Trigger Finger Treatment: Identifying Predictors of Nonadherence and Cost.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practices in medicine are linked with a higher quality of care and lower health care cost. For trigger finger, identifying patient factors associated with nonadherence to evidence-based practices will aid physicians in treatment decisions. The objectives were to (1) determine patient factors associated with treatment nonadherence, (2) examine the success rates of steroid injections, and (3) evaluate the economic consequences of nonadherence to treatment recommendations. METHODS: The authors used data from the Clinformatics DataMart database from 2010 to 2017 to conduct a population-based analysis of patients with single-digit trigger finger. The authors calculated rates of steroid injection success and examined associations between injection success and patient factors using chi-square tests. In addition, the authors analyzed differences in the cost to the insurer, the cost to the patient, and total cost. RESULTS: A total of 29,722 patients were included in this analysis. Injection success rates were similar for diabetic (72 percent) and nondiabetic patients (73 percent), women (73 percent), and men (73 percent). Nonetheless, diabetics (OR, 1.4; 95 percent CI, 1.4 to 1.5; p < 0.001) and women (OR, 1.2; 95 percent CI, 1.1 to 1.2; p < 0.001) were significantly more likely to receive nonadherent treatment. In total, $23 million (U.S. dollars) were spent on nonadherent trigger finger care. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetics and women have increased odds of having surgery without a prior steroid injection, despite similar success rates of steroid injections compared to nondiabetics and men. Because performing surgical release before any steroid injections may represent a higher cost treatment option, providers should provide steroid injections before surgery for all patients regardless of diabetes status or sex to minimize overtreatment. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Assessment of Surgeon Variation in Adherence to Evidence-Based Recommendations for Treatment of Trigger Finger.

Importance: Stenosing tenosynovitis (trigger finger) affects approximately 2% of the population. Given the prevalence of trigger finger and rising health care costs, adherence to the cost-effective and evidence-based treatment algorithm will permit better outcomes and allocation of resources. Objectives: To examine treatment patterns for trigger finger and to determine surgeon-level and patient-level factors that influence adherence to evidence-based treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study examined deidentified claims for treatment of trigger finger from a national insurance provider using the Clinformatics Data Mart database. Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and treated from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2016 (excluding a washout period from July 1, 2008, until June 30, 2010), with a new diagnosis of single-digit trigger finger. Data were analyzed from December 21, 2018, through April 28, 2019. Exposures: Cost-effective and evidence-based research published in July 2009 for the treatment of trigger finger. Main Outcomes and Measures: After excluding the 1-year washout period on either side of July 1, 2009, adherence to the recommended treatment algorithm of 2 corticosteroid injections before surgical release of trigger finger was compared with practice before publication of research supporting this cost-effective and evidence-based approach. Results: In this analysis of 83 667 patients with trigger finger, 52 698 (63.0%) were women, and 20 045 (24.0%) had type 1 or 2 diabetes. Mean (SD) age was 61 (13) years. From 2002 to 2016, an overall increasing trend in adherence to the cost-effective and evidence-based approach to treatment was noted, with no significant increase in adherence in the postpublication era (67.5% vs 73.3%; P = .27). Substantial variation in adherence was observed at the surgeon level (intraclass correlation, 33%). Plastic surgeons had no change in adherence over time compared with orthopedic surgeons (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; P = .90), whereas general surgeons had increased adherence (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; P < .001). Higher-volume surgeons were also more adherent to these evidence-based recommendations (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.53-1.65; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found substantial surgeon-level variation in adherence to evidence-based treatment of trigger finger. Surgeon specialty and volume were associated with differences in adherence. Efforts to understand surgeon barriers to implementation, regardless of physician specialty, appear to be necessary, and better implementation strategies may permit increased uptake of evidence-based treatment of trigger finger.

An Economic Analysis of MAC Versus WALANT: A Trigger Finger Release Surgery Case Study.

BACKGROUND: There has been recent interest in wide awake hand surgery, also referred to as "wide awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet" (WALANT) surgery. Using a model of single trigger finger release (TFR) surgery, a hypothesis was made that WALANT would result in decreased hospital time and cost than patients receiving sedation with monitored anesthetic care (MAC). METHODS: Consecutive cases of single TFR surgery with MAC were compared with WALANT. All surgeries were performed in the same manner, at the same facility, and by the same surgeon. Total operating room (OR) time, surgical time, recovery time, and anesthesia costs were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 78 patients: 31 MAC and 47 WALANT. The MAC group averaged 27.2 minutes of OR time; the WALANT group averaged 25.2 minutes. The MAC group surgical time was 10.2 minutes versus WALANT of 10.4 minutes. Post-operatively, the MAC group averaged 72.3 minutes in the recovery room compared with WALANT group of 30.2 minutes. Each case performed under MAC had a minimum of excess charges from anesthesia of approximately $105. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing single TFR surgery under WALANT trended toward less time in the OR, had similar surgical times, and spent significantly less time in the recovery room, compared with MAC, thereby resulting in less indirect costs. Each MAC case also had minimum direct excess anesthesia charges of $105, which knowingly underestimates overall charges as it excludes material and fixed costs associated with the delivery of anesthesia. Avoiding sedation for high-volume procedures such as TFR may result in significant systemic savings to payers, and in the future with bundling and episode-based payments can become increasingly important to patients, facilities, and surgeons.

Cost of Immediate Surgery Versus Non-operative Treatment for Trigger Finger in Diabetic Patients.

PURPOSE: As health care costs continue to rise, providers must increasingly identify and implement cost-effective practice measures without sacrificing quality of care. Corticosteroid injections are an established treatment for trigger finger; however, numerous clinical trials have documented the limited efficacy of these injections in the diabetic population. Furthermore, the most cost-effective treatment strategy for diabetic trigger finger has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to perform a decision analysis to identify the least costly strategy for effective treatment of diabetic trigger finger using existing evidence in the literature. METHODS: Four treatment strategies for diabetic trigger finger were identified: (1) 1 steroid injection followed by surgical release, (2) 2 steroid injections followed by surgical release, (3) immediate surgical release in the operating room, and (4) immediate surgical release in the clinic. A literature review was conducted to determine success rates of the different treatment strategies. Costing analysis was performed using our institutional reimbursement from Medicare. One-way sensitivity and threshold analysis was utilized to determine the least costly treatment strategy. RESULTS: The least costly treatment strategy was immediate surgical release in the clinic. In patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, this strategy results in a 32% and a 39% cost reduction when compared with treatment with 1 or 2 corticosteroid injections, respectively. For 1 or 2 corticosteroid injections to be the most cost-effective strategy, injection failure rates would need to be less than 36% and 34%, respectively. The overall cost of care for immediate surgical release in the clinic was $642. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic trigger finger is a common problem faced by hand surgeons, with a variety of acceptable treatment algorithms. Management of diabetic trigger finger with immediate surgical release in the clinic is the most cost-effective treatment strategy, assuming a corticosteroid injection failure rate of at least 34%. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic/decision III.

Percutaneous Trigger Finger Release: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous trigger finger releases (TFRs) performed in the office setting are becoming more prevalent. This study compares the costs of in-hospital open TFRs, open TFRs performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), and in-office percutaneous releases. METHODS: An expected-value decision-analysis model was constructed from the payer perspective to estimate total costs of the three competing treatment strategies for TFR. Model parameters were estimated based on the best available literature and were tested using multiway sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Percutaneous TFR performed in the office and then, if needed, revised open TFR performed in the ASC, was the most cost-effective strategy, with an attributed cost of $603. The cost associated with an initial open TFR performed in the ASC was approximately 7% higher. Initial open TFR performed in the hospital was the least cost-effective, with an attributed cost nearly twice that of primary percutaneous TFR. DISCUSSION: An initial attempt at percutaneous TFR is more cost-effective than an open TFR. Currently, only about 5% of TFRs are performed in the office; therefore, a substantial opportunity exists for cost savings in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Decision model level II.

Using evidence to minimize the cost of trigger finger care.

PURPOSE: Critics of U.S. health care cite both underuse and overuse of resources. With more than one third of Americans paying for medical care out of pocket, optimizing the cost-benefit ratio of care is a high priority. Clinical trials have established the success of the different treatment options for patients who present with trigger finger. The economic impact of these differing strategies has not been established. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-minimization analysis to identify the least costly strategy for effective treatment of trigger finger using existing evidence in the literature. METHODS: Five strategies for the treatment of trigger finger were identified: (1) a steroid injection followed by surgical release for failure or recurrence, (2) a steroid injection followed by a second injection for failures or recurrence, followed by definitive surgery if needed, (3) 3 steroid injections before definitive surgery if needed, (4) surgical release, and (5) percutaneous release with definitive open surgery if needed. To reflect the costs, we used 2 sources of data: our institution's billing charges to private payers and our institution's reimbursements from Medicare. A literature review identified median success rates of the different treatment strategies. We conducted a series of analyses to evaluate the effect of varying individual costs and success rates. RESULTS: The second strategy is the least costly treatment of those considered in this study. The most costly treatment, surgical release, costs between 248% and 340% more than the second strategy. For surgical or percutaneous release to cost less than the second strategy, the surgical billing charge would need to be lower than $742 for private payers or less than $305 of Medicare reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Trigger finger is a common problem with many acceptable treatment algorithms. Management of trigger finger with 2 steroid injections before surgery is the least costly treatment strategy. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Decision Analysis II.

Cost minimisation using clinic-based treatment for common hand conditions--a prospective economic analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost of treatment of Dupuytren's disease, ganglia and trigger digits in the out-patient department with the operating theatre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients seen in a new patient hand clinic with a diagnosis of Dupuytren's disease, trigger digit or ganglion of the wrist or hand requiring treatment were prospectively identified over a 6-month period. The numbers undergoing a procedure in the out-patient clinic or theatre were recorded. Costings of theatre time and out-patient time, as well as national tariff income, were obtained from the hospital management. RESULTS: Over the 6-month period, 80, 26, and 52 patients were treated with regard to Dupuytren's disease, ganglia and trigger digits, respectively. Of these, 37, 23, and 44 were treated by an out-patient procedure, and 43, 3 and 8 underwent a formal operation. The total cost of the out-patient procedures was calculated at pound 1560 over 6 months. To perform these as formal operations would have cost pound 64,896. The cost savings were, therefore, pound 63,336, or pound 126,672 per annum. CONCLUSIONS: Out-patient interventions for Dupuytren's disease, ganglia and trigger digits result in significant cost savings over formal surgical treatment.