No abstract

Objectives To determine the cost-effectiveness of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of displaced, midshaft clavicle fractures in adults. Design Formal cost-effectiveness analysis based on a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Setting Eight hospitals in Canada (seven university affiliated and one community hospital) Patients/Participants 132 adults with acute, completely displaced, midshaft clavicle fractures Intervention Clavicle ORIF versus nonoperative treatment Main Outcome Measurements Utilities derived from SF-6D Results The base-case cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for ORIF was $65,000. Cost-effectiveness improved to $28,150/QALY gained when the functional benefit from ORIF was assumed to be permanent, with cost per QALY gained falling below $50,000 when the functional advantage persisted for 9.3 years or more. In other sensitivity analyses, the cost per QALY gained for ORIF fell below $50,000 when ORIF cost less than $10,465 (base case cost $13,668) or the long-term utility difference between nonoperative treatment and ORIF was greater than 0.034 (base-case difference 0.014). Short-term disutility associated with fracture healing also affected cost-effectiveness, with the cost per QALY gained for ORIF falling below $50,000 when the utility of a fracture treated nonoperatively prior to union was less than 0.617 (base-case utility 0.706) or when nonoperative treatment increased the time to union by 20 weeks (base-case difference 12 weeks). Conclusions The cost-effectiveness of ORIF after acute clavicle fracture depended on the durability of functional advantage for ORIF compared to nonoperative treatment. When functional benefits persisted for more than 9 years, ORIF had favorable value compared with many accepted health interventions.

Musculoskeletal procedures often show wide variation in rates across geographic areas, which begs the question, ''Which rate is right?'' Clearly, there is no simple answer to this question. We summarize a conceptual framework for thinking about how to approach this question for different types of interventions. One guiding principle is the ''right rate'' is usually the one that results from the choices of a fully informed and empowered patient population. For truly effective care without substantial tradeoffs, the right rate may approach 100%. The rate of operative treatment of hip fracture, for example, approaches the underlying incidence of disease; however, the rate of some forms of effective care, like osteoporosis evaluation and treatment after a fragility fracture, is often quite low and undoubtedly reflects underuse. The recommended approach to underuse is to improve the reliability and accountability of the delivery system. Many other musculoskeletal interventions fall into the category of ''preference-sensitive care.'' These interventions involve important tradeoffs between risks and benefits. Variations in these procedure rates may represent insufficient focus on patient values and preferences, relying instead on the enthusiasm of the physician for treatment alternatives. The recommended approach in this setting is the use of decision aids and other approaches to informed choice.

The findings in this study suggest there is substantial room for improvement in orthopaedic on-call coverage for emergency departments.

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures enable quantitative and patient-centric assessment of orthopedic interventions; however, increased use of these forms has an associated burden for patients and practices. We examined the utility of a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) method to reduce the number of questions on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) instrument. Methods: A previously developed ASES CAT system was applied to the responses of 2763 patients who underwent shoulder evaluation and treatment and had answered all questions on the full ASES instrument. Analyses to assess the accuracy of the CAT score in replicating the full-form score included the mean and standard deviation of both groups of scores, frequency distributions of the 2 sets of scores and score differences, Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman assessment of patterns in score differences. Results: By tailoring questions according to prior responses, CAT reduced the question burden by 40%. The mean difference between CAT and full ASES scores was À0.14, and the scores were within 5 points in 95% of cases (a 12-point difference is considered the threshold for clinical significance) and were clustered around zero. The correlation coefficients were 0.99, and the frequency distributions of the CAT and full ASES scores were nearly identical. The differences between scores were independent of the overall score, and no significant bias for CAT scores was found in either a positive or negative direction. Conclusion: The ASES CAT system lessens respondent burden with a negligible effect on score integrity. No institutional review board approval was required.

Objectives:Prior studies have demonstrated excellent results after acute arthroscopic stabilization of first-time, traumatic, anterior shoulder dislocations in young patients. However, this treatment has not been widely accepted as first line management of this injury. Surgeons may point to the initial direct costs of surgical management as one rationale for conservative management of these injuries. The purpose of this study is to determine whether surgical stabilization of first time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation represents a cost effective treatment alternative when compared to non-operative treatment with physical therapy.Methods:A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic bankart repair compared with non-operative treatment with physical therapy based on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A threshold ICER of less than $100,000/quality adjusted life year gained was set to define a cost-effective treatment modality. Health state utilities for treatment outcomes of a recurrently dislocating shoulder and a stable shoulder were collected prospectively by surveying fifty patient volunteers using a time trade-offMethod:The probabilities of the various treatment outcomes and the costs associated with treatment were derived from the orthopaedic literature and adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates.Results:The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for arthroscopic bankart versus non-operative treatment was $43,500. The estimated cost of surgical treatment must increase from approximately $11,000 to over $24,000 for surgery to no longer be cost-effective. The one-year probability of dislocation after bankart repair must increase from approximately 4% to 7%, or the probability of dislocation after non-operative treatment must decrease from 17% to approximately 11% for surgery to no longer be cost-effectiveConclusion:Using currently available probabilities, estimated costs, and prospectively collected health state utilities, arthroscopic bankart repair represents a cost-effective treatment alternative for first-time, traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations in young patients. These results are robust when the costs, probabilities, and utilities are widely varied. Further studies should focus on identifying patient populations who fall within the threshold values identified in this analysis.