RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Case payment mechanisms have become the principal means of remunerating hospitals in most developed countries. Our purpose was to analyse the reimbursement for different types of tissue transfer in five European countries. METHODS: We looked at common surgical options for pedicled and free flaps. The recipient site of a flap and the principal diagnosis were systematically modified and processed with national grouper software in order to identify Diagnosis-Related Groups from which the proceeds were derived. The primary data originated from the database of the German Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System as aggregate information. We conducted eight specialist interviews to transfer the available data into clinical practice. Data of real patients were not available and we rather simulated standard patients to avoid dilution of results. RESULTS: Altogether, payment for pedicled flaps averaged 5933 and was 8517 for free flaps. The comparison of both flap types within a country revealed significant differences in Germany, Austria and Sweden only (p < 0.001). Italy has the highest mean proceeds for pedicled flaps, followed by Sweden, Germany, Austria and the UK. This relationship changes for free flaps with Sweden achieving the highest payments. Overall, reimbursement conformity is higher for free flaps. CONCLUSIONS: Most countries have procedure-driven payment systems for flap surgery, which additionally can strongly depend on the diagnosis. Nevertheless the latter does not always justify existing price differences. For the first time, clinical cases in tissue transfer were compared internationally. In today`s dynamic world of health care, we should observe other countries` compensation systems to identify ways of improving our own.
Assuntos
Reembolso de Seguro de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Procedimentos de Cirurgia Plástica/economia , Mecanismo de Reembolso , Retalhos Cirúrgicos/economia , Grupos Diagnósticos Relacionados , Europa (Continente) , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde , HumanosRESUMO
We present a 5-year follow-up of a patient with bilateral necrosis of the trapezoid that improved clinically and radiographically with nonoperative treatment.
Assuntos
Osteonecrose/diagnóstico , Trapezoide , Humanos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Osteonecrose/diagnóstico por imagem , Osteonecrose/terapia , Radiografia , Trapezoide/diagnóstico por imagem , Trapezoide/patologiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: We report a series of 5 patients (mean age, 41 y) presenting with ulnar styloid impingement syndrome (USIS) and treated by an oblique ulnar styloid osteotomy. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the osteotomy is an effective method for treating USIS. METHODS: The diagnosis of USIS was made based on a history of ulnar-sided wrist pain supported by clinical and radiological findings. Clinical assessment included provocative tests to differentiate USIS from pain associated with ulnocarpal impaction syndrome. The ulnar styloid length was assessed with a posteroanterior X-ray using the methods of Garcia-Elias and Biyani. The ulnar styloid was deemed excessively long if the ulnar styloid process index was greater than 0.21 or if the overall styloid length was greater than 6 mm. Ulnar variance was recorded. All wrists were assessed by computed tomography arthrography and magnetic resonance imaging studies to rule out any associated soft tissue abnormalities, including ligamentous injuries. Preoperative and postoperative pain levels were recorded using a pain scoring system. RESULTS: Patients were followed up for a mean of 46 months. Before surgery, the mean styloid length was 10 mm, and the ulnar styloid process index was 0.32. The reported pain score was significantly reduced following surgery and all patients, except one, returned to premorbid levels of activity. CONCLUSIONS: Oblique ulnar styloid osteotomy is an effective means of relieving impaction of the ulnar styloid while preserving the integrity of the intrinsic ulnar styloid ligaments. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.