Inpatient versus Outpatient Alveolar Bone Grafting: A Nationwide Cost Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative outcomes and costs between inpatient and outpatient ABG in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Multi-institutional/national. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent ABG (n = 6649) were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric database from 2012-2021. Inpatient and outpatient cohorts were matched using coarsened exact matching. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Thirty-day readmission, reoperation, and complications. A modified Markov model was developed to estimate the cost difference between cohorts. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: After matching, 3718 patients were included, of which 1859 patients were in each hospital-setting cohort. The inpatient cohort had significantly higher rates of reoperations (0.6% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.032) and surgical site infections (0.8% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.018). The total cost of outpatient ABG was estimated to be $10,824 vs. $20,955 for inpatient ABG, resulting in $10,131 cost savings per patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that all 10,000 simulations resulted in consistent cost savings for the outpatient cohort that ranged from $8000 to $24,000. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient ABG has become increasingly more popular over the past ten years, with a majority of cases being performed in the ambulatory setting. If deemed safe for the individual patient, outpatient ABG may confer a lower risk of nosocomial complications and offer significant cost savings to the healthcare economy.

Dental Protraction Versus Surgery for Cleft Lip and Palate: A Budget Impact Analysis.

Class III malocclusion for individuals with cleft lip and palate has historically been managed with surgery. Orthodontic protraction is a noninvasive alternative that may be associated with lower costs. This analysis investigated the budget impact of protraction versus surgery from an institutional perspective. Using a decision tree, analysis was conducted using costs derived from Medicaid reimbursement codes and using actual institutional reimbursement. Probabilities of success, failure, and complications were based on a clinical trial comparing the 2 treatment modalities. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of results to model parameters. Based on Medicaid fee schedules and failure rates requiring additional surgery, the total cost of protraction was $79,506 versus $172,807 for surgery, resulting in $93,302 cost-savings per patient. The cost and probability of surgery success, as well as the cost of surgery failure and repeat surgery, had the largest impact on these cost-savings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed cost-savings of nearly $92,000 or higher in >50% of simulations. This study showed that protraction is associated with lower costs than surgery and may present a cost-effective alternative to surgery in eligible, appropriate patients.

Reconstructive Surgeons as Essential Operative Consultants: Quantifying the True Value of Plastic Surgeons to an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: The revenue generated by plastic surgeons assisting other surgical services is poorly captured by hospital accounting systems, which categorize solely by attending physician of record. The financial impact of reconstructive surgery is thus systematically underestimated. The authors sought to quantify the overlooked value of plastic surgeons as consultants who facilitate complex and profitable operations. METHODS: Hospital billing data were reviewed for inpatient operations over a 3-year fiscal period (2015 to 2017). Cases in which a plastic surgeon assisted were identified. Case mix index, a measure of complexity that correlates with profit, and contribution margin, defined as revenue minus cost, were obtained for each case. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-four cases required a reconstructive surgeon; 18,904 nonconsultation cases were identified for comparison. Average net revenue per case involving a consultation was 1.79 times greater than for control cases (p < 0.0001). Average contribution margin was 1.73 times greater (p < 0.005). The highest contribution margins stemmed from joint cases with cardiothoracic surgery and neurosurgery. Case mix index was significantly higher for consultation cases than for controls (4.5 versus 3.9; p < 0.0001). In 434 cases (78 percent), plastic surgery assisted with an integral aspect of the operation, meaning the surgery could not have been technically performed without reconstructive assistance. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' findings demonstrate that cases involving plastic surgeons have a higher profit margin than those performed by any department alone. However, this revenue is not appropriately attributed because of oversimplified financial metrics. The skill set of reconstructive surgeons is an undervalued resource for both patient care and hospital economics.

Is Postoperative Intensive Care Unit Care Necessary following Cranial Vault Remodeling for Sagittal Synostosis?

BACKGROUND: Of U.S. craniofacial and neurosurgeons, 94 percent routinely admit patients to the intensive care unit following cranial vault remodeling for correction of sagittal synostosis. This study aims to examine the outcomes and cost of direct ward admission following primary cranial vault remodeling for sagittal synostosis. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective review was undertaken of the records of all patients who underwent primary cranial vault remodeling for isolated sagittal craniosynostosis from 2009 to 2015 at a single pediatric hospital. Patient demographics, perioperative course, and outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients met inclusion criteria with absence of other major medical problems. Average age at operation was 6.7 months, with a mean follow-up of 19.8 months. Ninety-eight patients (89 percent) were admitted to a general ward for postoperative care, whereas the remaining 12 (11 percent) were admitted to the intensive care unit for preoperative or perioperative concerns. Among ward-admitted patients, there were four (3.6 percent) minor complications; however, there were no major adverse events, with none necessitating intensive care unit transfers from the ward and no mortalities. Average hospital stay was 3.7 days. The institution's financial difference in cost of intensive care unit stay versus ward bed was $5520 on average per bed per day. Omitting just one intensive care unit postoperative day stay for this patient cohort would reduce projected health care costs by a total of $540,960 for the study period. CONCLUSION: Despite the common practice of postoperative admission to the intensive care unit following cranial vault remodeling for sagittal craniosynostosis, the authors suggest that postoperative care be considered on an individual basis, with only a small percentage requiring a higher level of care. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Assessment of three-dimensional high-definition visualization technology to perform microvascular anastomosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Traditional visualization techniques in microsurgery require strict positioning in order to maintain the field of visualization. However, static posturing over time may lead to musculoskeletal strain and injury. Three-dimensional high-definition (3DHD) visualization technology may be a useful adjunct to limiting static posturing and improving ergonomics in microsurgery. In this study, we aimed to investigate the benefits of using the 3DHD technology over traditional techniques. METHODS: A total of 14 volunteers consisting of novice and experienced microsurgeons performed femoral anastomoses on male Sprague-Dawley retired breeder rats using traditional techniques as well as the 3DHD technology and compared the two techniques. Participants subsequently completed a questionnaire regarding their preference in terms of operational parameters, ergonomics, overall quality, and educational benefits. Efficiency was also evaluated by mean times to complete the anastomosis with each technique. RESULTS: A total of 27 anastomoses were performed, 14 of 14 using the traditional microscope and 13 of 14 using the 3DHD technology. Preference toward the traditional modality was noted with respect to the parameters of precision, field adjustments, zoom and focus, depth perception, and overall quality. The 3DHD technique was preferred for improved stamina and less back and eye strain. Participants believed that the 3DHD technique was the better method for learning microsurgery. Longer mean time of anastomosis completion was noted in participants utilizing the 3DHD technique. CONCLUSIONS: The 3DHD technology may prove to be valuable in improving proper ergonomics in microsurgery. In addition, it may be useful in medical education when applied to the learning of new microsurgical skills. More studies are warranted to determine its efficacy and safety in a clinical setting.