دورية أكاديمية
Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocations: A Cost Analysis.
| العنوان: | Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocations: A Cost Analysis. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Ochuba, Arinze, Murdock, Christopher J., Xu, Amy L., Snow, Morgan, Schmerler, Jessica, Leland, Christopher R., McDaniel, Claire, Thompson, John, Aiyer, Amiethab A. |
| المصدر: | Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics; Jan-Mar2024, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p1-6, 6p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | OPEN reduction internal fixation, ARTHRODESIS, MEDICAL care use, POISSON distribution, POSTOPERATIVE care, OUTPATIENT services in hospitals, T-test (Statistics), COST analysis, HEALTH insurance, MULTIPLE regression analysis, OUTPATIENT medical care, HOSPITAL care, LISFRANC joint injuries, TREATMENT effectiveness, RETROSPECTIVE studies, DESCRIPTIVE statistics, CHI-squared test, MULTIVARIATE analysis, LONGITUDINAL method, COMPARATIVE studies, CONFIDENCE intervals, MEDICAL care costs, EVALUATION |
| مصطلحات جغرافية: | UNITED States |
| مستخلص: | Background: Lisfranc fracture-dislocation is an uncommon but serious injury that currently lacks universal consensus on optimal operative treatment. Two common fixation methods are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis (PA). The objective of this study is to analyze the cost difference between ORIF and PA of Lisfranc injuries, along with the contribution of medical services to overall costs. Methods: This was a retrospective cost analysis of the MarketScan database from 2010 to 2020. MarketScan is an insurance and commercial claims database that integrates deidentified patient information. It captures person-specific clinical utilization, expenditures, and enrollment across inpatient and outpatient services. Patients undergoing primary ORIF (CPT code 28615) vs PA (28730 and 28740) for Lisfranc fracture-dislocation were identified. The primary independent variable was ORIF vs PA of Lisfranc injury. Total costs due to operative management was the primary objective. The utilization of and costs contributed by medical services was a secondary outcome. Results: From 2010 to 2020, a total of 7268 patients underwent operative management of Lisfranc injuries, with 5689 (78.3%) ORIF and 1579 (21.7%) PA. PA was independently associated with increased net and total payment and coinsurance, clinic visits, and imaging, and patients attended significantly more PT sessions. Conclusion: Using this large database that does not characterize severity or extent of injury, we found that treatment of Lisfranc fracture-dislocation with ORIF was associated with substantially lower initial episode of treatment costs compared with PA. Specific excessive cost drivers for PA were clinic visits, PT sessions, and imaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| قاعدة البيانات: | Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder كن أول من يترك تعليقا!