The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2016
Percutaneous Trigger Finger Release: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gancarczyk Stephanie M, Jang Eugene S, Swart Eric P, Makhni Eric C, Kadiyala Rajendra Kumar
Аннотация
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.
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.