The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2022
Outcomes and Cost Comparison Between Generic and Conventional Cephalomedullary Nails in the Treatment of Peritrochanteric Femur 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.
Khoo Kendrick M, Kim Gene W, Lindvall Eric M, Martirosian Armen K
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Although generic orthopaedic implants have been available for several years, there has been slow adoption of this cost-saving option. We hypothesize equivalent outcomes between generic and conventional cephalomedullary nails (CMN) in the treatment of peritrochanteric femur fractures.
METHODS: We evaluated 419 patients undergoing CMN for peritrochanteric femur fracture with a minimum 6-month follow-up. Demographic data, radiographic assessment, and clinical outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: Ninety patients were treated with generic implants and 329 patients with conventional implants. The overall complication rate was 7.0%, with a revision surgery rate of 5.4%. No significant differences were seen in demographic variables or surgical factors. Although there was an increased incidence of postoperative infections with conventional nails (P = 0.045), no significant differences were seen in other complications.
CONCLUSION: At our institution, generic nails cost approximately 38% less than their conventional counterparts. There seems to be no increased rate of implant-associated complications with the use of generic CMNs, although allowing for notable cost savings.
METHODS: We evaluated 419 patients undergoing CMN for peritrochanteric femur fracture with a minimum 6-month follow-up. Demographic data, radiographic assessment, and clinical outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: Ninety patients were treated with generic implants and 329 patients with conventional implants. The overall complication rate was 7.0%, with a revision surgery rate of 5.4%. No significant differences were seen in demographic variables or surgical factors. Although there was an increased incidence of postoperative infections with conventional nails (P = 0.045), no significant differences were seen in other complications.
CONCLUSION: At our institution, generic nails cost approximately 38% less than their conventional counterparts. There seems to be no increased rate of implant-associated complications with the use of generic CMNs, although allowing for notable cost savings.