AIM: To study the cost benefit of external fixation vs external fixation then nailing in treatment of bone infection by segment transfer.METHODS: Out of 71 patients with infected nonunion tibia treated between 2003 an...AIM: To study the cost benefit of external fixation vs external fixation then nailing in treatment of bone infection by segment transfer.METHODS: Out of 71 patients with infected nonunion tibia treated between 2003 and 2006, 50 patients fitted the inclusion criteria(26 patients were treated by external fixation only, and 24 patients were treated by external fixation early removal after segment transfer and replacement by internal fixation). Cost of inpatient treatment, total cost of inpatient and outpatient treatment till full healing, and the weeks of absence fromschool or work were calculated and compared between both groups.RESULTS: The cost of hospital stay and surgery in the group of external fixation only was 22.6 ± 3.3 while the cost of hospital stay and surgery in the group of early external fixation removal and replacement by intramedullary nail was 26.0 ± 3.2. The difference was statistically significant regarding the cost of hospital stay and surgery in favor of the group of external fixation only. The total cost of medical care(surgery, hospital stay, treatment outside the hospital including medications, dressing, physical therapy, outpatient laboratory work, etc.) in group of external fixation only was 63.3 ± 15.1, and total absence from work was 38.6 ± 6.6 wk. While the group of early removal of external fixation and replacement by IM nail, total cost of medical care was 38.3 ± 6.4 and total absence from work or school was 22.7 ± 4.1. The difference was statistically significant regarding the total cost and absence from work in favor of the group of early removal and replacement by IM nail.CONCLUSION: Early removal of external fixation and replacement by intramedullary nail in treatment of infected nonunion showed more cost effectiveness. Orthopaedic society needs to show the cost effectiveness of different procedures to the community, insurance, and health authorities.展开更多
文摘AIM: To study the cost benefit of external fixation vs external fixation then nailing in treatment of bone infection by segment transfer.METHODS: Out of 71 patients with infected nonunion tibia treated between 2003 and 2006, 50 patients fitted the inclusion criteria(26 patients were treated by external fixation only, and 24 patients were treated by external fixation early removal after segment transfer and replacement by internal fixation). Cost of inpatient treatment, total cost of inpatient and outpatient treatment till full healing, and the weeks of absence fromschool or work were calculated and compared between both groups.RESULTS: The cost of hospital stay and surgery in the group of external fixation only was 22.6 ± 3.3 while the cost of hospital stay and surgery in the group of early external fixation removal and replacement by intramedullary nail was 26.0 ± 3.2. The difference was statistically significant regarding the cost of hospital stay and surgery in favor of the group of external fixation only. The total cost of medical care(surgery, hospital stay, treatment outside the hospital including medications, dressing, physical therapy, outpatient laboratory work, etc.) in group of external fixation only was 63.3 ± 15.1, and total absence from work was 38.6 ± 6.6 wk. While the group of early removal of external fixation and replacement by IM nail, total cost of medical care was 38.3 ± 6.4 and total absence from work or school was 22.7 ± 4.1. The difference was statistically significant regarding the total cost and absence from work in favor of the group of early removal and replacement by IM nail.CONCLUSION: Early removal of external fixation and replacement by intramedullary nail in treatment of infected nonunion showed more cost effectiveness. Orthopaedic society needs to show the cost effectiveness of different procedures to the community, insurance, and health authorities.
