The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2020
Cost-Effectiveness of Volar Locking Plate Compared with Augmented External Fixation for Displaced Intra-Articular Wrist Fractures.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Hammer Ola-Lars, Jakobsen Rune Bruhn, Clementsen Stale, Fuglesang Hendrik, Bjornelv Gudrun Waaler, Randsborg Per-Henrik
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating displaced, intra-articular distal radial fractures with volar locking plate fixation compared with augmented external fixation.
METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a randomized, clinical trial comparing 2 surgical interventions for intra-articular distal radial fractures. One hundred and sixty-six patients were allocated to either volar locking plate fixation (84 patients) or external fixation (82 patients) and were followed for 2 years. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and was used to calculate patients' quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Resource use was identified prospectively at the patient level at all follow-up intervals. Costs were estimated with use of both a health-care perspective and a societal perspective. Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and uncertainty was assessed with use of bootstrapping methods.
RESULTS: The average QALY value was equivalent between the groups (1.70463 for the volar locking plate group and 1.70726 for the external fixation group, yielding a nonsignificant difference of -0.00263 QALY). Health-care costs were equal between the groups, with a nonsignificant difference of &OV0556;52 (p = 0.8) in favor of external fixation. However, the external fixation group had a higher loss of productivity due to absence from work (5.5 weeks in the volar locking plate group compared with 9.2 weeks for the external fixation group; p = 0.02). Consequently, the societal costs were higher for the external fixation group compared with the volar locking plate group (&OV0556;18,037 compared with &OV0556;12,567, representing a difference of &OV0556;5,470; p = 0.04) in favor of the volar locking plate group. Uncertainty analyses showed that there is indifference regarding which method to recommend from a health-care perspective, with volar locking plate treatment and external fixation having a 47% and 53% likelihood of being cost-effective, respectively. From the societal perspective, volar locking plate treatment had a 90% likelihood of being cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: External fixation was less cost-effective than volar locking plate treatment for distal radial fractures from a societal perspective, primarily because patients managed with external fixation had a longer absence from work.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a randomized, clinical trial comparing 2 surgical interventions for intra-articular distal radial fractures. One hundred and sixty-six patients were allocated to either volar locking plate fixation (84 patients) or external fixation (82 patients) and were followed for 2 years. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and was used to calculate patients' quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Resource use was identified prospectively at the patient level at all follow-up intervals. Costs were estimated with use of both a health-care perspective and a societal perspective. Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and uncertainty was assessed with use of bootstrapping methods.
RESULTS: The average QALY value was equivalent between the groups (1.70463 for the volar locking plate group and 1.70726 for the external fixation group, yielding a nonsignificant difference of -0.00263 QALY). Health-care costs were equal between the groups, with a nonsignificant difference of &OV0556;52 (p = 0.8) in favor of external fixation. However, the external fixation group had a higher loss of productivity due to absence from work (5.5 weeks in the volar locking plate group compared with 9.2 weeks for the external fixation group; p = 0.02). Consequently, the societal costs were higher for the external fixation group compared with the volar locking plate group (&OV0556;18,037 compared with &OV0556;12,567, representing a difference of &OV0556;5,470; p = 0.04) in favor of the volar locking plate group. Uncertainty analyses showed that there is indifference regarding which method to recommend from a health-care perspective, with volar locking plate treatment and external fixation having a 47% and 53% likelihood of being cost-effective, respectively. From the societal perspective, volar locking plate treatment had a 90% likelihood of being cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: External fixation was less cost-effective than volar locking plate treatment for distal radial fractures from a societal perspective, primarily because patients managed with external fixation had a longer absence from work.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.