Operative vs. conservative treatment of AC-Joint Dislocations Rockwood grade ≥ III -An economical and clinical evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Acromioclavicular joint dislocations (ACD) are one of the most common shoulder injuries. There is no consensus in how to treat higher graded ACD ≥ Rockwood grade III. This study compares operative versus conservative treatment regarding costs and clinical outcome parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, consecutive case-control-study includes 14 patients. Seven operatively treated patients were matched, by Rockwood grade, with seven conservatively treated patients. The cost was extracted out of the clinical- and insurance-based cost sheets and furthermore these include the loss of earnings. Clinical examination, demographic data as well as different outcome-questionnaires were recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between operative and conservative treated patients for outcome Questionnaires. Of note, there was a significantly higher incidence of tenderness over the AC-joint (p = 0.0038) postoperatively. As expected, economical evaluation showed various findings in favor of the conservative treatment. The costs for medical services (11012.39vs.1163.81USD; p = 0.0061), days of hospitalization (3.3vs.0days; p < 0.0001); total cost for medical treatment (30262.17 vs. 7833.82 USD; p = 0.0358) were significantly higher in the operative group. CONCLUSION: Even with a limited case number and a retrospective study design almost all clinical results were equal in both groups. Operative therapy of higher graded ACDs (Rockwood > III) compared to conservative is economically inefficient. Under consideration of clinical comparable results, indications for operative treatment should be set very carefully.

[Deliberations of the expert advisory council on innovation fund applications]. / Überlegungen des Expertenbeirats zu Anträgen im Rahmen des Innovationsfonds.

The "Innovation Fund" provides incentives for the development and testing of healthcare innovations in the area of the statutory health insurance with the aim to improve the quality of care in Germany. Over a period of initially four years (2016-19), 300 million Euro will be allocated annually to projects on "innovative forms of healthcare provision" and "health services research". Using a formalized procedure, the ten-member expert advisory board appointed by the German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) assess all applications on the basis of various criteria for scientific quality, potential of innovation, relevance for health service delivery, and implementability. The present discussion paper sets out important considerations for submission and assessment and puts them up for discussion. (As supplied by the authors).