significant correlation between Cobb angle correction and cost density (r = 0.33, p = 0.01), and no correlation between Cobb angle correction of the uninstrumented lumbar spine and cost density (r = 0.15, p = 0.26). There was no significant correlation between all sagittal X-ray measurements or any of the photo parameters and cost density. There was good to excellent inter/intraobserver variability of all photographic parameters based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.74-0.98). Our method used to measure cosmesis had good to excellent inter/intraobserver variability, and may be an effective tool to objectively assess cosmesis from photographs. Since increasing cost density only improves mildly the Cobb angle correction of the main thoracic curve and not the correction of the uninstrumented spine or any of the cosmetic parameters, one should consider the cost of increasing implant density in Lenke 1A and B curves. In the area of rationalization of health care expenses, this study demonstrates that increasing the number of implants does not improve any relevant cosmetic or radiographic outcomes.

Role of 'low cost Indian implants' in our practice: our experience with 1,572 pedicle screws.

PURPOSE: As Indian spine surgeons, we have to choose between 'foreign implants' and 'Indian implants'. An Indian four pedicle screw rod construct costs 330 US dollars (one-third that of a similar foreign construct). About 60% of patients cannot afford expensive foreign implants. There is little written data evaluating how these Indian implants fare. The purpose of our study was to evaluate implant failure rate with Indian implants and compare it to foreign implants. METHODS: We analysed results of 1,572 titanium pedicle screws used in 239 patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients were divided into Indian and foreign implant groups. Radiological failures were classified as (1) surgery and disease failure, (2) bone failure and (3) implant failure. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between implant failure rate for Indian and foreign implants. RESULTS: A total of 128 (53.56%) of patients could not afford foreign implants. We used 679 foreign and 893 Indian pedicle screws. In foreign implant group, there was a single incident of implant failure (0.15%). In Indian implant group, there were five such incidents (0.56%). CONCLUSIONS: (1) Rate of failure for 'low cost' Indian implants is very low (approximately 1 implant complication for every 200 screws). (2) There is no statistically significant difference in failure rates for Indian implants and foreign implants (P-value = 0.2438). We recommend that Indian implants are a safe and viable option to make spine surgery cost effective in the Indian scenario.

Implant wastage in orthopaedic trauma: a UK experience.

INTRODUCTION: Implant wastage is an under-reported issue in orthopaedics, yet it has been shown to have a significant cost burden on healthcare budgets. In a background of a perilous financial climate in the UK health service, our aim was to define the frequency and costs of implant wastage in orthopaedic trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The trauma theatre's implant logbook was retrospectively analysed between April 2017 and April 2018. Wasted implants were identified by the study authors independently. Patient demographics, implant details and costs were among the data collected. Product codes of wasted implants were used to identify implant costs through the manufacturer. RESULTS: Implant wastage occurred in 25.1% of trauma procedures during the study period. Most wasted implants (91%) were screws. The total cost of implant wastage was £8,377.25 during the 12-month period, accounting for 2% of the total implant budget. Wasted intramedullary nails accounted for almost 50% of the total cost. More than 51% of affected procedures involved a trainee as the primary operator. DISCUSSION: We report the first study of implant wastage in orthopaedics from the UK. Total implant wastage was higher than reported in most of the published literature, although it represented a small portion of the budget. Implant wastage is attributable to surgeons or operating theatre staff in most cases and is compounded by surgeons' limited understanding of implant costs. Initiatives to reduce implant wastage should include raising awareness of costs and departmental wastage to surgeons and operating theatre staff as well as employing preoperative planning techniques.

Internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is little information on the cost and outcome of different treatments for femoral neck fractures. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of internal fixation compared with hemiarthroplasty (HA) for elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 121 patients ≥ 65 years old were divided into internal fixation (n = 58) or HA group (n = 63). Clinical outcome was evaluated by the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) score at 3, 12, and 24 months. The total costs including medical and non-medical expense were collected through hospitalisation information, cost diaries, and telephone interviews. A cost-utility analysis of the total costs in combination with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated by EQ-5D and survival time was conducted. Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The mean EQ-5D index score in the HA group were higher at the early follow-up (p<0.05). At 24 months there were no differences in EQ-5D between the 2 treatment groups (p>0.05). Over the 2-year period, patients treated with HA gained 0.09-0.10 more QALYs than those treated with internal fixation, while the mean total costs for internal fixation (CNY 55,676) were significantly lower than for HA (CNY 80,297) (P<0.001). ICER indicated that internal fixation may be more cost-effective than HA. CONCLUSION: HA is associated with better outcome than internal fixation in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. However, internal fixation may be more cost-effective because of less total cost.

Predictors of cost for posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective review of pediatric patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). OBJECTIVE: To determine what clinical and operative factors influence inflation-adjusted hospital costs of posterior spine fusion surgery for AIS. With rising healthcare costs and the advent of bundled payments, it is essential understand the predictors of costs for surgical procedures. We sought to determine the components of hospital costs for AIS posterior spine fusion surgery using standardized, inflation-adjusted, line-item costs for services and procedures. METHODS: The study population comprised 148 AIS patients who underwent spinal fusion surgery at a large tertiary care center between 2009 and 2016. Data on medical characteristics, curve type, curve magnitude, number of screws and the number of levels was collected through manual chart review of X-rays and medical records. Hospital costs from admission until discharge were retrieved from an institutional database that contained line-item details of all procedures and services billed during the hospital episode. Bottom-up microcosting valuation techniques were used to generate standardized inflation-adjusted estimates of costs and standard deviations in 2016 dollars. RESULTS: Mean cost of AIS surgery was $48,058 ± 9379. Physician fees averaged 15% of the total cost ($7045 ± 1732). Implant costs and surgical/anesthesia/surgeon's fees accounted for over 70% of the hospital costs. Mean number of screws was 16 ± 4.5, mean number of levels fused was 11.2 ± 2.2, and the mean implant density (screws per level fused) was 1.45 ± 0.35. On multivariate analysis, the number of screws per level fused, number of levels fused, curve magnitude and length of stay were all significantly associated with hospital costs (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Bundled payments for AIS surgery should include adjustments for number of levels fused and curve size. Areas for cost savings include further reduction in implant costs, shortening length of stay, and reducing intraoperative costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Use of all-pedicle-screw constructs in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

All-pedicle-screw constructs are safe and biomechanically advantageous in the management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Safe and reproducible placement of thoracic pedicle screws is dependent on a thorough understanding of normal and abnormal anatomy, meticulous technique, and the use of neuromonitoring and fluoroscopy. Improvement in the biomechanical properties secondary to the use of pedicle screw fixation has led to shorter fusions with improved deformity correction. Coronal, sagittal, and rotational correction is superior to that obtained with hook instrumentation. Improved derotation may decrease the need for thoracoplasty, thus eliminating the risk of associated morbidity. Superior control of the deformity with all-pedicle-screw fixation, as well as the use of adjunctive posterior releases, often obviates the need for an anterior approach, even in severe curves measuring 70 degrees to 100 degrees . Improved correction, shorter fusion, and the lower morbidity associated with posterior-only approaches may compensate for higher implant costs.