Evaluation of factors influencing surgical treatment costs for distal biceps rupture.

BACKGROUND: Given the similar outcomes of various fixation constructs for single-incision distal biceps repair, a critical evaluation of the factors that drive the cost of the procedure is the key to optimizing treatment value. The purpose of this study was to quantify variation in costs for surgical treatment of complete distal biceps ruptures, as well as identify factors affecting costs. METHODS: We retrospectively identified adult patients consecutively treated surgically for complete distal biceps ruptures between July 2011 and January 2018 at a single academic medical center. Using our institution's information technology value tool, we recorded the surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) for each patient. Univariate and multivariate gamma regression models were used to determine factors affecting SETDCs. RESULTS: Of 121 included patients, 102 (86%), 7 (6%), and 12 (10%) underwent primary repair, revision, and reconstruction. SETDCs varied widely, with a standard deviation of 40% and a range of 58% to 276% of the average SETDC. The main contributors to SETDCs were facility utilization costs (53%) and implant costs (29%). Implant costs also varied, with a standard deviation of 16%, ranging up to 121% of the mean SETDC. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that reconstructions were 72% more costly than primary repairs (P < .001). No significant cost differences were found between cortical button and dual-suture anchor fixation (P = .058). American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, revision surgery, time to surgery, location, administration of postoperative block, and surgeon performing the procedure did not significantly affect the SETDC. CONCLUSION: Surgical encounter and implant costs vary widely for distal biceps rupture treatment. However, no significant difference in SETDC was identified between repair with a cortical button vs. dual-suture anchor repair. The greater costs associated with reconstruction surgery should be taken into consideration.

Attitudes and awareness of suture anchor cost: a survey of shoulder surgeons performing rotator cuff repairs.

BACKGROUND: The cost of health care in the United States accounts for 18% of the nation's gross domestic product and is expected to reach 20% by 2020. Physicians are responsible for 60%-80% of decisions resulting in health care expenditures. Rotator cuff repairs account for $1.2-$1.6 billion in US health care expenditures annually. The purpose of this study is to assess surgeons' cost awareness in the setting of rotator cuff repairs. The hypothesis is that practice environment and training affect cost consciousness and incentivization will lead to more cost-effective choices. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a 21-item survey was distributed via the email list services of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Arthroscopy Association of North America. Data collected included demographics, variables regarding rotator cuff repair (technique, number of companies used, procedures per month), and knowledge of costs. RESULTS: Responses from 345 surgeons in 23 countries were obtained with the majority (89%) being from the United States. Most surgeons were "cost-conscious" (275, 70.7%). Of these surgeons, 62.9% are willing to switch suture anchors brands to reduce overall costs if incentivized. Cost-conscious surgeons were more likely to be fellowship trained in shoulder and elbow (51.81% vs. 38.57%, P = .048), be paid based on productivity (73.53% vs. 61.43%, P = .047), and receive shared profits (85.4% vs. 75%, P = .02). CONCLUSION: The majority of orthopedic surgeons are both cost-conscious and willing to change their practice to reduce costs if incentivized to do so. A better understanding of implant costs combined with incentives may help reduce health care expenditure.

Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses using osseointegrated fixation: Myth or reality?

BACKGROUND: In principle, lower limb bone-anchored prostheses could alleviate expenditure associated with typical socket manufacturing and residuum treatments due to socket-suspended prostheses. OBJECTIVE: This study reports (a) the incremental costs and (b) heath gain as well as (c) cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses compared to socket-suspended prostheses. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective individual case-controlled observations and systematic review. METHODS: Actual costs were extracted from financial records and completed by typical costs when needed over 6-year time horizon for a cohort of 16 individuals. Health gains corresponding to quality-adjusted life-year were calculated using health-related quality-of-life data presented in the literature. RESULTS: The provision of bone-anchored prostheses costed 21% ± 41% more but increased quality-adjusted life-years by 17% ± 5% compared to socket-suspended prostheses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged between -$25,700 per quality-adjusted life-year and $53,500 per quality-adjusted life-year with indicative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $17,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Bone-anchored prosthesis was cost-saving and cost-effective for 19% and 88% of the participants, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study indicated that bone-anchored prostheses might be an acceptable alternative to socket-suspended prostheses at least from a prosthetic care perspective in Australian context. Altogether, this initial evidence-based economic evaluation provided a working approach for decision makers responsible for policies around care of individuals with lower limb amputation worldwide. Clinical relevance For the first time, this study provided evidence-based health economic benefits of lower limb bone-anchored prostheses compared to typical socket-suspended prostheses from a prosthetic care perspective that is essential to clinicians and decision makers responsible for policies.

Direct cost comparison of minimally invasive punch technique versus traditional approaches for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices.

BACKGROUND: Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) was recently described as a new technique to facilitate the placement of percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices. The procedure has resulted in a simplification of the surgical steps and a dramatic reduction in surgical time while maintaining excellent patient outcomes. Given these developments, our group sought to move the procedure from the main operating suite where they have traditionally been performed. This study aims to test the null hypothesis that MIPS and open approaches have the same direct costs for the implantation of percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices in a Canadian public hospital setting. METHODS: A retrospective direct cost comparison of MIPS and open approaches for the implantation of bone conduction implants was conducted. Indirect and future costs were not included in the fiscal analysis. A simple cost comparison of the two approaches was made considering time, staff and equipment needs. All 12 operations were performed on adult patients from 2013 to 2016 by the same surgeon at a single hospital site. RESULTS: MIPS has a total mean reduction in cost of CAD$456.83 per operation from the hospital perspective when compared to open approaches. The average duration of the MIPS operation was 7 min, which is on average 61 min shorter compared with open approaches. CONCLUSION: The MIPS technique was more cost effective than traditional open approaches. This primarily reflects a direct consequence of a reduction in surgical time, with further contributions from reduced staffing and equipment costs. This simple, quick intervention proved to be feasible when performed outside the main operating room. A blister pack of required equipment could prove convenient and further reduce costs.

[Percutaneus Suture of Achilles Tendon Rupture--Operation for Beginners?]. / Perkutane Achillessehnennaht--eine sich lohnende Anfängeraufgabe?

BACKGROUND: Acute rupture of the Achilles tendon is the most common tendon injury, with an incidence of 30/100,000 population. With the Dresden instruments, operative tendon suture can be standardised and is safe, quick and minimally invasive. With post-operative functional therapy in a walking boot, very good clinical results can be achieved. QUESTION: Is this operation suitable as an educational procedure and is its performance still economic? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2013, 212 patients with acute rupture of the Achilles tendon were operated using the Dresden instruments. There were 167 males and 45 females, with an average age of 46 years. 99 operations were performed by trainees, 46 by attending surgical staff, and 57 by a senior surgeon. RESULTS: With the trainees, the mean duration of the operation was 29:53 minutes, and with the attending staff 29:10 minutes (n. s., p > 0.1). The rate of complications (re-rupture, infection, and sural nerve damage) was 5/99 (5 %) for the trainees, 4/46 (8.7 %) for the attending staff, and 3/57 (5.3 %) for the senior surgeon. A total cost analysis yielded a total operative cost of 445.76 € for outpatient surgery. With a billed sum of 490.11 €, net income of 44.35 € per case is generated. In patients with reasonable indications for 2-day short inpatient treatment, total treatment cost was 3232.70 €. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous suture of the Achilles tendon with the Dresden instruments is a standardised and cost-effective surgical procedure. It is suitable as a "beginner's" procedure that can be performed quickly, safely, and cost-effectively.

A prospective outcome and cost-effectiveness comparison between two ligament reattachment techniques using suture anchors for chronic ankle instability.

BACKGROUND: There are various ligament reattachment techniques for the modified Brostrom procedure. There have been few comparative studies on recently developed techniques. This prospective study was performed to compare the functional outcomes of 2 different ligament reattachment techniques using suture anchors. We furthermore evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the suture bridge technique. METHODS: Forty-five amateur athletes under 30 years of age were followed for more than 2 years. Twenty-four procedures with the suture anchor technique and 21 procedures with the suture bridge technique were performed by one surgeon. The functional evaluation consisted of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Karlsson score, Sefton grading system, and the period to return to various forms of exercise (jogging, spurt running, jumping, one leg standing for >1 minute, walking on uneven ground, and going down stairs). Measurement of talar tilt angle and anterior talar translation was obtained from stress radiographs to evaluate mechanical stability. RESULTS: There were no significant differences on AOFAS score, FAOS, Karlsson score, Sefton grade, and stress radiographs. There were no significant differences on the return to exercises, except for jumping. As the most common complication, there were 3 cases of skin irritation by suture materials in the suture anchor group and 2 cases of intraoperative breakage of the suture anchor in suture bridge group. CONCLUSIONS: Both ligament reattachment techniques using suture anchors showed similar functional outcomes. Considering the additional medical expenses incurred by more suture anchors, the modified Brostrom procedure using the suture bridge technique had low cost-effectiveness. Proper indication and clinical usefulness of suture bridge technique for chronic ankle instability will be addressed in further studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

A cost analysis of single-row versus double-row and suture bridge rotator cuff repair methods.

PURPOSE: To calculate the costs to the US healthcare system of transition from single-row (SR) to double-row (DR) rotator cuff repair (RCR) and to calculate the decrease in re-operations for re-tear that DR RCR would need to accomplish in order to render the transition cost-neutral. METHODS: Standard accounting methods were used to determine the cost of a single RCR, the annual cost to the US healthcare system of rotator cuff surgery, the cost of a single-revision RCR, and the decrease in revision for re-tear rate necessary to make DR or suture bridge (SB) methods cost-neutral in comparison with SR methods. We varied tear size, operating room cost, time required for implant placement, annual tear size distribution, and repair method. RESULTS: The cost of RCR ranged from $7,572 (SR, <1 cm tear) to $12,979 (DR, >5 cm tear). Complete conversion from SR RCR to a DR technique without an associated decrease in revision surgeries would increase the annual US healthcare cost between $80 million and $262 million per year. To obtain cost neutrality, use of DR or SB methods would need to result in one fewer revision in every 17 primary repairs (for tears <1 cm) to one fewer in every four primary repairs (for tears >5 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Conversion from SR to DR or SB RCR techniques would result in considerable increases in healthcare expenditures. Since the large decreases in revision surgery rates necessary to justify DR or SB repairs purely on a cost basis may not be realistic or even possible, the use of these methods should be supported by evidence of improved structural healing rates and quality-adjusted life years in comparison with SR methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Relationship between implant use, operative time, and costs associated with distal biceps tendon reattachment.

The suture anchor and transosseous drill hole techniques for reattachment of the distal biceps tendon to the radius have been found to have similar clinical and biomechanical outcomes. However, a comparison of the cost effectiveness of these techniques is lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of suture anchors decreases operative time enough to offset the additional cost of the implants. The records of all patients undergoing a distal biceps tendon reattachment were reviewed to determine the method of fixation, operative time, and associated surgical costs. Two surgeons used a technique of fixing the tendon directly to the bone (transosseous group), whereas 3 surgeons used suture anchors. Given the standard nature of the surgical procedure (other than the fixation technique), only the costs that differed between the 2 groups were included. Surgical center costs were obtained from the local outpatient surgical center in 2011 US dollars. Five surgeons treated 70 men (mean age, 45.9±9.2 years). Mean time from injury to surgery was 14 days. Mean operative times for the transosseous and suture anchor groups were 97.6±14.9 and 95.8±25.8 minutes, respectively (P=.74). Two anchors were used in 79% of the anchor cases. The use of anchors cost $474.33 more per patient. However, this value is sensitive to the cost of the individual anchors, intersurgeon variation in operative time, and per-minute value of saved operative time. No operative time was saved with the use of suture anchors. This cost comparison framework can be used to evaluate the balance in surgical resource use due to implant cost vs savings in operative time.

Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) for people who are bilaterally deaf: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: A bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) consists of a permanent titanium fixture, which is surgically implanted into the skull bone behind the ear, and a small detachable sound processor that clips onto the fixture. BAHAs are suitable for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who cannot benefit fully from conventional hearing aids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BAHAs for people who are bilaterally deaf. DATA SOURCES: Nineteen electronic resources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (inception to November 2009). Additional studies were sought from reference lists and clinical experts. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Prospective studies of adults or children with bilateral hearing loss were eligible. Comparisons were BAHAs versus conventional hearing aids [air conduction hearing aid (ACHA) or bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA)], unaided hearing and ear surgery; and unilateral versus bilateral BAHAs. Outcomes included hearing measures, validated measures of quality of life (QoL), adverse events and measures of cost-effectiveness. For the review of cost-effectiveness, full economic evaluations were eligible. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included (seven cohort pre-post studies and five cross-sectional 'audiological comparison' studies). No prospective studies comparing BAHAs with ear surgery were identified. Overall quality was rated as weak for all included studies and meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in outcome measures and patient populations. There appeared to be some audiological benefits of BAHAs compared with BCHAs and improvements in speech understanding in noise compared with ACHAs; however, ACHAs may produce better audiological results for other outcomes. The limited evidence reduces certainty. Hearing is improved with BAHAs compared with unaided hearing. Improvements in QoL with BAHAs were identified by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic QoL measures. Studies comparing unilateral with bilateral BAHAs suggested benefits of bilateral BAHAs in many, but not all, situations. Prospective case series reported between 6.1% and 19.4% loss of implants. Most participants experienced no or minor skin reactions. A decision analytic model was developed. Costs and benefits of unilateral BAHAs were estimated over a 10-year time horizon, applying discount rates of 3.5%. The incremental cost per user receiving BAHA, compared with BCHA, was £ 16,409 for children and £ 13,449 for adults. In an exploratory analysis the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was between £ 55,642 and £ 119,367 for children and between £ 46,628 and £ 100,029 for adults for BAHAs compared with BCHA, depending on the assumed QoL gain and proportion of each modelled cohort using their hearing aid for ≥ 8 or more hours per day. Deterministic sensitivity analysis suggested that the results were highly sensitive to the assumed proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values (£ 500,000-1,200,000 per QALY gained) associated with a high proportion of people using BCHA. More acceptable values (£ 15,000-37,000 per QALY gained) were associated with a low proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day (compared with BAHA). LIMITATIONS: The economic evaluation presented in this report is severely limited by a lack of robust evidence on the outcome of hearing aid provision. This has lead to a more restricted analysis than was originally anticipated (limited to a comparison of BAHA and BCHA). In the absence of useable QoL data, the cost-effectiveness analysis is based on potential utility gains from hearing, that been inferred using a QoL instrument rather than measures reported by hearing aid users themselves. As a result the analysis is regarded as exploratory and the reported results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that BAHAs are unlikely to be a cost-effective option where the benefits (in terms of hearing gain and probability of using of alternative aids) are similar for BAHAs and their comparators. The greater the benefit from aided hearing and the greater the difference in the proportion of people using the hearing aid for ≥ 8 hours per day, the more likely BAHAs are to be a cost-effective option. The inclusion of other dimensions of QoL may also increase the likelihood of BAHAs being a cost-effective option. A national audit of BAHAs is needed to provide clarity on the many areas of uncertainty surrounding BAHAs. Further research into the non-audiological benefits of BAHAs, including QoL, is required.

[Cost analysis of implant-free replacement of anterior cruciate ligament]. / Kostenanalyse für den implantatfreien vorderen Kreuzbandersatz.

Replacement of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is presently routinely carried out with autologous transplantation of the ligamentum patellae (LP), semintendinosus-gracilis (SGS) or quadriceps (QS) tendons. The anatomical positioning of the drilling canals, transplant fixation, complication rate, revision aspects as well as economic aspects are still under discussion. Fixation of the transplant can be carried out mechanically with various anchoring systems or using biological implant-free healing (free of cost). The compulsory and private health insurance companies as well as staff medical insurance associations guarantee a constant remuneration according to the EBM (uniform evaluation standard), GOA (scale of fees for physicians) or UV-GOA (accident insurance scale of fees for physicians). At present all health insurances accept the costs for implantations in outpatient areas (minus 25 Euro own contribution for compulsory health insurance). For inpatient treatment remuneration is according to the flat-rate scale (diagnosis-related groups). Costs for implants, which are increasing over the years, diminish the economic result in this case. The technique of implant-free replacement of ACLs is cheaper, with fewer complications and achieves functional results for fixation of the transplant which are comparable to techniques with implants. This also applies to the double bundle technique. Implant-free replacement of ACLs with the patellar tendon is a suitable, uncomplicated operation technique with comparably low costs and belongs to the state of the art according to Hertel, Petersen and other authors. This method already has a valuable place in surgery of the ACL.

The bone-anchor sub-urethral sling for the treatment of iatrogenic male incontinence: subjective and objective assessment after 41 months of mean follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate retrospectively the objective and subjective parameters in 42 male patients who underwent bone anchored sub-urethral sling positioning (BAUS) for SUI (stress urinary incontinence) due to ISD (intrinsic sphincter deficiency). METHODS: Patients with SUI due to radical retropubic prostatectomy (36 patients), transurethral resection of prostate (5 patients) and open simple prostatectomy (1 patient) underwent BAUS positioning between July 1999 and September 2005 (mean FU = 41 months). Before and after surgery, the patients were evaluated by physical examination, urethrocystoscopy, urodynamics, 1 h pad test and QoL questionnaire. Surgical technique involved perineal implantation to the pubic rami using four anchors of a sub-urethral sling made of synthetic (26 patients), biological (4 patients) or mixed (12 patients) material. Patients were stratified into three groups: (1) Cured: dry patients at stress test, pad weight 0-1 g. (2) Improved: patients with mild-moderate incontinence, pad weight 2-50 g. (3) Failed: unchanged patients, pad weight > 50 g. RESULTS: At the final follow-up visit cured, improved and failed patients were 26 (62%), 4 (8%) and 12 (30%), respectively. Mean pad weight significantly decreased from 104.6 to 47.3 g (55%) and mean total questionnaire score significantly increased to 50.7 (66%). Mean ALPP significantly increased to 50.4 cmH2O (44.8%). Better results were seen with synthetic slings. Main complications were perineal pain (76%), detrusor overactivity (12%) and sling infection (4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: BAUS implantation is a safe, effective, minimally invasive option for iatrogenic male incontinence due to ISD. It compares favourably with AUS.